Project 52 by Al (snarkbyte)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutR

I agree with previous posters about the tilt though. Have you tried straightening using the verticals on the fence behind the engine.

---

No, though I had considered blurring the background somewhat to make the lean of the fence less apparent. Truth is, I just don't like the notion of skewing the subject to make the background straight. (I can be a little stubborn sometimes ;)
)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutR

When you say all the disadvantages of on camera light sources are you referring to the hot spots? When I look at this I'm surprised at the lack of focus considering it is a stack of 10 images and I am wondering if it is lack of focus or just that all the detail was lost because of the hot spots in the middle of each kumquat??? I also wonder if toning down the orange channel would bring the detail that is there back OR if hot spots are totally unrecoverable. Sorry if these are sill questions and/or observations, but like I say On Camera Flash is something I'd like to get better results with myself. Have you tried negative flash compensation to try to tame this?

---

IMO, the soft regions are mostly due to lack of contrast due, in this case, to harsh light. I've noticed in some of the other images I've stacked that PS has difficulty selecting for sharpness in areas lacking detail and contrast... there are shots in the stack that have good focus in that region, but PS masked out the sharper photo and used a softer focus region from a different shot in the same stack. I don't know anything about the algorithm PS uses for selection, but I wonder if changing the order of the shots in the stack would help. In any event, I'm convinced the real answer is better lighting. I didn't try any color channel adjustments, and I deleted the component photos of the stack, so it's too late to try now (I even merged the stack layers, so I don't have the individual images in any form at this point, except on the backup HD). Flash (and lighting in general) is a big learning curve, and I'm just beginning, so I expect I'll get around to it. Thanks for the suggestion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutR

Actually I quite like this one [referring to #5]. You have the focus right where the light is and managed to make it look pretty good. :) I'm thinking vignette....

---

This was taken in Program Mode with a single flash mounted to a Gary Fong collapsible diffuser. All the light from the right is from wall and ceiling bounce. I just took a quick look at vignette in LR... nice call, I may have to post that one, too :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutR

It's been a long time since anyone gave me roses. Thanks Al

---

And still no apology for all those mean things you said about my little creosote seed. You're a hard woman, Wendy :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutR

Hmmmm, I'm still wondering if it is soft focus OR flash intensity that is causing the blur???? Just curious. I see you have used FEC so that answers my silly question above. I'll be watching for future experiments, so I can learn along with you.

---

And I'm very interested in your comments and criticism, so whatever you learn, please post it here. I'll have to get in the habit of taking detailed notes on each shot, so the information will be available when questions arise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutR

I like this one, I think it would look nice with a texture treatment... parchment or something like that, but I guess that's another project.

---

I think that was referring to #6? I'm rather ambivalent about textures, because I think they're frequently over-used and abused. I have seen some wonderful texture treatments, but I've also seen far too many images that were textured for no apparent reason other than fashion (the photo would have been better without it). I tend to think of texture in the along the same lines as MiniChris views compositional elements - if it doesn't need to be there, leave it out. Most of the good work I've seen were pre-visualized as textured images by the photographer before the shot was taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutR

hmmmm, those hot spots again [referring to #7]. If these can't be avoided I still wonder if the yellow could be toned down in PP. Very interesting week, Nice work! I look forward to seeing the feedback you get on these.

---

Toning down the yellow was the first thing I tried, but no joy. I posted it, anyway... I don't learn anything if I only post the "good" images. I'll keep working on this project, but most weeks won't produce as much as this past week has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wendy Stanford

You have been busy Al, the locomotive image is wonderful, good lighting and the detail is spot on. The focus stacking and light painting looks great, these are both areas that I have no experience in what so ever, but have added to my growing list of projects that I can explore. Thanks for sharing the details :)

---

Thanks, Wendy. I did enjoy your water droplet shots (especially #2), but you already had a lot of adoring fans for those shots, and I just don't like being a "me too" poster. Keep up the good work... I do follow your posts, even if most of it is just lurking.

I haven't completed processing the shots for Week 4 yet, but here's an update for some of the issues encountered in Week 3.

I wasn't happy with the soft spots in the stacked images that I processed in PS CS5, so I investigated other options. I downloaded a trial copy of Zerene Stacker from http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker, and processed the kumquat shots again, using the trial copy. Zerene Stacker algorithms are much more sophisticated than those in CS5, and I haven't had time to dig into it much yet, but I am impressed so far. The image below is my very first attempt just using default settings as a quick and dirty first hack, and I suspect better results are possible, but this is clearly far superior to the results obtained from PS. The only downside so far is that ZS Stacker only accepts JPEG and TIFF files as inputs, so the individual DNG files I have in LR have to be exported as TIFFs before they can be used (a minor nag, but it's there).

