# Small Dianthus Flower with Rain Drops



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

comments welcome!




Dianthus-with-Rain-Drops by CGipson Photography, on Flickr


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

Since I posted this very late last night, a morning bump!


----------



## LaFoto (Aug 12, 2012)

The colour! WOW! So deep. So intense.
And I admire the sharpness of your photos.
Don't know what I'm doing wrong, or if my newest lens just doesn't live up to what it promised to do, but I NEVER get my photos this sharp. 
Actually, I was quite disappointed when I first found out about the new lens's performance - for &#8364;900,- I had expected much more... 
But a big  for this photo!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> The colour! WOW! So deep. So intense.
> And I admire the sharpness of your photos.
> Don't know what I'm doing wrong, or if my newest lens just doesn't live up to what it promised to do, but I NEVER get my photos this sharp.
> Actually, I was quite disappointed when I first found out about the new lens's performance - for &#8364;900,- I had expected much more...
> But a big  for this photo!



Corinna, Thank you! This is actually a nine frame focus stack that I shot by hand.. no tripod! It wasn't easy, lol! I had to do that, since the flower was less than an inch in diameter and I used my macro lens (Nikkor 105mm Macro). Also used a diffused SB-900 flash at manual 1/2 power, as the short duration really helps with sharpness. Normally I use a focus rail and tripod for shots like this. For this, I handheld, and adjusted the focus on the lens for the different exposures. I jammed my shoulder and elbow up against a pole next to the flower pot, to help stabilize the camera also.

Here is the Exif data

File type: JPEG
File size: 13,522 KB
Creation date: 8/11/2012 07:57
Last modification: 8/11/2012 07:57
Make: NIKON CORPORATION (Nikon | Home)
Camera: NIKON D800
Lens: AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED
Software: Ver.1.00
Dimension: 7360 x 4912 px (36.2 MP, 3:2)
Focal length: 105 mm (equiv. 105 mm)
Aperture: F22
Exposure time: 1/250"
ISO speed rating: 200/24°
Program: Manual
Metering Mode: Spot
White Balance: Cloudy
Focus Mode: Manual
Image Stabilizer: On
Noise Reduction: Off
Flash: Unknown external iTTL flash (05 02), Flash fired, compulsory flash mode, return light not detected


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

Here is a decent shot of the flower without any focus stacking.... you can easily see the difference.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 12, 2012)

The color HERE is overwhelming, but that's the problem with your images! They really need to be seen in their full glory. 
Amazing, Charlie!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> The color HERE is overwhelming, but that's the problem with your images! They really need to be seen in their full glory.
> Amazing, Charlie!



Thank you! I did not touch the Sat slider.. really! Those are really that color.. they are lovely flowers! I love the way the shallow DOF and focus stacking handled the background... what do you think?


----------



## sleist (Aug 12, 2012)

Love the original shot.

The stacking in the 1st shot seems to have introduced some unpleasant distortion - particularly in the background (the grey).
Makes it look over sharpened to my eyes.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

sleist said:


> Love the original shot.
> 
> The stacking in the 1st shot seems to have introduced some unpleasant distortion - particularly in the background (the grey).
> Makes it look over sharpened to my eyes.



Thanks! Yes.. the highlights from the raindrops, and the shallow DOF seem to have confused Zerene Stacker.. it put together an interesting background. I thought about smoothing it out.. but couldn't decide it I disliked it that much. Since I shot the stack by hand, it did introduce more variables in the stack than I normally allow... but I find it interesting.

Excluding the background, do you find the extended focus on the flower works?


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 12, 2012)

The shot without focus stack is clearly better.

Btw, I've heard of R2D2, never of R1C1, must be an older model.


----------



## sleist (Aug 12, 2012)

> Excluding the background, do you find the extended focus on the flower works?



I use a wide gamut monitor so I have to be careful judging reds in shot viewed online.  I downloaded both shots and opened them in CS5.  The red channel is clearly blown in the stacked version - less so in the non stacked.  The combination of this and possible artifacts due to stacking 9 handheld images detracts significantly when compared to the 2nd (original) shot you posted.  Yes, the apparent DOF is larger in the 1st shot, but I would have to say it does not help the image in this case.


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 12, 2012)

sleist said:


> > Excluding the background, do you find the extended focus on the flower works?
> 
> 
> 
> I use a wide gamut monitor so I have to be careful judging reds in shot viewed online.  I downloaded both shots and opened them in CS5.  The red channel is clearly blown in the stacked version - less so in the non stacked.  The combination of this and possible artifacts due to stacking 9 handheld images detracts significantly when compared to the 2nd (original) shot you posted.  Yes, the apparent DOF is larger in the 1st shot, but I would have to say it does not help the image in this case.



