Izzie's P 52 month of February -- for C&C please

[flashback]

Izzie, I am really liking where you are going with these little folk. I think you need to focus (excuse the pun) more closely on the faces, as well as with exposure/lighting. Maybe if you think of your scenes as real life, think about where to place your 'Sun'. I do think you may have discovered 'your special purpose' (sorry, a bad reference to a Steve Martin's (old, really old) movie, The Jerk). Keep putting those little guys to work and keep shooting, and maybe think of people doing something other than just construction (or at least, have them build something.) Look forward to your next series!

[pnodrog]

Interesting and imaginative. I agree that the light source is either too close or if it is a spot light of needs a diffuser of some sort. They are excellent subjects to experiment with lighting set ups.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Izzie,

I hope I did not disappoint you as you have been a very big help in my learning experience here at CiC.

No, absolutely not.

I really looked forward to your post this week, got a cup of coffee and sat down to write the response when I had time to do it justice, as I have in previous weeks, often being late to the party. I try not to read others replies as it sometimes makes my brain 'switch off' rather than properly analyse the shots, so apologies for mention ProPhoto again (but that's gonna happen from time to time), just ignore me on these points if already addressed.

After I had replied, I was definitely not feeling disappointed, quite the opposite - you had taken on board so much of what we'd all contributed last week, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough.

I guess all these needed another technique or another lens to get them all in one shot instead of doing what I did focus stacking it, add that I was using the wrong colour space before submitting my assignment theme, equals disaster. The idea is there, the creativity contributed. I should learn to relax and have fun instead of getting too hype up with what others will say too so it will show in my work.

These are NOT a disaster!

You do need to give yourself time (and energy) to do a good job though, I usually work to the principle of a job being done properly (if a little late) is better than being on time, but rushed and quality suffering for it.

I completely missed that these were focus stacked, the EXIF doesn't say (AFAIK).

I don't focus stack, but am wondering if there is a technical flaw in your method (as I wouldn't know), or simply whether tiredness caused the problem this time.

Focus stacking should achieve better DoF than a single image, as long as you ensure that you have an image with the nearest part of subject sharp, plus a similar one of the furthest part of the subject sharp, then a number of shots between them - the number required being determined by the physical distance between nearest and furthest parts and the DoF of the aperture used.
e.g.

nearest shot at say; 10 inches (DoF for 105mm at f/16 on D810 = 0.16")
furthest shot at say; 12 inches (DoF for 105mm at f/16 on D810 = 0.24")
rough calculation by averaging those comes to about 0.2", so that's 10 shots for 2" (12-10), but the DoF on first and last shot is only half the figure, we'll add another one making 11, then (personally), I'd add another 'for luck', making 12 to fill the gap, and 14 shots in total.
I assume we should shoot them sequentially from nearest to furthest (not first, last, then fill the gap).

As I said, I haven't ever stacked in PS, so I can't comment on a sensible or bad methods of stacking 14 shots, but my instinct suggests do them all in one go, having shot them in a numbered sequence, to avoid possible slip ups or compounding artefacts (not that I saw any obvious ones, or I'd have guessed you had stacked).

Now that I have 'done the math' with a DoF calculator for this reply and seen how thin the DoF is for you, it becomes blindingly obvious that these were stacked (Dave smacks his head), so either you didn't have sufficient range, or perhaps gaps appeared in the coverage due to the multi-pass combining process and tiredness. It sounds like you did take enough for coverage though.

Yes, this should be fun, if it's not, ease the pressure on yourself.

You have made good progress, please don't be despondent, be proud.

It is only natural, if concentrating hard on one aspect of a shoot, to overlook other areas, with more practice, it will all come together eventually.

Keep it up (but only if you enjoy it), Dave

[mknittle]

Great idea Izzie. I like #3 and #4 best. I would like very much to see you do more with these little guys.

[Geoff F]

Regarding focus stacking, Izzie. I always use Adobe CC for this and it works as well as any other software for me. Not sure if there is any limit to the number of stackable images but I regularly use it with 4 shots.

Maybe, something going wrong with the process, as Dave mentioned?

Are you definitely manually focusing the individually shots with sufficient spacing?

Possibly share your workflow for comparison.

[IzzieK]

I love de pics¡¡¡

Thank you Javier. I am glad I did catch your attention...appreciate your passing by to comment.

