Fishing The Fly Scotland
Index => Fly Tying => Topic started by: Magnus Angus on 26/02/2014 at 02:47
-
Excuse me - experimenting with an image - I wanted to see what this looked like here
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_2_46_53.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1784)
-
Looks nice and also like it would float all day - plenty of CDC in there :shock
H :cool:
-
Nice one Magnus :cool:
Cheers
Mike
-
Ok chaps, check the next two images - any preferences?
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_10_39_19.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1785)
-
and the next
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_10_40_29.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1786)
-
and the next
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_10_40_29.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1786)
Both great ...... but liking this one for the detail :z16
Cheers
Mike
-
I think i prefer the lighter/brighter? one, as well.
But there is not much in it, what are you experimenting with?
Sandy
-
Hi Sandy...or Snady as I like to think of you...my typing gets worse!
The difference is slight but Mike pointed to it. The first of the pair is a single exposure - normal closeup picture with a typical depth of field - blurred bits near and far, the shank in focus. The second is a stack made using several close-up pictures, combined in processing, the end result is a deeper depth of field, artificially deeper but I can't see anything artificial about it. Takes a bit of time to shoot this way, much more processing for one picture, but means I can shoot with the best aperture for the lens....
Slightly geeky stuff, long and short is I'm trying to work out if the result is worth the effort.
-
Great stuff Magnus! To answer your question ..... yes the result is worth the effort :z16
My Nikon is supposed to be able to take multi shots at different settings and process them into one photo, but I haven't read the instructions or tried it yet though :oops
I'm guessing that what you're doing is a step beyond that though?
Cheers
Mike
-
Hi Mike
I dunno what we can do in-camera with multiple exposures - I think my camera can do that too - I sort of assume the pics will not be aligned, so if I take a sequence of a caster I get the pics superimposed with the moved positions showing?
I stack these in PS6, the critical part is alignment. Even with everything locked down tight the camera and subject move fractionally between exposures - plus changing the focus alters the image size on the sensor. PS seems capable of taking all that into account in processing and has me impressed so far!
(BTW Just bought a 35mm f1.8 DX Nikkor - plasticy and not as solid as my old lenses but cracking image quality!)
-
The difference is slight but Mike pointed to it. The first of the pair is a single exposure - normal closeup picture with a typical depth of field - blurred bits near and far, the shank in focus. The second is a stack made using several close-up pictures, combined in processing, the end result is a deeper depth of field, artificially deeper but I can't see anything artificial about it. Takes a bit of time to shoot this way, much more processing for one picture, but means I can shoot with the best aperture for the lens....
I can see the difference , but only just :z6, worthwhile for the detail and i guess what i percieve to be a brighter image is one that is slightly more defined.
Cheers
Snady ( i do it all the time and correct it afterwards :oops)
:z4
Sandy
-
The Blurb said "In-camera HDR (High Dynamic Range) mode will tame high contrast situations by automatically capturing multiple exposures of the scene and combining them for vastly improved contrast and low noise", but I've yet to explore this.
The 35mm 1.8 sounds great :cool:
Cheers
Mike
-
Magnus, reference the slight movements between shots, are you using a remote release? This should cure that problem instantly.
Also, I hope I am not teaching you to suck eggs, so please forgive me if I am, but to get greater depth of field on shots, decrease aperture and decrease magnification.
With a quality camera, depending on what your final shots are for, it can be worth stepping back for the photo and then taking that photo with an extremely high resolution, and then cropping it so the subject feels the frame. This should leave you with a useable photo for magazine work.
lastly, have you considered using Photoshops HDR "voodoo magic"? It can turn flies into the most amazing images through the way it processes colours. They really do leap out at you.
Having said all that, the images you put up look great.
-
Ah, I see Mike mentiond HDR too.
Here is a comparision with HDR on the right. Remember, this was applied to an existing image, using a RAW image in PS 6 gives amazing quality.
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q265/backs4more/HDR-2.jpg)
-
Hi Rob
Yes there is more than a touch of trying to teach egg sucking there. Would you like me to detail all the ways I disagree with your post?