I didn't bother to write it all out, but whats exactly what I did and what I would say.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 12, 2012)

The background of the stacked shot clearly shows it was stacked.


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 12, 2012)

480sparky said:


> The background of the stacked shot clearly shows it was stacked.



No way, I thought it was some new kind of DoF effect


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Aug 12, 2012)

Oh charlie once again I love it! Very nicely done!


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 12, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > The background of the stacked shot clearly shows it was stacked.
> ...




Nope.  It's an artifact of the stacking process.  Kinda like halos plague HDR shots.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

sleist said:


> > Excluding the background, do you find the extended focus on the flower works?
> 
> 
> 
> I use a wide gamut monitor so I have to be careful judging reds in shot viewed online.  I downloaded both shots and opened them in CS5.  The red channel is clearly blown in the stacked version - less so in the non stacked.  The combination of this and possible artifacts due to stacking 9 handheld images detracts significantly when compared to the 2nd (original) shot you posted.  Yes, the apparent DOF is larger in the 1st shot, but I would have to say it does not help the image in this case.



Gotcha... I will probably reshoot it, and do it properly instead of playing with it. I was actually surprised I could get a halfway decent stack with handheld shots. I will have to watch that red channel too... Thanks for the input.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

480sparky said:


> sovietdoc said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Yep! And shooting the stack handheld appears to have magnified the artifacts! Oh well, I had fun doing it! lol! I was in a hurry, as it was starting to get dark... and so didn't get the focus rail out.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

Thanks Becky... it turned out better than I expected.... good, rich color, but as was pointed out.. the red channel is blown! But even so, this has proven very popular with some people. I have had two requests for prints... hmm, you never know!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> The shot without focus stack is clearly better.
> 
> Btw, I've heard of R2D2, never of R1C1, must be an older model.



hahaha... yea! Where did this come from? I didn't use the R1C1's to shoot this?

EDIT: SIG line.. right? lol!


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 12, 2012)

480sparky said:


> sovietdoc said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Yeah I was just being sarcastic.


Yeah, I looked at the sig.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 12, 2012)

Another great shot dude! Have to say I prefer the non-stacked version, too. The color and raindrops are simply amazing!
I'm not a big fan of the background here. But besides that, really nice!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Another great shot dude! Have to say I prefer the non-stacked version, too. The color and raindrops are simply amazing!
> I'm not a big fan of the background here. But besides that, really nice!



Martin, thank you! I am just trying to try some different things with some ordinary subjects.. see what happens.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Yep! And shooting the stack handheld appears to have magnified the artifacts! Oh well, I had fun doing it! lol! I was in a hurry, as it was starting to get dark... and so didn't get the focus rail out.



It's not a result of hand-holding.  I get the same artifacts, even when tripod-mounted and using a rail.  If you're skillful with a clone & heal tool, you can make 'em go away.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 12, 2012)

480sparky said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep! And shooting the stack handheld appears to have magnified the artifacts! Oh well, I had fun doing it! lol! I was in a hurry, as it was starting to get dark... and so didn't get the focus rail out.
> ...



Yea, I can handle that! I just haven't seen the artifacts that bad before. I did like that background, so pulled the flower out, and did a content aware fill on the hole, and then added some Gaussian blur... might come in handy for something! Need to do a little more blending here.. the flower is floating! lol!


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Gaussian blur works, too!

I find a lot of my FS's need some sort of editing, especially one s with a lot of OOF areas or where there's a lot of depth to the stack.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 13, 2012)

The new version is so much better!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 13, 2012)

480sparky said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Yes... fun stuff though! I just picked up a Stackshot, although I haven't had time to do more than open the box!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 13, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> The new version is so much better!



Thanks, Martin! I think so too!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2012)

sleist said:


> Love the original shot.
> 
> The stacking in the 1st shot seems to have introduced some unpleasant distortion - particularly in the background (the grey).
> Makes it look over sharpened to my eyes.



I was thinking the same,exact thing...


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 13, 2012)

Derrel said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > Love the original shot.
> ...



Normally I don't focus stack with that kind of background... so the results here were a little unexpected. Lesson learned, lol! All those little circles are raindrops, highlighted by flash, and then mutated by Zerene Stacker... same for the gray area. I should have edited before posting, but I wanted reactions... and I got them!  

Interesting that this didn't happen on the Zinnia shot I posted, that I shot exactly the same way. Difference was in the background.


----------

