Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Going wild  (Read 3555 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« on: February 17, 2009, 06:26:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Some subjects just need good detail...



Assembled from 172 D3x images for DoF and resolution.

- Each frame was first DoF stacked using Helicon Focus 4.0 from 2 to 9 images,
- The resulting pano was computed with Autopano pro and ends up being 510 megapixels, with a print size of 2.5 x 1 meter at 360 DPI.

Good fun. Fortunately the D3x DR was enough to handle this scene without any bracketing.

What I find amazing with such images is that they would have been simply impossible to capture by any means until 2 or 3 years ago.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 19, 2009, 05:00:11 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Luis Argerich
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


Astrolandscaper


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2009, 06:57:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Great work Bernard,

I love this kind of detailed work, the details in your pano are amazing.

Question, have you tried tufuse to do the focus stacking?
I wonder if it will have any difference with HeliconFocus...
If you don't want to experiment and you can send me one of the stacks I can try to tufuse-it to see the results and compare with Helicon.

Cheers,
Luigi
Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2009, 11:34:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Excellent work!

How is the batch processing in Helicon?  How about ghosting, etc?

I would need to shoot 3 stop brackets to equal that dynamic range with my D2X.  There's more to the newer sensor than just the extra megapixels.
Logged
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 577



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2009, 04:40:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Holy Moley. Thank God you didn't bracket 3 - 5 stops for a HDR shot. You'd be in your grave before you finished.

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Some subjects just need good detail...



Assembled from 172 D3x images for DoF and resolution.

- Each frame was first DoF stacked using Helicon Focus 4.0 from 2 to 9 images,
- The resulting pano was computed with Autopano pro and ends up being 510 megapixels, with a print size of 2.5 x 1 meter at 360 DPI.

Good fun. Fortunately the D3x DR was enough to handle this scene without any bracketing.

What I find amazing with such images is that they would have been simply impossible to capture by any means until 2 or 3 years ago.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2009, 08:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Enda Cavanagh
Holy Moley. Thank God you didn't bracket 3 - 5 stops for a HDR shot. You'd be in your grave before you finished.

Indeed...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2009, 09:01:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: luigis
Great work Bernard,

I love this kind of detailed work, the details in your pano are amazing.

Thanks Luigi, much appreciated.

Quote from: luigis
Question, have you tried tufuse to do the focus stacking?
I wonder if it will have any difference with HeliconFocus...
If you don't want to experiment and you can send me one of the stacks I can try to tufuse-it to see the results and compare with Helicon.

Actually being on Mac, I don't have access to Tufuse, but it seems to be an interesting proposition.

Frankly speaking I am a bit busy at the moment and don't want to spend too much time investigating new solutions, but thanks for the kind proposal.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2009, 09:08:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.
Excellent work!

How is the batch processing in Helicon?  How about ghosting, etc?

Thanks. I need to investigate the batch topic more, this one was done by hand.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2009, 10:24:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I don't understand this. You're all saying it's great work, but the image is simply too small to determine whether it's great work or not. For all we know, Bernard might have botched that job. For all I know, it could be a single shot from any camera   .
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2009, 10:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Well, I don't understand this. You're all saying it's great work, but the image is simply too small to determine whether it's great work or not. For all we know, Bernard might have botched that job. For all I know, it could be a single shot from any camera   .

OK, you got me, this was shot with an early prototype of a Coolpix995.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 17, 2009, 10:27:22 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2009, 12:49:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow... congratulations!

Grave markers, I presume?

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
babel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2009, 02:53:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Tosh gents

What are we praising here Craft or Technology

What is more important in image making

The image is certainly not good craft, distortions and flare to mention but two issues

Digital is no substitute for a 5x4 and trannie

Craft must always come first in my mind

Sorry , I'm from a commercial background, interiors have standards that this image just does not meet

" NOT POSSIBLE BY ANY MEANS UNTIL TWO/THREE YEARS AGO" what did I say...Tosh....

Oops, dont mean to offend, I'm an admirer Bernard, Honest....
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2009, 09:01:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: babel
The image is certainly not good craft, distortions and flare to mention but two issues

Thanks for the comments.

