Which part of the critique do you disagree with?
In part he is confirming my earlier observation that your images are 'mushy' in parts.
Now, whether the 'mushiness' resulting from the post processing of the raw data is acceptable to you or not is your choice to make.
extreme macro of living subjects with a 2-4 mm fov 70 stacked images shot in 7 secs :-) extreme macro is whoever can get the shot wins. sorry but your comments have no meaning to a extreme macro shooter. extreme macro shooters of live subjects hve extreme setups to even try and get the shot let alone get a perfect one. imagine getting 70 precise slices that barely overlap in 1.5mm of dof .🤨do you have any idea how difficult that is. there wouldn't be a hand full of photographers in the world that have tried. mushiness well... have you ever herd of movement it just clarifies my live subjects are alive 😂😒
No, the mushiness is clearly post processing artefacts, not motion blur.
elaborate. this should be fun.
After you answer my earlier question:
Which part of Ian's critique do you disagree with and why?
I have reason to believe that image has been photoshopped. My experience is that spiders wouldn't be seen dead in a wooly hat. Their style is the Fedora.
i didn't read it, i have heard it all before , i only listen to critique if an image is posted to prove they know what they are talking about. its my policy . my galleries were my resume on dpr and i did have 750 images up till i was told to take them down.
You two are giving me an idea for a sitcom script.
now that would have looked cool 👌
i will be really quick. none of it . because you dont shoot raw . you dont use NR because your stacking 70 images ,you have to sharpen the detail because the optical position is not fixed and causes focus breathing and you have to rely on software to determine the stacking precision. note you can only stack image perfectly from a front on positing .if you want a 3d effect you need to shoot at 25 deg to the subject and guess what happens ? itas why not many can successfully shoot these images because they have not figured out the correct optical position. (microscope objective) the spiders also have hair on them and you cant stack very fine hair in 70 stacked. images
you can get lucky
If you don't shoot raw, then what are you shooting assuming you are aware that sooc jpegs come from the same raw file that raw shooters use.
imagine trying to stack 70 100 meg images . the whole process takes a full day as it is to shoot 1 of these images its not a push of the button like you imagine. i have shot flies laying live magets and then photographing them while they are jumping around and the tube egs are clear not white and you can see an unborn fly inside . thats very cool i can tell you.
this is one of my all time best images ,its a live mosquito head. at 10x
You're running away from the question again :-)
You said you didn't shoot raw, so how were the images you stacked created?
I like it.........maybe you can call it "Dumb and Dumber" 🙂 ..............................oh wait......I think that might already be taken......I'll go and check
jpegs only to shoot 10 frames per second silent shutter and stacked in zerene. i have even shot 60 hiress 80 meg images total finished image 240 megs.
jpegs only to shoot 10 frames per second silent shutter and stacked in zerene. i have even shot 60 hiress 80 meg images total finished image 240 megs.
i dont want to offend people useing m43 but some of my early work was shot with m43 and the stacking programs stack noise which is a pain in the a..s thats why shooting sony a6300 the images are so much cleaner.
