love-in-a-mist seed head

[Ron Conlon]

The pods are proliferating!
Stack of 100 images, in studio with black background and flash.
D800E 200mm f6.3 1/250 iso100
tethering and stacking as usual.

[Nancy Bell]

Awesome in perfect detail and composition! Wow...100 images! These pods are very photogenic.

[John Robinson]

Nice black BG Ron. I love them- especially with subjects like this.
As Nancy says- a great subject. I am still a little confused by the 100 stacks though?
It works whatever
Cheers
John

[Ron Conlon]

Thanks, all.
John, I know it is a ridiculous number of frames, really beyond reason, given the depth of field, but it seems to work better with the software settings (pyramid method of stacking) and images with hairs or spines or such. It makes for some waiting for the acquisition and stacking, and a lot of files to deal with, but I like the effect better. With depth mapping and a simpler geometry, a tenth of the frames is more than enough.

[John Robinson]

Thanks Ron
I was just assuming that more frames meant more chance of subject movement. I,ll try the pyramid option today maybe.
Thanks
John

[Ron Conlon]

Certainly, more frames more chance of movement or a bug crawling around the flower. I know now to check for bugs first. The flowers are typically cut, securely anchored, and I now know which ones are susceptible to wilting and I keep them in water if that is the case. Using tethering software to acquire means that I am not touching the camera to refocus, and I even leave the room during acquisition in case my movement might cause some movement of the setup.

This spiny subject on a black background works best with the pyramid method which gives hyper-realistic sharpening. Pyramid doesn't suit the other subjects, like the high key calla I recently posted, because the contrast/sharpening is too intense for the look, and pryamid messes up on the edges between subject and the high key background. For those I use depth mapping. Sometimes depth mapping generates artifacts of its own, missing badly on areas with low constrast. So I correct by retouching the composite from individual photos. Alternatively I do both types of stack, and retouch one stack into the other to compensate for the different deficits that the two methods will generate.

[John Robinson]

Thanks Ron
been playing this afternoon and finding it interesting. What worries me is that some are totally against ultra sharp images. But at the end of the day its what you like yourself.
Cheers
John

[Ron Conlon]

John: Can't control what folks like but one can do things to keep the software from running away with the contrast and sharpness. Something I learned recently is that if you lower the contrast just before performing a sharpening operation, you are more likely to get a result that doesn't offend, but still is sharper.

For stacking, I make sure that the images going into the compositing software are flatter (a neutral color setting or less aggressive gamma) and less software-sharpened than I would present in a finished photo. In the Zerene stacking software there is also a setting to turn off the default enhancement of local contrast (unhelpfully called UDR which I guess has something to do with Dynamic Range?). Turning off the default helps, but often not enough. The depth mapping of Zerene produces a stack with less contrast, if I want to go further. Then if the gamma needs a boost or sharpening is still needed I do it on the composite. Otherwise things quickly get out of hand, amplifying contrast from the input into an unholy mess.

On the composite or other photes, for final sharpening, I typically try the two rounds of sharpening, one with a wide radius to enhance local contrast, and one close to the pixel size similar to what is generally recommended. However, before each round of sharpening, I reduce contrast (-10 in PS). I do operations on a copy (actually a layer), so if I don't like the effect, I can ditch it. And I recorded an action in PS to carry it out. I found this technique on the web, when trying to figure out how the "Detail Enhancer" that Diane promotes does its stuff. I don't know that it really captures what that plug in does, but it was useful. Again, you get a sharper more detailed image, with less "crunchiness".

I understand that software companies and individuals hide the secret sauce so they can make a buck, but fortunately "information wants to be free".

[MiroslavMaric]

Like the balance of black BG and green subject. Good light and well done stacking technique. If mine I would add a bit of room around the subject. TFS.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Beautifully lit and I like the rendition, the structure is fascinating, I think the lighting has portrayed the subject very well indeed.