-
Great stuff Magnus, crackin looking flees and very interesting, got me thinking on a few ideas already. :z16
-
Hi Mike
HDR the way you use the idea is not dissimilar. True HDR uses a series of exposure of different densities combined to give a single frame with greater detail in highlights and shadows than can be captured with a single exposure from that sensor. Software HDR, the type Rob mentioned, uses clever software to simulate the true HDR effect, in a single exposure/frame it adjusts micro sharpness/contrast etc to give the impression of more detail - from a RAW exposure it can extract more detail than conventional processing methods.
Focus stacking involves a series of shots where the exposure is the same but the focus changes. The software then stacks the images, identifies the in-focus portion of each frame and masks the rest of the image - stack that up and you have a means of artificially deepening DOF.
-
Hi Rob
Yes there is more than a touch of trying to teach egg sucking there. Would you like me to detail all the ways I disagree with your post?
You were asking for that Rob!
:z4 :z4 :z4
-
"Focus stacking" .... hadn't heard of that before, but I can see what the benefits would be :cool:
So much to learn and lots of fun along the way :z16
Cheers
Mike
-
Hi Magnus,
Photo's look good and on my dedicated monitor the second photo looks much better due to the DOF, ALTHOUGH you'd have to be being overcritical to see anything wrong with the first image.
CS6 obviously does a good job as you say. I downloaded Helicon Focus to stack photo's of naturals last year but (unless I was doing something way stoopid) the results were poor. I did have the usual tripod, remote release, etc. etc. same settings just refocusing as I dissected it...........but it wasn't working, I'm not sure if the manipulation process created artifacts or what the problem was. I might revisit it if I get a minute to myself.
If I recall I took about 5 shots on a beast that was??? guess 15mm toe to toe wide??
How many shots did you take? Trial and error or is there a guide?
As the hook eye and point, for example, (as many believe) have to remain in focus then how do you feel the overall picture reflects the pin sharp focus you would have achieved in each individual shot?
CS6? one day maybe.
What do you think of a black/ dark background in general for showcasing flies?
Iain
-
"Focus stacking" .... hadn't heard of that before, but I can see what the benefits would be :cool:
It's like "Mondeo remodelling" Mike, just a bit different.
I really need to do some research into this stuff, any pics I take that do not involve the big red A setting on my camera are usually unviewable.
Ben
-
Hi Iain
Yep I tried Helicon too - some nice features but I was ultimately unimpressed. Photoshop has had this sort of thing since about CS4 by the way, with Bridge and all that stuff it's pretty easy.
The second fly is 4 exposures. I'm changing plane using the lens focus, I might use more if the camera was mounted on a stage.
Personally, in a studio shot I like setting flies against dark background but it doesn't work for all flies or all situations. I have a real dislike for the standardized mid blue background - I see it so often flies look like medical specimens. Most of the stuff I shoot for the mag is on white, that's a design/style decision. I prefer using an out of focus background over a plain colour/shade - revel in the bokeh - gives the image depth imho.
This uses the cape the hackle and tail came from as a backdrop
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_9_34_10.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1790)
-
compare that with this image. All the previous shots are lit with flash - this was a pair of fluo softboxes, George Barron tying on the table at our stand at BFFI
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_9_39_28.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1792)
-
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_9_43_46.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1793)
crop
-
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_9_34_10.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1790)
Wow :z16
-
Both nice pics Magnus. I think the Cruncher is better, image wise. Less lost and more more of the fly is in focus (viewed from a very amateur point of view).
Ben
-
Poles apart.
Interesting reference the camera being mounted on a stage.
I'm planning macro shot's of naturals this season and having experienced some annoyances while trying to photo artificial flies (marrying the camera and fly in the correct plane while moving the camera fore and aft to get the fly the size and position I wanted on the sensor) I'm looking to see if there is some form of adjustable 'table' something about 4"- 6" square or circular that has little screw handles or the like as the working window with a chilled specimen is very limited and I want to zap that bad boy into position super quick.
My method to date is to get the fly correctly sized and biased if req'd on the sensor, set focus then carefully shuffle the paper or holding medium until I get the eye and point in focus'ish then refocus (manual). It can be a fart about especially as you are aware the slightest bit of clumsiness or even greasy finger friction on releasing the 'medium' can throw everything off again.
