Desolate: 16 shot exposure stack -1.7 to -0.0

[JBW]

M'Lady looked at this image and said "I like it, it's desolate.' Hence the title. The story is simple... there was an insect I wished to photograph. When I tried to adjust the blossom for a better shot, it fell off. The bug flew off and I concentrated on the flower. As always, shot in our garden/temple somewhere in the Philippines.

Sony Alpha a68 ~ Tamron 90mm 272E Macro Lens ~ ISO 100 ~ Shutter Speed 1/40s ~ F/16 ~ Exposure Compensation -0.0 to -1.7 ~ Natural Light ~ Stacked in Fiji

Brian

[Urbanflyer]

Lovely!

[JBW]

Lovely!

thank-you. I do like the colors

[FootLoose]

Nice shot, Brian.

[Manfred M]

I don't understand 19 exposures to create an image where you have an image where there is no issue with the dynamic range and the shot can be done as a single image.

[Shadowman]

Nice shot.

[JBW]

I don't understand 19 exposures to create an image where you have an image where there is no issue with the dynamic range and the shot can be done as a single image.

Well let me try to explain.

I do it because it works!

By changing the exposure I change where the focus points are. When Fiji combines the shots a new deeper image is created. This shot could not have been done as a single image. Perhaps my understanding of what is happening is flawed but my understanding of the outcome is accurate.

I will, if you choose to accept this mission, send you the middle shot of this series in RAW and allow you to try to recreate my shot out of one shot.

Actually I will open that offer up to anyone in CiC.

Brian

PS 16 not 19

[JBW]

Nice shot.

Obviously i agree it is a nice shot.

[Stagecoach]

Well let me try to explain.

I do it because it works!

I would not disagree with you there but it's interesting to try and determine whats 'causing' the result.

By changing the exposure I change where the focus points are.

I'm not sure what you are inferring by "focus points" changing due to you changing exposure Brian.

If you change 'exposure' (brightness/darkness) you can only do this by changing Aperture, Speed or ISO, individually or a combination.

Aperture selection is the only one in the three that will have any affect on 'focus'. Altering the aperture will increase or decrease the DoF from a set 'focus plane'.

Is it just the aperture you are adjusting through the range of the 16 images?

Another one I can not understand is that if you are going from -1.7 to 0.0, does your Sony have 0.1 EV increments?

[Donald]

I wondered why we have so much around about the flower head in the frame. There is so much to look at in the shapes made in the flower head that I wondered if a much tighter crop that chopped out all the rest of the 'irrelevant' stuff, would work.

[DanK]

Exactly what I was going to write. I do like the image, but I really can't figure out what is being done. As Grahame said, changing exposure by changing aperture will alter DOF, but other than that, changing exposure has no effect on focus. All of my camera bodies have EV increments of 1/3 stop, not 1/10. And it can't be 16 shots at intervals of 1.7 EV; that leave many either all dark or all blown out.

So I am completely puzzled. I don't understand what the images in the stack are, and I don't understand what is being done with them in Fiji.

I would not disagree with you there but it's interesting to try and determine whats 'causing' the result.



I'm not sure what you are inferring by "focus points" changing due to you changing exposure Brian.

If you change 'exposure' (brightness/darkness) you can only do this by changing Aperture, Speed or ISO, individually or a combination.

Aperture selection is the only one in the three that will have any affect on 'focus'. Altering the aperture will increase or decrease the DoF from a set 'focus plane'.

Is it just the aperture you are adjusting through the range of the 16 images?

Another one I can not understand is that if you are going from -1.7 to 0.0, does your Sony have 0.1 EV increments?

[JBW]

I wondered why we have so much around about the flower head in the frame. There is so much to look at in the shapes made in the flower head that I wondered if a much tighter crop that chopped out all the rest of the 'irrelevant' stuff, would work.

You are getting into macro Donald. I'll have a go and post the results

[JBW]

I would not disagree with you there but it's interesting to try and determine whats 'causing' the result.



I'm not sure what you are inferring by "focus points" changing due to you changing exposure Brian.

If you change 'exposure' (brightness/darkness) you can only do this by changing Aperture, Speed or ISO, individually or a combination.

Aperture selection is the only one in the three that will have any affect on 'focus'. Altering the aperture will increase or decrease the DoF from a set 'focus plane'.

Is it just the aperture you are adjusting through the range of the 16 images?

Another one I can not understand is that if you are going from -1.7 to 0.0, does your Sony have 0.1 EV increments?