Here's the result; judge for yourself, but it's easy to see this is much better. I wish I had kept the individual DNG files for the roses, but I'm sure I'll get plenty of practice with ZS Stacker as my macro work progresses. From what I can see so far, CS5 isn't even in the running compared to ZS Stacker for producing sharp results.

http://snarkbyte.smugmug.com/Photogr...ZSStack-X2.jpg

Definitely much better. Did you stack in the same order. This is interesting. I was not even thinking of trying focus stacking because I can't do it with my software, and can't afford photoshop. I'll be watching for more results and your opinions of Zerene as you get more experience with it.

Wendy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutR

Definitely much better. Did you stack in the same order. This is interesting.

---

Yes, exactly the same files in exactly the same order... and as you can see, I obtained much better results with ZS on the very 1st try than I was able to wring out of CS5 after hours of fussing. I also downloaded Helicon Focus, and I'm trying to use it now, but it seems to have problems running on Windows 7. I'll keep you posted as my experiments progress. It's early yet, but interesting to note that ZS is cheaper than Helicon (even though Helicon is open source shareware) and had no problems at all. At first glance, I am impressed with ZS... the results speak for themselves when compared to CS5.

As I mentioned before, ZS only accepts JPEG and TIFF formats as inputs, so you'll need some RAW converter software of some sort to convert to TIFF for best results. I use LR3 to export as TIFF, but there are plenty of low-cost RAW converters available. Scarab Darkroom, for example, is currently available as a free download.

OK, after all being so busy for Week 3, I completely missed out on Week 4. Week 5 hasn't been much better... I did get a reasonable B&W shot, but the close-up/lighting shot is nowhere near what I had hoped for. Still have plenty of work to do in that department, so C&C is greatly appreciated.

#1: B&W photo - Sunflower Sculpture
When I took this shot, I actually wanted the background trees to be de-focused, but now I see that was a mistake. As it is, the trees are not blurred enough to lose all detail, but not sharp enough to hold interest, which simply means they're an annoying distraction. Other suggestions for improvement are invited.
http://snarkbyte.smugmug.com/Photogr...20122-6-X2.jpg

#2: Close-up / Artificial Lighting - Milkweed Seed
This is a difficult subject, and I'm not satisfied with the result on two counts: 1) The lighting is just wrong, completely blown in some places and too weak in others. 2) Focus is soft in places, and I suspect camera shake is the problem. I used a tripod, mirror lock, and remote release, but I just don't think the tripod was stable enough. I do have some ideas on how to fix that. I wanted this white seed against a completely black background, and the initial idea for the shot was to suspend the seed from a fine black thread, so I could invert the image and the seed would appear to be floating. I never got that to work, because every time I tried to glue the seed to the thread, the glue got all gummed up in the filaments and ruined the subject. You need about 4 hands to make this gluing operation a success, but I have some ideas for that, too (needle-nose vise-grips, tweezers, and a small rubber band will help, but these dainty little things are fragile; the seed separates from the filaments quite easily).

http://snarkbyte.smugmug.com/Photogr...edSeed1-X2.jpg

I think you're being overly critical on yourself. Have you noticed how all of the lines in your first photo are actually all pointing to the sunflower? I don't know how you got all the trees to point in the right direction but great job :D

Honestly, I think the way the trees are in the photo they serve to frame and highlight your sunflower rather than distract from it. Whether by design or by accident, all of your lines do point to your main subject.

With your second photo - I just thought "wow!" Maybe it's because I'm using my tablet rather than a bigger screen but I think it's a great capture.

I'm in at work today so am not looking at this on my own monitor. For that reason, I'm not going to comment on the Milkweed Seed as I don't think I can see it well enough.

But I can very clearly see the lines, tones, shapes and textures on #1, so feel able to say something.

I completely agree with Mal. Now, I acknowledge that this is your image and it must reflect your vision. But if that had me me instead of you, I can't think I'd have wanted to do anything different to what you have done.

If those trees had been in focus, they would have been a distraction. We need the detail to be in the sculpted flowerhead which it is, without something behind it competing with it. Throwing the trees completely out-of-focus would have rendered a sort of fluffy grey blob that would, in my view, have been equally distracting, particularly as we tried to figure out what it was.

The amount of sharpening/local contrast enhancement/structure (depending on what tools were used) you've got into that wooden fence is superb. Got a real 3D effect.

So, like Mal, 'Sunflower Sculpture' is an image that I very much like.

Now - must get back to work!