Know ye of such a device? Is this stage you talk about some form of calibrated rail for the camera to move back and forth on?
Iain
-
Hi Ben
I like 'em both. Just playing with techniques and styles.
-
Hi Iain
Yes - google Focusing Stage
http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=5531
There are many models at all sorts of prices. If you get into Bellows they usually come fitted on a stage or rails so you can focus independent of magnification - distance between lens and sensor.
Lemme see if I can find a fascinating site on this
-
The Cruncher is interesting. If you'd have suggested to me that I photographed a brown fly using a a brown cape as a background, I'd have suspected a wind up but. It works well, mainly because it is different.
Ben
-
Ben
100% agree! Shoot 40 or 50 flies on white in one session and you get desperate for some variety :)
Iain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60
I thought this was a wind up when I stumbled on it - the guy is genuine - and an inspiration! His technique is so simple.
(http://www.thomasshahan.com/wp-content/uploads/galleries/post-9/Holocephala.jpg)
from http://www.thomasshahan.com/
He uses the sort of gear we already have...or less...
-
Eye of the beholder an' all that but the crop shows too shallow a DOF for such a bushy style of fly and I'm sure does little justice to a nice tying?
I see the eye is the point of focus and the fly's angle tapers away towards the hook bend, perhaps I'm wrong but it looks like one of many general snaps that a guy would take of tied flies at a show if he wasn't looking for any specific effect......................... then again the eye, red head, JC and some of the fibres are on the 'in focus plane' so maybe it's what the guy wanted, is it your shot?
Iain
-
Hi Iain
Yep, the dabbler was the last picture in a tying sequence so the effect is always going to be different. The idea is you get to know the fly step by step. I like that some of the fly is out of plane, adds some depth...
The cruncher was a fly from a sequence but is not part of the sequence - sort of a fly portrait I suppose - very static, very stylized. Those of us who tie flies normally see flies that way - right handed tyers anyway - so I think of that as 'the good side' of a fly - seems to hold true a lot of the time.
This uses a style, on white (yawn) low angle, shot from the front, so the fly is receding into the surface of the page...again a different effect and not really aimed to be analyzed by Ben for tying tips...we normally shoot a tying stage separately for that one.
(http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/gallery/42_26_02_14_10_47_27.jpeg) (http://www.fishingthefly.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=1794)
-
Cracking macro video.
AH! I have just looked out my Roundabout NP Pano head and if folded and fitted to the tripod centre ( set at 90 deg's) has a rail with adjustable q/release plate that should assist no end. Champion.
All I need is a hatch, a fridge & some free time.
You know it! keep it real!
Iain
-
That macro was take 'freehand' no tripod and a setup that can't really focus, just move the whole lot in an out to find focus, and the insect is in the wild, no chilling. He uses a home made softbox on a flash so the exposure will always be the same. All pretty simple and reasonably primitive so he concentrates on the bug.
Incidentally he stopped chilling bugs when some died.
-
Yup, have heard of 'giving a fly a sense of depth' and as said IF this is the intention AND as a resultant 'life shot' after an SBS the it'd work.
Along the same lines (or conversely in fact) I shot a Silver Vermin fly recently on a white ('yawn' to you 'new' to me :z6) background and PS'd the shadow out................what an absolute lifeless boring heap of horridness - so artificial - binned the shot.
What is the in vogue method of holding a fly? I remember your Royal Wulff on a rod handle against a yellow background, seemed unlikely to me at first but in the flesh it worked so well I used yellow as a backdrop for many of my flies. Just goes to show how little I know.
Respect 'innit
Iain
-
The vogue? :z4
You need to ask someone young and trendy about that....Ben perhaps...he might know someone young....
(http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/MagnusAngus/stone.jpg)
Having said I dislike blue backgrounds :)
-
Magnus,
You maybe picked me up wrong, I was not analysing the tying. My comments were squarely aimed at the way the picture was taken. I prefer that to the white background and even the dark stuff on the fly shows up well.
Cheers
Ben
-
Hi Ben
Sorry, I just put your name in there, I shouldn't have implied anything about how you see pictures of a fly - my bad.