Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: A very dead fly… (example of focus stacking)  (Read 5426 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: A very dead fly… (example of focus stacking)
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2015, 11:39:39 am »

OK,

This was a good fly. May be not a good picture of a good fly. Hopefully a good illustration of a technique capturing small creatures…

Best regards
Erik

At the risk of being non-PC, and recalling an old non-PC phrase, "The only good fly is a dead fly."
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22813
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: A very dead fly… (example of focus stacking)
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2015, 01:02:27 pm »

I rather like eronald's term "croakroach." I take it to mean a dead cockroach (i.e., one that has "croaked".)
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: A very dead fly… (example of focus stacking)
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2015, 01:31:44 pm »

I rather like eronald's term "croakroach." I take it to mean a dead cockroach (i.e., one that has "croaked".)


Eric,

Glad to see you enjoy our show here on the Pun channel :)

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

elf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
Re: A very dead fly… (example of focus stacking)
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2015, 03:17:58 am »

That lens doesn't look particularly sharp.  Is it better at longer distances expensive?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2015, 03:19:31 am by elf »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: A very dead fly… (example of focus stacking)
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2015, 06:47:08 pm »

Hi,

I stopped down the Photar to f/5.6 for this image. At f/3.5 it still shows a lot of coma. With extension the f/5.6 is probably more like F/16, so diffraction comes into play. I guess that depth is around 6 mm, and 40 slices at f/5.6 may be to few to cover depth.

many variables in that equation…

Best regards
Erik

That lens doesn't look particularly sharp.  Is it better at longer distances expensive?

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up