living and maybe learning

[JBW]

Gimp has a nice "depth merge' filter but it requires 3 or more shots of the same object with different focus. obviously without a tripod i was in trouble. Then I thought to myself; 'why not pp the same shot in 3 different programs and then merge them in Gimp?' It seems to have worked well.

[Wavelength]

Very nice

[Downrigger]

Yes - spectacular, a nearly edible red, but clarify for us what problem you were solving with the image merge that was unsolvable with processing a single image?

[Stagecoach]

Gimp has a nice "depth merge' filter but it requires 3 or more shots of the same object with different focus. obviously without a tripod i was in trouble.

Then I thought to myself; 'why not pp the same shot in 3 different programs and then merge them in Gimp?' It seems to have worked well.

Hi Brian,

I have to admit that some of your statements lately regarding post processing have been a bit confusing and this is another. The other day you mentioned the '100 Stack' procedure.

In this latest statement you mention that Gimp has a depth merge procedure but requires 3 or more objects taken at different focus, this of course is what is referred to as 'focus stacking' and the standard way to achieve a greater depth of sharpness for a subject which can not be achieved from one exposure due to the DOF limitations when focused on a single focus plane.

You then go on to suggest you have achieved the results shown by pping this single shot in three different programs and merged the result from each and it has worked well.

Are you suggesting you have found a way of increasing the DOF of this image from one file only? If so, can you please explain in detail exactly how as a lot of members will be extremely interested.

Grahame

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

I have to admit that some of your statements lately regarding post processing have been a bit confusing and this is another. The other day you mentioned the '100 Stack' procedure.

In this latest statement you mention that Gimp has a depth merge procedure but requires 3 or more objects taken at different focus, this of course is what is referred to as 'focus stacking' and the standard way to achieve a greater depth of sharpness for a subject which can not be achieved from one exposure due to the DOF limitations when focused on a single focus plane.

You then go on to suggest you have achieved the results shown by pping this single shot in three different programs and merged the result from each and it has worked well.

Are you suggesting you have found a way of increasing the DOF of this image from one file only? If so, can you please explain in detail exactly how as a lot of members will be extremely interested.

Grahame

Hi Grahame, As you may be aware i am a newbee abs I don't have the technical jargon down pat. This can and does lead to confusion. i think you are using the right tech talk when you refer to focus stacking.

Gimp has a filter that they call 'depth merge.' I could try to explain it but as I don't really understand it myself perhaps it is better to give a link to the more or less official Gimp tutorial;

http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-depth-merge.html

My technique, if it is worthy of such a title is to take one image, process it to the best of my abilities in photoscape, rawtherapee and picassa and then merge these shots in gimp. Here is a link to a C in C posting that shows the 3 shots and the merged shot for a green fly. As i understand the process better (greyscale?) I believe the results will improve.

I like the result of merging 3 shots in Gimp depth merger filter

Finally yo answer your question yes i think i have found a way to increase the dof from one file only.Here is the orginal as it came out of the camera.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Brian,

The only difference I can see between these two images is that the PPd one has been processed to make it sharper.

Whilst sharpening will give a very very slight increase in the depth range from front to back that we perceive as being acceptably sharp this is basic standard processing procedure. It will not give you results anywhere near what focus stacking would.

Grahame

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

The only difference I can see between these two images is that the PPd one has been processed to make it sharper.

Whilst sharpening will give a very very slight increase in the depth range from front to back that we perceive as being acceptably sharp this is basic standard processing procedure. It will not give you results anywhere near what focus stacking would.

Grahame

Okay Grahame help me out here. If i use focus stacking do I not need multiple shots identical except for the area of focus? I am not going to get this with mobile bugs or even flowers without a tripod and no wind.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Brian,

If you focus stack you need multiple images taken at different focus points throughout the depth that you want all to be in focus and the number will vary dependent upon aperture, distance from subject and the depth you want sharp. I know of one very experienced guy who can achieve this hand holding the camera, getting 3 to 5 shots and stacking them on a subject such as a bee outdoors that half fills the frame. Incredible results but very rare skill.

My personal view on stacking to achieve greater DOF is that it's often done simply because it can be especially with flowers. This is all very subjective but for me if I'm taking a macro shot of a flower my aim is to produce an image that is appealing in an artistic way and something that could possibly be used as wall art. I want to see some detail but as importantly some nice blurry mystery.

If I was you I would not even consider focus stacking yet but concentrate on producing sharp well exposed images with good backgrounds for either bugs or flowers. A poorly shot set of images is still going to be a poor image when stacked even if it's then sharp in focus from front to back.

You are now achieving sharp images way more consistently simply by using the camera correctly, not due to PP, the DOF you can achieve is limited by camera but do not let this be a concern at present as it is not holding you back from producing better images.

