First image stack

ColMofedColMofed Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
edited April 10, 2008 in Holy Macro
Had a go at stacking an image of a dead & dusty woodlouse this evening. Followed the first part of the tutorial from Brian and was pleasantly surprised with the result. I was expecting something far more obscure :)

original.jpg

Rod.
Rod
Bristol, UK.

Comments

  • Lord VetinariLord Vetinari Registered Users Posts: 15,901 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2008
    Looks like it worked very well :) - good practice stack :)

    One thing to beware of with image stacks is that you don't stack too far.
    AFAIK the eye/brain uses OOF areas in photos to judge depth and if there aren't any then the subject can look very flat.

    Brian V.
    Brian V.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
    http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
  • ColMofedColMofed Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
    edited April 9, 2008
    Lord Vetinari wrote:
    One thing to beware of with image stacks is that you don't stack too far.
    AFAIK the eye/brain uses OOF areas in photos to judge depth and if there aren't any then the subject can look very flat.

    Brian V.

    Thank you Brian.

    When you say 'don't stack too far', do you mean, for instance, I should have left more of the rear end OOF? Or do you mean something else?

    Grateful for your input.

    Rod.
    Rod
    Bristol, UK.
  • GOLDENORFEGOLDENORFE Super Moderators Posts: 4,747 moderator
    edited April 9, 2008
    very good stack clap.gif , yes brian does mean having the back part of subject slightly oof. it makes image look more natural in appearance.
    that is correct isnt it brian?

    phil.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldenorfe/
    Phil

    moderator - Holy Macro
    Goldenorfe’s Flickr Gallery
    Goldenorfe photography on Smugmug
    Phils Photographic Adventures Blog
  • SkippySkippy Registered Users Posts: 12,075 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2008
    ColMofed wrote:
    Had a go at stacking an image of a dead & dusty woodlouse this evening. Followed the first part of the tutorial from Brian and was pleasantly surprised with the result. I was expecting something far more obscure :)

    Rod.

    The dust and fibres really shows up.
    How many images did you use in your stack?
    Looks like they lined up nicely for you.

    Well done Rod thumb.gif .... Skippy :D

    .
    .
    Skippy (Australia) - Moderator of "HOLY MACRO" and "OTHER COOL SHOTS"

    ALBUM http://ozzieskip.smugmug.com/

    :skippy Everyone has the right to be stupid, but some people just abuse the privilege :dgrin
  • ColMofedColMofed Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
    edited April 10, 2008
    Thanks Phil & Skippy.

    I used 8 images for this and they did seem to line up nicely :)

    Will have a go at a manual stack next, as in the second part of Brian's tutorial. Will also try for a more natural look as mentioned above.

    Rod.
    Rod
    Bristol, UK.
  • Lord VetinariLord Vetinari Registered Users Posts: 15,901 Major grins
    edited April 10, 2008
    GOLDENORFE wrote:
    very good stack clap.gif , yes brian does mean having the back part of subject slightly oof. it makes image look more natural in appearance.
    that is correct isnt it brian?

    phil.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldenorfe/

    Yes - not so important perhaps with this subject but flowers can look very odd if they are completly all in focus, just something to think about when do focus stacks.
    Brian V.
    Brian V.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
    http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
Sign In or Register to comment.