DSLRUsers.com

the first image 1/4@f10 along with the next 12 images with only a shift in focus...... Subject is 4.5cm long



..... the finished image

Excellent use of technique.

Whoa! focus bonanza!!!

that is incredible.. the results are simply amazing.

Technicalities apart, the second image looks to me artificial. In the fist image you see the blur more gradual and even in the image because of the angle and space of the object. Maybe it is me being an ignoramus, but I prefer the first photo.

zafra52 wrote:Technicalities apart, the second image looks to me artificial. In the fist image you see the blur more gradual and even in the image because of the angle and space of the object. Maybe it is me being an ignoramus, but I prefer the first photo.

I think that may also be related to the background that Bernie has used in this image.

Bernie, perhaps next time, do a secondary set on a plain background, where the OOF areas can live in an area to be "hidden" (in plain sight) and not be such an obvious element of the image?

zafra52 wrote: Maybe it is me being an ignoramus, but I prefer the first photo.

....."yes"..... and maybe also you do not understand "Helicon Focus" this may help you understand http://www.better-photographs.com/helicon-focus.html

as this post is only the second time I have used this process there is a lot to learn, even with my experience. Helicon focus is used a lot in macro photography, so some light reading here http://photomacrography.net/forum/

Thank you for the illuminating sites, big pix. I can understand now what you are trying to do and the difficulties involved.

Note that "Helicon Focus" is the name of one program that does this. It's not the name of the technique, which is usually referred to as "focus stacking".

I do this even now and then, and have been getting excellent results just using Photoshop's Auto-blend Layers. Open all the images into Photoshop as a layered document (16-bit if you want), run Auto Align then Auto Blend, crop, and you're done.
Helicon Focus does seem to have a few extra bells and whistles in this area, but I've been happy with my Photoshop results so far.

By the way, your image is not visible in this thread either.

DaveB wrote:By the way, your image is not visible in this thread either.

Two images visible here, Dave.

gstark wrote:

zafra52 wrote:Technicalities apart, the second image looks to me artificial. In the fist image you see the blur more gradual and even in the image because of the angle and space of the object. Maybe it is me being an ignoramus, but I prefer the first photo.

I think that may also be related to the background that Bernie has used in this image.
Bernie, perhaps next time, do a secondary set on a plain background, where the OOF areas can live in an area to be "hidden" (in plain sight) and not be such an obvious element of the image?

... or take a few more background exposures. I think the loss of background focus is a bit too abrupt. That's not to say you want the background in focus and you may still need to blur the extra exposures.

Regards,
Murray

gstark wrote:

DaveB wrote:By the way, your image is not visible in this thread either.

Two images visible here, Dave.

They're showing up for me now, along with the image in the other helicon focus thread. Looks like the SmugMug problem was fixed.