First Attempt at Ultra Macro!

[Photographiend]

Well... it's a start... but shall I point out... ahem... *whispers* your equipment is showing

Hey don't start on my $800.00 worth of used ebay gear. I have what i have cause its cheap :hugs:

I have cheap gear too but I was refering to your flash. Usually it isn't so prominent in the shot and you have it the reflection of it in the bugs eyes big time.

 

[cgipson1]

Well... it's a start... but shall I point out... ahem... *whispers* your equipment is showing

Hey don't start on my $800.00 worth of used ebay gear. I have what i have cause its cheap :hugs:

I have cheap gear too but I was refering to your flash. Usually it isn't so prominent in the shot and you have it the reflection of it in the bugs eyes big time.

Ringlights do that... it is almost like a signature! lol!

 

[Photographiend]

Ah, learn something new every day.

 

[dmanning11]

Ok I'm now on attempt number 2 at Ultra macro. This time a 5mm long house fly's head.

I have taken a sets of pics (Shot in 24Mp RAW, ISO 100, F6.3, 1/40s)(Batch converted to jpg after fine tuning)

The pic is a angled side on with 67 images. So that's one slice every 0.045mm

My PC has failed twice due to the scratch pad filling up (requires 37gb of free space to load the stack of 67 jpg's)
Took 27min to load the stack and blend.(550mb/s SSD hard drive, 8GB DDR3 Ram, and 3.4Ghz quad core CPU)

The output in the end is pretty rubbish. Large areas are out of focus some images weren't even included in the stack (masked out of existence).

Adobe Photoshop (67 image stack)



Next I will try a trial of Zerene Stacker..

 

[dmanning11]

Zerene just did the same thing used no Hard drive space, used 3Gb ram, and took 10min
I will try a few different settings to see if I can further improve the results


Here is the Zerene output.

 

[cgipson1]

I use Zerene.. and like it. I have never had any problems with it. Looks like you are getting it down!

 

[Photographiend]

They both look good, understandably you would want to go with the processing that doesn't make you want to pull your hair out though. The only difference I see is in the first you lost definition towards the bottom of the shot and in the second, around the nose.

Edit: Actually aftuer further inspection... the first one is really messed up at the bottom, the edge isn't even straight. Def the second is better.

 

[flow]

There looks like sort of a 'halo' around its face on the second one ... was that deliberate? Or an artifact of the different processor you used, since it's not in the first one?
But I like how he came out. And the eyes on your spider were great!

 

[dmanning11]

The second has an issue with what looks like lens flaring from the shiny surfaces.
Any ideas how to clean this up?

 

[dmanning11]

There looks like sort of a 'halo' around its face on the second one ... was that deliberate? Or an artifact of the different processor you used, since it's not in the first one?
But I like how he came out. And the eyes on your spider were great!

Its a Zerene artefact...wish i could find a way to remove it...

 

[dmanning11]

Ok I rebuilt the stack into 50 images, stacked in Photoshop, stacked in Zerene, and then stacked together the results in photoshop.

what do you think?

 

[Photographiend]

There ya go. :thumbup:

 

[cgipson1]

Definitely looking better!