Northern White Tailed Queen Bee Perched On JML Optics 21mm f/3.5

THIRTYFIVEMILL

THIRTYFIVEMILL

Messages
4,567
Name
Duncan
Edit My Images
No
bees-4.png


My first attempt at an image stack (10 images) in Zerene Stacker.

Northern White Tailed Bee Perched On JML Optics 21mm f/3.5
 
•


Too small, Duncan, to really appreciate your work!
 
•


In terms of rendition, the shot is spectacular but it
is the stacking I wanted to have a closer look to.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


In terms of rendition, the shot is spectacular but it
is the stacking I wanted to have a closer look to.
Click to expand...

Ahh.. TBH, I could have got away without stacking this one but I had the shots and it did make a difference so I went with it. Good to practise but I'll start with some much more magnified shots soon.
 
Hi Dunc, was this queen alive as they don't normally stop long enough for one shot let alone 10.
Looks like a great stack.
 
Graham said:
Hi Dunc, was this queen alive as they don't normally stop long enough for one shot let alone 10.
Looks like a great stack.
Click to expand...

Ahh, now that was the real skill of this shot, @Graham . Firstly, teaching it to speak English and then how to sit still for 10 minutes. :D

Nah, it was dead as a doornail and took quite a bit of patience to get it to balance just so! :wideyed:
 
Last edited:
Very cool! This is a great image to represent Macro photography in general (given some artistic license of course!)
 
WingTsun said:
Thanks Neil. Hmm.. possibly. Let me see if I have those files saved, Neil. Do you mean the final output file from Zerene?
Click to expand...

Just your final image Dunc, it's just a pity we can't see the finer details in the size posted, as it looks very well done, I take it your using a rail? Also lighting looks excellent is it off camera / studio light or is this your field set up?
 
Neil Burnell said:
Just your final image Dunc, it's just a pity we can't see the finer details in the size posted, as it looks very well done, I take it your using a rail? Also lighting looks excellent is it off camera / studio light or is this your field set up?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Neil, this is generally the output size I use for my blog, so I normally size to 1024 pixels wide before commencing the final PP. I might change that with future images as I may print some on canvas eventually. I can say that this image took a LOT of work processing. The bee was covered in dust, so was the lens. The lens had a few reflections I didn't really like and the background was dodgy. I had to clean and work on it for probably a good 90-120 minutes in total. Give me a minute and I'll post a link to the original Zerene output file. It'll show you what I started with. :wacky:
 
WingTsun said:
Unfortunately, Neil, this is generally the output size I use for my blog, so I normally size to 1024 pixels wide before commencing the final PP. I might change that with future images as I may print some on canvas eventually. I can say that this image took a LOT of work processing. The bee was covered in dust, so was the lens. The lens had a few reflections I didn't really like and the background was dodgy. I had to clean and work on it for probably a good 90-120 minutes in total. Give me a minute and I'll post a link to the original Zerene output file. It'll show you what I started with. :wacky:
Click to expand...

Always worth keeping the original size images, especially on something like this, hard drives are so cheap these days so worth getting one for storage.
 
Neil, HERE'S a jpeg copy of the original Zerene output file. Click on the link "Queen Bee" on the resulting page. The lighting was my home studio set-up. I used a couple of side lights. The shot was set up on my small diffuser stand inside the main light box. You've seen a pic of that setup, right? Looks like this:

LIGHTING-L-1-1.png
 
Neil Burnell said:
Always worth keeping the original size images, especially on something like this, hard drives are so cheap these days so worth getting one for storage.
Click to expand...

I've got a Synology external HD, Neil. I have copies of all the original images that went into the stack and the final stacked file but I then PP at a reduced size and whip it straight up to my blog. The FP images on my blog are optimised to 774 pixels wide. Click on them and you get the larger 1024 file.
 
What material is the diffuser in that set up Dunc? Very interested as need to set something up for food shots, was going to go down frosted perspex route but it's expensive in the size I need, also looked at tracing paper rolls.
 
Neil Burnell said:
What material is the diffuser in that set up Dunc? Very interested as need to set something up for food shots, was going to go down frosted perspex route but it's expensive in the size I need, also looked at tracing paper rolls.
Click to expand...

It's frosted acrylic. I sat down and designed it as I wanted something I could pack flat. It comes apart into 5 pieces. I then emailed the design to a company and they made it for me. It's 60 x 60 x 60cm internal. 3mm frosted acrylic. Cost was £166 shipped all in.