@Mal: Regarding the sunflower, you're probably right... sometimes it's just hard to rethink a shot after the fact. I shot this sculpture from a couple of angles, and I did notice the lines from the trees while I was shooting, but I thought too much detail would draw attention from the main subject. Afterwards, I thought I had missed the mark and left the trees in the awful middle ground of "not sharp enough for interest and not blurred enough to avoid distraction". As for the milkweed seed, I'm still working on it. I know it can be done better, and learning how to do it better is what this thread is all about. Thanks for the comments :)

@Don: The sunflower shot was processed as 5 separate selections in SEP2 (sky, sunflower, trees, stone wall, and wooden fence posts), so I could adjust each of these elements independently. Now that's pretty much what I would do for a color rendition, but I'm still trying to get my head around balancing the different elements in a B&W composition where texture and tonality are paramount. This was intended as a B&W image from the moment I found the subject; I thought the sunflower, wall, and fence were good material for B&W treatment. The trees were... well, the trees were there. Mostly, I just tried to find an angle where they would do the least damage and provide some context in the negative space. Thanks for the comments, they are greatly appreciated!

I had another round with the milkweed seed, and this is an improvement (sharper than previous image, and the highlights aren't blown) and much more detail is visible on the seed itself, but the lighting still isn't quite right. I shot this using 2 low-angle undiffused desktop lamps, because I like the specular highlights along filaments caused by direct lighting. Now I'm thinking I need some diffuse light at a higher angle in addition to the low-angle direct lighting to illuminate some of the dim filaments. The trick will be to avoid washing out the seed detail again. C&C is welcome, of course.

http://snarkbyte.smugmug.com/Photogr...129-3-2-X2.jpg

Ah - now I see what you mean about the seed! Looks like an interesting lighting challenge or a HDR opportunity. But I still like that first one. I think the second one loses some of the detail on the rim of your subject. I'll be interested to see how you get around the problem.

I have to agree with Mal, the first milkweed seed appeals to me as it has more detail especially around the central seed, perhaps the inclusion of a stem coming from the corner would add perspecive to the image, just a thought.
I like the sunflower, you have good leading lines that when you look at it your eyes is immediatly drawn to the flower which is nice and sharp :)

I think the lighting and detail in the sunflower are great. I don't feel that image needs anything. The milkweed seed also looks pretty good to me. The only thing I can see is a slight flare downward from the center but other than that it looks good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldcoastgolfer

Ah - now I see what you mean about the seed! Looks like an interesting lighting challenge or a HDR opportunity. But I still like that first one. I think the second one loses some of the detail on the rim of your subject. I'll be interested to see how you get around the problem.

---

I'm almost convinced that a 3rd light source is needed. I'm thinking a diffuse high-angle light source, plus two low-angle direct sources may provide sufficient light and detail for all the filaments, while keeping the specular highlights from the direct sources. Unfortunately, my milkweed seeds are looking rather tattered by now, so I'll have to go looking for more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wendy Stanford

I have to agree with Mal, the first milkweed seed appeals to me as it has more detail especially around the central seed, perhaps the inclusion of a stem coming from the corner would add perspecive to the image, just a thought.

---

Milkweed seeds grow in clusters, rather like dandelions, so I don't know how I could get a stem without including a lot of other seeds in the shot. That might be an interesting shot, too, but I really wanted to isolate a single seed. Like most wind-borne seeds, these darn things are very fragile, so I'm not sure I could get a seed cluster home reasonably intact, anyway. Thanks for the suggestion and comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Douglas

I think the lighting and detail in the sunflower are great. I don't feel that image needs anything. The milkweed seed also looks pretty good to me. The only thing I can see is a slight flare downward from the center but other than that it looks good.

---

Thanks Rob. Maybe I'm just picky, but the milkweed seed still doesn't live up to the image I have in my head. If I can find some more seeds, I intend to keep trying. I'm learning a lot about lighting from this shot, those fine translucent filaments are a real challenge for a lighting newbie like myself. The objective is to light the filaments in a way that shows off the specular highlights without blowing all the detail in the seed itself. The original milkweed seed shot that everyone prefers has no discernable detail on the seed at all. :( Everyone has convinced me that the sunflower shot is OK, even if it wasn't quite what I envisioned. :)

Hi Al, great job on both shots. I like them both as is but with the first one, me being me, I know I would try to clone out the background trees and the trees at the side. If that couldn't be done then I'd try to reshoot at such an angle to get just the sky as the background. Even if that's not possible though, I still like it as is. Great subject

The second shot looks good to me too. I can see what you mean about the lighting though. It's dramatic but, and I can't put my finger on it, it's just not quite right. It's not the hot spot that bothers me so much as that it's not natural looking. Sorry, I'm learning along with everyone on these projects, so I can't be very helpful.

I've been thinking about your suspension problem though, and I'm wondering if it might not be better to have a slightly sticky black thread set up in your shooting area and then drop the seed pods on them. Seed pods are meant to latch onto things. You might have to try a few times before it fell in the right position, but I can't imagine trying to tie it without having damage that will not show up in the shot. Well actually I can imagine it, because I've tried doing the same type of thing with some tiny plants without much success.

Nice job on both shots

Wendy

Wow. What a difference between the black and white and the total shot in color. That sculpture must be interesting to walk into, but I don't know if the artist could have meant for its best side to be an "in total" photograph. I love the composition of the black and white.