[Allan Liddle]

Great stuff Magnus, crackin looking flees and very interesting, got me thinking on a few ideas already. 

[Magnus Angus]

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.

[Mike Barrio]

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!

     

[Mike Barrio]

"Focus stacking" .... hadn't heard of that before, but I can see what the benefits would be

So much to learn and lots of fun along the way

Cheers
Mike

[Iain Goolager]

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

[Ben Dixon]

"Focus stacking" .... hadn't heard of that before, but I can see what the benefits would be

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

[Magnus Angus]

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

[Magnus Angus]

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

[Magnus Angus]

crop

[Mike Barrio]

Wow

[Ben Dixon]

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

[Iain Goolager]

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

[Magnus Angus]

Hi Ben

I like 'em both. Just playing with techniques and styles.

[Magnus Angus]

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

[Ben Dixon]

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