I had them do the small diffuser/stand for me at the same time. That was £30. It's not cheap but the diffusion of light is the best I've ever tried after many tents and differing setups.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
TimmyG said:
Have you discovered Zerene's editing tools as yet? There's a section on the bee (the blobby area on the tail) that you can tidy up in Zerene before exporting. It's a bit confusing at first, but then simple when you get the hang of it.

Here's some further info:
http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/videotutorials/retouching001/index
Click to expand...

Do you know what, that's the first time I've noticed that!! No, I haven't studied the editing tools in depth, yet. I'm going to though and might eventually re-work that image. I resized it to 1024 pretty much straight out of the stacker and part way through the PP I was wondering what caused that little area to look almost blown.

What would have caused that, Tim?
 
Last edited:
WingTsun said:
Interestingly, I used DMap on the first stack. This time I used PMAX and those blobs are not present. Very helpful, Tim but you've probably just cost me another 2 hours work. :D
Click to expand...
lol, sorry. Yes it's an artifact of the D-Map process, and I'm sorry to say there isn't a single solution to a perfect stack. I tend to use the "both" options when running a stack, and then use the retouching tool to take advantage of the best features of both D-MAP and P-MAX (I tend to find D-MAX produces better overall detail but you do get these kind of artifacts) and P-MAX has better edge contrast, but introduces noise. There is another guide on how to use both outputs on that site if you can find it, and it also explains the differences between outputs better.

Apologies again, but I assume you want the best output you can get :p
 
TimmyG said:
lol, sorry. Yes it's an artifact of the D-Map process, and I'm sorry to say there isn't a single solution to a perfect stack. I tend to use the "both" options when running a stack, and then use the retouching tool to take advantage of the best features of both D-MAP and P-MAX (I tend to find D-MAX produces better overall detail but you do get these kind of artifacts) and P-MAX has better edge contrast, but introduces noise. There is another guide on how to use both outputs on that site if you can find it, and it also explains the differences between outputs better.

Apologies again, but I assume you want the best output you can get :p
Click to expand...

Tim, I'm compulsive with my images, to the point where I correct things the eye can't even see. And therein lies hours of problems for me. :D Don't worry, I like to fully understand what I'm doing and this has been a brilliant exercise in helping me along the way. Many thanks!
 
Just to add the cause is likely due to the settings used for the D-MAP where you mask out the background (the slider that changes the amount of black on the flat areas). That patch must have been pretty flat and white, lacking in detail so it's been picked up by that slider and interpreted as background. It's not that you've done anything wrong, it's just a necessary compromise with the selection for the subject/background areas. As long as only small areas of the subject are masked in black you are doing it correctly and they just need finishing off with the retouching tool after the stack is complete.

WingTsun said:
I'm compulsive with my images, to the point where I correct things the eye can't even see.
Click to expand...
I assumed as much ;) The results clearly show the time and effort you spend with your images (y)
 
I'm curious as to why you don't do your post processing full size then output at whatever size you want to use for a particular purpose, with appropriate output sharpening. That way you can use the same (pre-resize and output sharpen) post processed image for your blog and for printing, and for any other purpose that comes along. I would have thought you would (sometimes at least) get better results that way anyway, even for small output sizes, because the processing tools would have (? 16 times or so) more information to work on, and quite possibly (I'm guessing here) reducing some risks such as posterisation. I can't remember what software you are using, but FWIW that is Lightroom's standard approach (final stage is an "Export" to a particular size with one of three levels of output sharpening for each of screen, matte paper and glossy paper).
 
GardenersHelper said:
I'm curious as to why you don't do your post processing full size then output at whatever size you want to use for a particular purpose, with appropriate output sharpening. That way you can use the same (pre-resize and output sharpen) post processed image for your blog and for printing, and for any other purpose that comes along. I would have thought you would (sometimes at least) get better results that way anyway, even for small output sizes, because the processing tools would have (? 16 times or so) more information to work on, and quite possibly (I'm guessing here) reducing some risks such as posterisation. I can't remember what software you are using, but FWIW that is Lightroom's standard approach (final stage is an "Export" to a particular size with one of three levels of output sharpening for each of screen, matte paper and glossy paper).
Click to expand...

Nick, that's exactly what I'm going to do from here on out. I spent most of my life travelling and lived in over 40 countries in 20 years. Everything I learnt with my peripheral hobbies was self taught and from forums like these, so I have many "bad" habits. Editing at full-size makes much more sense on these kind of images so that's what I'll be doing now. You live and learn and you're not living if you're not learning! :D In fairness, it worked before as I only ever displayed my work on the net.
 
Superb work
Unusual to perch it on a lens like that but it works really well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top