I am mostly an outdoor guy and have a lot to learn. For my own education, could you please point to the areas in the image where you see distorsion and flare?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 577



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2009, 11:17:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you trying to tell me the quality of 5 x 4 is better than the top Hasselblad H3D. Not a chance. Especially with phocus.  


or
Quote from: babel
Tosh gents

What are we praising here Craft or Technology

What is more important in image making

The image is certainly not good craft, distortions and flare to mention but two issues

Digital is no substitute for a 5x4 and trannie

Craft must always come first in my mind

Sorry , I'm from a commercial background, interiors have standards that this image just does not meet

" NOT POSSIBLE BY ANY MEANS UNTIL TWO/THREE YEARS AGO" what did I say...Tosh....

Oops, dont mean to offend, I'm an admirer Bernard, Honest....
Logged

Luis Argerich
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


Astrolandscaper


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2009, 12:09:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: babel
What are we praising here Craft or Technology

Both.

Quote from: babel
What is more important in image making

A pleasing result

Quote from: babel
The image is certainly not good craft, distortions and flare to mention but two issues

Can you mention the other issues you imply please? Also point to the distortions and flares. I can't see any issue and I'd love to learn to see a photo with a better eye. Thanks!

Quote from: babel
Digital is no substitute for a 5x4 and trannie

Define "substitute"

Quote from: babel
Sorry , I'm from a commercial background, interiors have standards that this image just does not meet

What standards?

Logged

babel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2009, 12:53:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Enda Cavanagh
Are you trying to tell me the quality of 5 x 4 is better than the top Hasselblad H3D. Not a chance. Especially with phocus.  


or
Your missing the point, technology is no substitute for craft....you've answered my point by mentioning that
if you buy the expensive digital camera you need the software to correct its problems, Moire, dynamic range etc

Not to mention the high end computers to run it all

I took issue with , "only in the last few years can quality be produced", Karsh,Bresson, Adams, Penn.., et al ,never needed digital
to produce good craft
'
Over-sharpened, over-coloured, emotionless images are meritless, dont you think. Forums are full of , Oh ''I spent x number of hours
running this image through some programme"..Very clever

Defending all that time spent working at a computer is daft, the industry driving us all to a digital future ignoring the
qualities of working with film does not impress me,( simpler times....)

Your absolutely correct however, yes a Hasselblad H3D does 'emulate' the quality of  a 5x4 trannie image very well

But the camera's ability to record having to be helped by technology at and after the fact is no argument against the plate camera

Using a meter, working out the exposure is all part of the pleasure and the decisions made help make the image memorable, and off-course great artists..,this forum
is called the Art of Photography, is it not

Sure the fixes
on offer by the digital.., auto colour balance, auto focus, auto HDR, auto whatever else is useful but lazy

An apprenticeship in the 20th century methods is an asset that has no substitute to all these 'Advancements'

The prime reason for mentioning the 5x4 with its movements was to suggest that my discomfort with the image could have been
diminished

The parallel panels are leaning to the left but the floor line at the rope barrier is leaning the other way due to a lack of yawl control lacking in
a SLR

Also a tweek in the front movement would have eliminated the flare from the lights.(Top Right) or is that
a processing problem with the software, dont know...dont want to know as life is too short to be bothered
by learning all the new methods.......I would rather spend the time being envious of Bernards trips, wish I had the to make them

I'm rambling now

As they say on the TV documentary," the views expressed are solely those of the mad person making them"



Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2009, 05:33:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Swings and tilts on a view camera?  If you just got the camera in the right place to start with you wouldn't have to fool around with that level of technology!  What's wrong with an old fashioned ladder?  Or balloon?  

As I was looking at those pictures of the dying London darkrooms I was reminded just how much technology there really was involved in analog photography.  Look at the little fiddly things those guys needed to knock out a print!  The total load of technology hasn't really changed all that much with the coming of digital, of course its character is different.  I've done things the old way, I've done them the new way.  The main difference is, when I was doing things the old way I could only dream of what things might be possible, now I can actually do (many) of those.

As for a 90mm Super Angulon on a 4x5, can anybody here spell edge-aberrations and light fall-off?  In Bernard's artistic (rather than commercial) pano, every part of the super wide image is the optical sweet spot equivalent to maybe just the central 20% of the Super Angulon's field.  Just for fun I loaded Bernard's shot in PS and adjusted the perspective and brought up the exposure a bit.  Anybody who ever wore the Veil of the Black Cloth would have been proud of the result.  But honestly the orthogonal rendition did not excite my visual centers quite as much as the original mind's-eye shot.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad