All Forum Comments
Thanks all, you are only encouraging me - here is my latest:
Comment by RobL posted on Focus stacking at 29/07/2019 - 21:19
It’s the flower of a mint!?
Comment by RobL posted on Beauty and the Beast in the Garden at 29/07/2019 - 19:07
With some messing about with the HeliconFocus settings I managed to frame it better and avoid the artifacts I had earlier, so that is definitely my preferred version now:
Comment by RobL posted on Focus stacking at 29/07/2019 - 07:36
For the first time since buying HeliconFocus I have achieved a focus stack I am pleased with; This required some work in Lightroom to eliminate some artifacts around the edges of the seed head but not arduous. As a comparison I have a trial version of Photoshop and am completely new to this but managed to get a focus stack by aligning and blending layers. The Photoshop version didn't have any artifacts to remove and the seed heads look identical in both, but in Photoshop the old flower has unsharp areas. Furthermore the Photoshop version cropped away rather less so in that sense the image is better. I imagine with more experience I could resolve the unsharp bit in layers, but here are both versions for you:
HeliconFocus:
Photoshop:
Your comments and advice would be greatly appreciated.
PS these were done with a 50mm f2.8 macro lens on a K1, side lit with a small LED.
HeliconFocus:
Photoshop:
Your comments and advice would be greatly appreciated.
PS these were done with a 50mm f2.8 macro lens on a K1, side lit with a small LED.
Comment by RobL posted on Focus stacking at 28/07/2019 - 20:42
JAK wrote:
For digital on a recent camera, a raw file provides sufficient dynamic range to render ND grads unnecessary (despite what some might say.) That's providing suitable software is available to process the raw files. Taking jpegs is another matter though. A polarizer can't be emulated in processing so worth having one of those.
For mono negative film, if you are in control of the processing, there will be sufficient detail in the negative to recover any blown skies. For mono film a yellow filter (say around 2X) can enhance skies and landscapes details.
For colour negative work though that method can cause unwanted colour shifts so for this those NDs might be handy. I have a set of 49mm Cromo filters which I purchased yonks ago and still find the occasional use for them.
The important thing is not needing to know whether you'll be using manual lenses or not but the medium you'll be using. Hence to be really helpful knowing your intentions would be handy given each medium has its own answer!
As someone who frequently applies a graduated filter in Lightroom I will say that using a physical one on the lens still has its advantages, namely that without a filter you need to reduce your exposure to avoid blown highlights. This in turn will increase the noise levels in the dark areas; whilst sometimes this can be acceptable and manageable it can be problematic in high contrast images. The only other option is to take three different exposures and blend them in Photoshop which is a bit of a faff and if you are also wanting to do focus stacking then it becomes a whole lot more complicated.QuestionableCarrot wrote:
Guys
Can someone show me links for filters /grads for my Manual lenses, namely the 28mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.7
I want to do some landscapes for a project and any advice on filters etc much appreciated
Cheers
A
Is this for film or digital, then for colour or black and white?Guys
Can someone show me links for filters /grads for my Manual lenses, namely the 28mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.7
I want to do some landscapes for a project and any advice on filters etc much appreciated
Cheers
A
For digital on a recent camera, a raw file provides sufficient dynamic range to render ND grads unnecessary (despite what some might say.) That's providing suitable software is available to process the raw files. Taking jpegs is another matter though. A polarizer can't be emulated in processing so worth having one of those.
For mono negative film, if you are in control of the processing, there will be sufficient detail in the negative to recover any blown skies. For mono film a yellow filter (say around 2X) can enhance skies and landscapes details.
For colour negative work though that method can cause unwanted colour shifts so for this those NDs might be handy. I have a set of 49mm Cromo filters which I purchased yonks ago and still find the occasional use for them.
The important thing is not needing to know whether you'll be using manual lenses or not but the medium you'll be using. Hence to be really helpful knowing your intentions would be handy given each medium has its own answer!
Comment by RobL posted on Advice on Filters for 35mm at 28/07/2019 - 08:51
johnriley wrote:
That sounds like mixed information. 720 dpi (dots per inch) might apply to an Epson printer setting. 300 ppi (pixels per inch) applies to the size of your image file.
Our A3 Epson printer also had a 1440 dpi setting, meaning 1440 dots of ink per inch were laid down by the printer.
Mea culpa, I get very confused sometimes.That sounds like mixed information. 720 dpi (dots per inch) might apply to an Epson printer setting. 300 ppi (pixels per inch) applies to the size of your image file.
Our A3 Epson printer also had a 1440 dpi setting, meaning 1440 dots of ink per inch were laid down by the printer.
Comment by RobL posted on PRINTING HELP at 26/07/2019 - 14:44
I recently bought the 50mm f2.8 macro and as an experiment used it as the sole lens on a coast path walk, and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Very lightweight, strangely liberating not zooming in or out, just framing a nice shot by moving around a bit (I say a bit, the cliff edge was a limiting factor!) and the added bonus of close-ups. I now use it paired with a 35mm f2 lens and a 100mm macro for walkabouts if I don’t want to carry weighty gear and as all three share the same 49mm filter thread I just have one polariser and a screw-on 10 stop filter.
Comment by RobL posted on 50MM PRIME LENS OR NOT at 26/07/2019 - 09:10
At a RHS advisory day recently the guy was very knowledgeable about printing and paper, I think he works for Fotospeed but could be wrong. Anyhow he told us the optimum ppi for different printer makes, 720 being best for Epson and I use this now as default. Photo magazines state their preferences, generally 300 ppi, so maybe this is where that figure comes from. To get the best print results it is worth finding out the optimum for your own printer or from whomever is doing it for you.
Comment by RobL posted on PRINTING HELP at 26/07/2019 - 08:51
That is an amazing result, thanks for posting.
Comment by RobL posted on Reversing ring at 18/06/2019 - 14:00
On Ebay I found an original Pentax reverse adapter for £12 inc postage which turned out to be in excellent condition, so decided to have a try today - well it is Father's Day so I don't have my usual chores! It has a 49mm thread so is a fit for an SMC DFA 1:2.8 50mm macro and an HD DFA 1:2 35mm, both of which have manual aperture rings. I have just tried it on the 35mm for now as that is supposed to give greater magnification, but here is the weird thing: the focus ring makes no difference. The only way to focus is move backwards and forwards which on a tripod with a standard head is hit and miss, so for accurate and focus stacking a macro head is a must, which I don't have. Of course there is very shallow depth of field even stopped right down. Here are a couple of poppy seed heads, both at f16:
I would be interested to hear of other people's experiences with one of these.
I would be interested to hear of other people's experiences with one of these.
Comment by RobL posted on Reversing ring at 16/06/2019 - 16:19