[IzzieK]

Izzie, I am really liking where you are going with these little folk. I think you need to focus (excuse the pun) more closely on the faces, as well as with exposure/lighting. Maybe if you think of your scenes as real life, think about where to place your 'Sun'. I do think you may have discovered 'your special purpose' (sorry, a bad reference to a Steve Martin's (old, really old) movie, The Jerk). Keep putting those little guys to work and keep shooting, and maybe think of people doing something other than just construction (or at least, have them build something.) Look forward to your next series!

Yes. Thank you for the suggestion. That thought was in the works but the last models that I bought at the hobby store were of constructions so I used it as quickly as I was running out of time to submit for P52. I am looking into Pet stores web pages to see what they have in kind of aquarium pieces like little ladders and such. Also cake decorating stuffs. I might go to Walmart in the next day or so to look for some little stuffs to change my settings. I already have cars and a full pack of coffee beans (not the kind Bill will drink anyway) for my project this week if I make it into another miniatures week. But I think Bill will take me out somewhere this week to take some pictures or something before I go bonkers inside the house. Immigration house in the city will be interesting tomorrow anyway...

[IzzieK]

Interesting and imaginative. I agree that the light source is either too close or if it is a spot light of needs a diffuser of some sort. They are excellent subjects to experiment with lighting set ups.

The only light that I used here and the others (unless I specifically said so) is the light coming from the deck door. The weather is still waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy below my age range so I don't go out there as often or not too long, just enough to let the dogs out to do their duties and back...they are used to the cold, I am not...

Thanks Paul...I will try my flash next time around...see how I go. 'Appreciate your suggestions. I will work on it.

[IzzieK]

Hi Izzie,

No, absolutely not.

I really looked forward to your post this week, got a cup of coffee and sat down to write the response when I had time to do it justice, as I have in previous weeks, often being late to the party. I try not to read others replies as it sometimes makes my brain 'switch off' rather than properly analyse the shots, so apologies for mention ProPhoto again (but that's gonna happen from time to time), just ignore me on these points if already addressed.

After I had replied, I was definitely not feeling disappointed, quite the opposite - you had taken on board so much of what we'd all contributed last week, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough.

These are NOT a disaster!

You do need to give yourself time (and energy) to do a good job though, I usually work to the principle of a job being done properly (if a little late) is better than being on time, but rushed and quality suffering for it.

I completely missed that these were focus stacked, the EXIF doesn't say (AFAIK).

I don't focus stack, but am wondering if there is a technical flaw in your method (as I wouldn't know), or simply whether tiredness caused the problem this time.

Focus stacking should achieve better DoF than a single image, as long as you ensure that you have an image with the nearest part of subject sharp, plus a similar one of the furthest part of the subject sharp, then a number of shots between them - the number required being determined by the physical distance between nearest and furthest parts and the DoF of the aperture used.
e.g.

nearest shot at say; 10 inches (DoF for 105mm at f/16 on D810 = 0.16")
furthest shot at say; 12 inches (DoF for 105mm at f/16 on D810 = 0.24")
rough calculation by averaging those comes to about 0.2", so that's 10 shots for 2" (12-10), but the DoF on first and last shot is only half the figure, we'll add another one making 11, then (personally), I'd add another 'for luck', making 12 to fill the gap, and 14 shots in total.
I assume we should shoot them sequentially from nearest to furthest (not first, last, then fill the gap).

As I said, I haven't ever stacked in PS, so I can't comment on a sensible or bad methods of stacking 14 shots, but my instinct suggests do them all in one go, having shot them in a numbered sequence, to avoid possible slip ups or compounding artefacts (not that I saw any obvious ones, or I'd have guessed you had stacked).

Now that I have 'done the math' with a DoF calculator for this reply and seen how thin the DoF is for you, it becomes blindingly obvious that these were stacked (Dave smacks his head), so either you didn't have sufficient range, or perhaps gaps appeared in the coverage due to the multi-pass combining process and tiredness. It sounds like you did take enough for coverage though.

Yes, this should be fun, if it's not, ease the pressure on yourself.

You have made good progress, please don't be despondent, be proud.

It is only natural, if concentrating hard on one aspect of a shoot, to overlook other areas, with more practice, it will all come together eventually.

Keep it up (but only if you enjoy it), Dave

Thanks for the encouragements. I read your response off line and was energized enough to find some more sources for further projects. Rob (Ekins) suggested in the other post to call my project "Miniatures..." instead of Little People. I thanked him for it as he has a point there too. Miniatures will mean expanded in nature and execution whereas Little People might be limiting...