Grahame

[Clive Kirby]

Wholeheartedly agree with Grahame. You can't improve your camera skills in a computer.
Clive

[JBW]

Wholeheartedly agree with Grahame. You can't improve your camera skills in a computer.
Clive

just to be pushy... with a digital camera how can i improve my camera skills without a computer? But yes it is a question of pointing and clicking and learning as we click.
B

[Stagecoach]

Hi Brian,

I think what Clive is saying is that PPing can enhance an image but it should not be something that we rely upon to correct something that we could have got right when taking the picture.

Grahame

[Colin Southern]

Hi Brian,

I think what Clive is saying is that PPing can enhance an image but it should not be something that we rely upon to correct something that we could have got right when taking the picture.

Grahame

Or as they say "be a photographer, not a photoshopographer"!

[JBW]

Or as they say "be a photographer, not a photoshopographer"!

I'm working on it. How about one off forum question? If I get good enough to not disgrace a better camera what would be a good won't never need another upgrade for macro camera? bridge or DSLR.

[Clive Kirby]

Brian
I don't know where you are coming from. I think you need to understand that there are two aspects to photography:
Technical - getting the focus shutter speed and aperture settings right
and
Aesthetic - what is pleasing about a photo.
The latter you either have or you don't, but you can improve by looking at images by others that are popular and listening to critique on your work.
Regarding the technical side, all any camera will do is focus and set the exposure by varying the shutter speed and aperture, which will change depth of field and reduce the risk of camera shake. I don't know what a finepix does but I am sure it will have a multitude of settings for different conditions (landscapes, portraits, macro etc). Think outside the box a bit and experiment with these settings and see what it does to your images, I think you will find that the camera you have is far more versatile than you think.
If you want to get another camera - get one, it might give you a bit more versatility, but it works the same as any other camera.
I think a lot of this is down to what other people find interesting. I know I work hard at photography because I'm interested in it, I read loads of stuff, look at others images but my photos don't generate a lot of interest on this forum or others, that's probably because they are not interesting, but I like them, so what the hell. My daughter on the other hand picks up any old camera from basic digital to dslr and points and shoots and comes up with great shots. She takes pictures that catch people's interest.
Finally, cameras and indeed computer software do not make great images - people do.
regards
Clive

[JBW]

Brian
I don't know where you are coming from. I think you need to understand that there are two aspects to photography:
Technical - getting the focus shutter speed and aperture settings right
and
Aesthetic - what is pleasing about a photo.
The latter you either have or you don't, but you can improve by looking at images by others that are popular and listening to critique on your work.
Regarding the technical side, all any camera will do is focus and set the exposure by varying the shutter speed and aperture, which will change depth of field and reduce the risk of camera shake. I don't know what a finepix does but I am sure it will have a multitude of settings for different conditions (landscapes, portraits, macro etc). Think outside the box a bit and experiment with these settings and see what it does to your images, I think you will find that the camera you have is far more versatile than you think.
If you want to get another camera - get one, it might give you a bit more versatility, but it works the same as any other camera.
I think a lot of this is down to what other people find interesting. I know I work hard at photography because I'm interested in it, I read loads of stuff, look at others images but my photos don't generate a lot of interest on this forum or others, that's probably because they are not interesting, but I like them, so what the hell. My daughter on the other hand picks up any old camera from basic digital to dslr and points and shoots and comes up with great shots. She takes pictures that catch people's interest.
Finally, cameras and indeed computer software do not make great images - people do.
regards
Clive

Hi Clive, I like to think that I am coming from both a reasonable understanding and and reasonable expectations. The Finepix is an excellent teaching camera. It does everything any camera can do except change lenses. It is also second from the bottom of this particular Fujifilm line. And while no one can argue with your belief that all cameras do the same basic things I certainly dispute your belief that camera quality does not count.

Clark telescopes are far superior to anything coming out of China today. My 8" Lightbridge telescope is far superior to any number of scopes and inferior to an even greater number. Once I have pushed the limits of my Finepix I will purchase a camera that will allow me to be challenged to develop my skills for a very long time. This may be a top end Finepix or a low end DSLR or any number of cameras I have never as yet even heard of. All I know is that when the time comes that my skill set is good enough I will move up to a camera that will allow me to grow.

My mentor used to tell me that education did not make a person good. But he did believe that it could make a good person better. To me cameras and software do the same thing. A better camera or better software on their own will not make a better picture but they can, in the hands of a skilled photographer make a good picture better.

My situation in life, and my interests seem to he pointing me down the macro road. I have a never ending stream of insects and flowers that I find as interesting as anything in the heavens. And for the same reasons. A telescope or a camera allows me to explore the universe in ways that I find intriguing and educational. The more detail I can eke out the more I can learn. When I find I have reached the eking limit of the Finepix it will be time to upgrade.
B

[Clive Kirby]

Brian, you disagree, that's fine. As a newbie that you describe yourself you have obviously mapped out the way you are going to learn. I din't think anyone on the forum would attempt to persuade you otherwise unless asked. After all it's only a hobby and if you don't enjoy it then what's the point.