Spiders and a fly

Thanks I'll have a look :). Trying to keep my apperture down as it seems sharper at f8 or less than f11 or higher. Problem is DOF though.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Sharpening should help with that. FWIW I routinely use the equivalent of f/28 on APS-C for invertebrates.
Click to expand...

These are quite sharpened already :(. I'm sure it's more down to technique than anything, my shots are slowly getting better I think, especially if I look back at my first shots. Practise practise practise :D. I've tried shooting REALLY stopped down, but the results were not good. My 105 seems to be much sharper f8-f11.
 
andythilo said:
These are quite sharpened already :(. I'm sure it's more down to technique than anything, my shots are slowly getting better I think, especially if I look back at my first shots. Practise practise practise :D. I've tried shooting REALLY stopped down, but the results were not good. My 105 seems to be much sharper f8-f11.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is sharper at f/8 -f/11, but there is a trade-off with depth of field (opinions vary as to where the benefit lies), and it also depends on how you process the images. FWIW these three animations flip between the as-posted versions and differently processed versions. As to exactly how one likes images to look is a matter of personal taste of course, Here I'm simply trying to demonstrate that post processing can make a significant difference to the look of an image.

If you make the browser window large you may be able to see these at the uploaded size of 1300 pixels high. If not you'll need to click through to Flickr and go to Download this photo at the bottom right and click on View all sizes. Choose Original and you will see the animation flip at the uploaded size. Viewing them at the uploaded size will give a better idea of the differences than viewing them smaller.

Not a great deal of difference as far as the subject is concerned with this one, but have a look at the underside of the abdomen and the back leg. The different processing does appear to show up rather a lot of spots on the sensor though.

NOT MY IMAGE - AndhThilo1 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


NOT MY IMAGE - AndhThilo2 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


NOT MY IMAGE - AndyThilo3 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Nice :). So can you tell the process you used? Bit more saturation and brought the shadows out more?

Surprised at the spots on the first one, maybe it was on the lens? Pretty sure the sensor is clean but I'll do a test.
 
andythilo said:
Nice :). So can you tell the process you used? Bit more saturation and brought the shadows out more?
Click to expand...

It's a bit complicated. I used DXO Optics Pro followed by Silkypix. I'm not sure which element(s) of the process would have had the greatest effect.

I use DXO Optics Pro as a "pre-processor". I have a "one size fits all" preset that I use in DXO Optics Pro. This uses several DXO functions (all at low or moderate levels).
  • DXO's "Smart lighting" function. I'm not sure exactly what this does - it somewhat corrects under and over exposure, and possibly also bright highlights and dark shadows.
  • A tiny boost to shadows
  • DXO's "Clearview" function, which increases the clarity
  • Microcontrast enhancement
  • Noise reduction
  • Chromatic aberration correction
In Silkypix I did some image-specific adjustments.
  • First image, pull down highlights, sharpen
  • Second image, reduce brightness, raise shadows, sharpen
  • Third image, pull down highlights, raise shadows, reduce blacks, sharpen

andythilo said:
Surprised at the spots on the first one, maybe it was on the lens? Pretty sure the sensor is clean but I'll do a test.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I don't think it would show up like that on the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top