I will give this a hour rest and photograph something else tomorrow so I can come back to it very fresh for another round of composing my scenarios...thanks for all these numbers. It'll help me tremendously...now to get that DOF Calculator in my pooter is another mission. I had it in my links but I lost it. Is there a good one I can use without having to go online? Sometimes I can be away from my laptop and only have that useless iPad I use in front of the tv...

Thanks again for the added support. I really, really appreciate all the learning I can get out of you and others here...

[IzzieK]

Great idea Izzie. I like #3 and #4 best. I would like very much to see you do more with these little guys.

I am glad for your encouraging response. This project thrills me to find many of you encouraging me to continue with it. The change of scenery for 24 hours at least will get my juice going again. Thank you so much for passing by. I do appreciate the learning experience I am gaining through this. I think it is time to put my lights to good use instead of it hanging out in my studio...thank you again.

[pnodrog]

The only light that I used here and the others (unless I specifically said so) is the light coming from the deck door. The weather is still waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy below my age range so I don't go out there as often or not too long, just enough to let the dogs out to do their duties and back...they are used to the cold, I am not...

Thanks Paul...I will try my flash next time around...see how I go. 'Appreciate your suggestions. I will work on it.

Outside lighting provided by a door or window is a great source of lighting. You could use an off camera fill flash to help soften the lighting. However another (better?) alternative would be to use a white or silver panel as a reflector. In the past I have used a large flat sheet of white polystyrene foam and sometimes one of those silver flexible foam reflectors sold for car windscreens to stop an empty car getting too hot.

[george013]

I will give this a hour rest and photograph something else tomorrow so I can come back to it very fresh for another round of composing my scenarios...thanks for all these numbers. It'll help me tremendously...now to get that DOF Calculator in my pooter is another mission. I had it in my links but I lost it. Is there a good one I can use without having to go online? Sometimes I can be away from my laptop and only have that useless iPad I use in front of the tv...

There're apps for on the phone, windows and apple. I don't know what a pooter is.

George

[Tronhard]

There're apps for on the phone, windows and apple. I don't know what a pooter is.

George

Hi George: I think "Pooter" is a colloquial term for a computer.

[george013]

Hi George: I think "Pooter" is a colloquial term for a computer.

I found something different. http://onlineslangdictionary.com/mea...tion-of/pooter
I don't think this is meant.

George

[IzzieK]

Outside lighting provided by a door or window is a great source of lighting. You could use an off camera fill flash to help soften the lighting. However another (better?) alternative would be to use a white or silver panel as a reflector. In the past I have used a large flat sheet of white polystyrene foam and sometimes one of those silver flexible foam reflectors sold for car windscreens to stop an empty car getting too hot.

I have a big round one that consists of 4 reflective like foil (?) which I bought a long time ago, it has white translucent, black, silver and gold. I will have a go at it. Thanks for the suggestion. I was holding one of those smallist one that I use for traveling but it apparently did not make any difference. Now fill flash, maybe I should try it. I haven't done it before and only use my flash occasionally because I want to be aware of using the camera setting without the flash yet. In desperation, I will try it. Thank you so very much for your help and suggestions and your kind comments. 'Appreciate it.

[IzzieK]

I found something different. http://onlineslangdictionary.com/mea...tion-of/pooter
I don't think this is meant.

George

Thanks Trev for clarifying that to George.

George, I prefer the definition of Trev...instead of a butt or a whore thing.

[george013]

Thanks Trev for clarifying that to George.

George, I prefer the definition of Trev...instead of a butt or a whore thing.

For a moment I thought Trev's anger was about me.

I still don't know if your question about the dofcalculator has been solved. Otherwise this site http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html

George

[IzzieK]

For a moment I thought Trev's anger was about me.

I still don't know if your question about the dofcalculator has been solved. Otherwise this site http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html

George

No George I haven't solve it yet as I have been busy of late trying to make up to my husband for not cooking him dinner when I was doing these project shots. So thanks for the link. I will look at it and see how it works when the sun goes up. It is still dark here at 5am...

Thank you so much for your help. I appreciate it very much.

[Marie Hass]

put·er
ˈpo͞odər/
nouninformal
a computer.

Is only a matter of spelling.

Marie

[Geoff F]

So many definitions to an unusual word. For me, a Pooter is a method of collecting insects using a vacuum tube. See this catalogue.

http://www.watdon.co.uk/acatalog/poo...spirators.html