My exposure compensation goes from -2 to +2 in steps of 3. -2 is very dark so I often stop at -1.7

I have noticed that when I shoot with manual focus the brightest areas often become the focus point regardless of where I want the focus. When I change the exposure i change the bright areas. This changes the focus point. At least to my non techie mind that fits in with the reality my camera gives me.

All I adjust is the exposure compensation. One 3 step increment at a time.

Hope that helps.

[JBW]

Exactly what I was going to write. I do like the image, but I really can't figure out what is being done. As Grahame said, changing exposure by changing aperture will alter DOF, but other than that, changing exposure has no effect on focus. All of my camera bodies have EV increments of 1/3 stop, not 1/10. And it can't be 16 shots at intervals of 1.7 EV; that leave many either all dark or all blown out.

So I am completely puzzled. I don't understand what the images in the stack are, and I don't understand what is being done with them in Fiji.

okay, I took 16 shots all within the exposure compensation range of 0.0 to -1.7. They were taken with 3 steps between them.

Every exposure stop had two shots. (probably)

Hope that helps

[Manfred M]

Well let me try to explain.

I do it because it works!

By changing the exposure I change where the focus points are. When Fiji combines the shots a new deeper image is created. This shot could not have been done as a single image. Perhaps my understanding of what is happening is flawed but my understanding of the outcome is accurate.

I will, if you choose to accept this mission, send you the middle shot of this series in RAW and allow you to try to recreate my shot out of one shot.

Actually I will open that offer up to anyone in CiC.

Brian

PS 16 not 19

Brian - if you are focus stacking, that process has a totally different impact than changing exposure and combing images where you have done that.

In your title you suggest that you have changed the exposure between shots, not the focus plane. Now you are telling us that you are have changed the focus plane. I’m afraid I have no idea as to how you have created this image. Your explanations are not clear to me.

[JBW]

Brian - if you are focus stacking, that process has a totally different impact than changing exposure and combing images where you have done that.

In your title you suggest that you have changed the exposure between shots, not the focus plane. Now you are telling us that you are have changed the focus plane. I’m afraid I have no idea as to how you have created this image. Your explanations are not clear to me.

I took 16 shots all within the exposure range of 0.0 to -1.7. Most of if not all of the exposure settings were shot twice. It is my belief that by changing the exposure compensation I am also changing the focal plane because of the differing brightness. (the camera just seems to want to pick the brightest areas as the focus points)

I imported the RAW into Capture 1. Did some global adjustments in TIFF. Exported to Fiji, stacked and returned them to C1. Did the final adjustments as a JPEG and posted.

[Manfred M]

It is my belief that by changing the exposure compensation I am also changing the focal plane because of the differing brightness. (the camera just seems to want to pick the brightest areas as the focus points)

I suspect your understanding is wrong.

The camera meters and focuses at full aperture with modern lenses, so unless you have moved something (camera or the flower), the focus plane will not change.

Exposure compensation does nothing more than override the exposure value that your camera meter calculates to a new exposure value, based on the value you have dialed in. If you are shooting aperture priority, then the shutter speed will change the appropriate amount. If you shoot shutter priority, then the aperture (or ISO setting?) will change to the exposure compensation value that has been dialed in. This is why it is generally recommended that shutter priority not be used because the depth of field will change from shot to shot.

[JBW]

I suspect your understanding is wrong.

The camera meters and focuses at full aperture with modern lenses, so unless you have moved something (camera or the flower), the focus plane will not change.

Exposure compensation does nothing more than override the exposure value that your camera meter calculates to a new exposure value, based on the value you have dialed in. If you are shooting aperture priority, then the shutter speed will change the appropriate amount. If you shoot shutter priority, then the aperture (or ISO setting?) will change to the exposure compensation value that has been dialed in. This is why it is generally recommended that shutter priority not be used because the depth of field will change from shot to shot.

I shoot in manual. I'm willing to listen to any other theories. It could all be happening within the Fiji algorithms. All I really know is that I like the end result and that no one has been able to replicate it i a single shot.

[Manfred M]

I shoot in manual. I'm willing to listen to any other theories. It could all be happening within the Fiji algorithms. All I really know is that I like the end result and that no one has been able to replicate it i a single shot.

In that case, it is challenging to discuss what you are getting because the software is doing something and without any knowledge of it, I cannot make any reasonable assessment as to the results that you are getting.

By the way, what is Fiji?

[JBW]

In that case, it is challenging to discuss what you are getting because the software is doing something and without any knowledge of it, I cannot make any reasonable assessment as to the results that you are getting.

By the way, what is Fiji?

Jiji is ImageJ on steroids.

There are times when not being a techy simplifies things