Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mushrooms on Tree Trunk  (Read 1861 times)
dalethorn
Guest
« on: May 22, 2009, 10:23:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope I don't get killed on this one - the original had a camera-shake blur effect, and I worked on this for quite awhile to hide as much of that as I could. Normally I would have several captures from the session, and pick the sharpest and clearest to save, and for reasons I couldn't predict, this was the best (or least offensive) of the lot.  There might be a way to further sharpen this without exaggerating the existing blur, but so far I haven't found it.
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5791



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2009, 01:02:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, the poison ivy is a nice touch!

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
AndrewKulin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2009, 06:13:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: wolfnowl
Well, the poison ivy is a nice touch!

Mike.

If Dale touched any, he may beg to differ.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2009, 07:08:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: wolfnowl
Well, the poison ivy is a nice touch!

Especially when used as field-expedient bathroom tissue...

IMO this image's technical shortcomings outweigh its aesthetic merits. The headache I get from the blur outweighs any positive response the image might have gotten otherwise. Try reshooting with the aid of a tripod, and frame more tightly so that less cropping is necessary.
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2009, 08:27:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: AndrewKulin
If Dale touched any, he may beg to differ.

By pure luck, I didn't.  I wonder whether poison ivy comes in different configurations, since the photos I've seen in books differ, and usually don't match what's in the forests.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2009, 08:32:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
IMO this image's technical shortcomings outweigh its aesthetic merits.

That may well be the case.  I've had a lot of experience fixing bad images, and things like this are an interesting challenge for me, for practice if nothing else.  I'm sure I can print it at approx. 5x7 in., and display at arm's length for wall filler.  It's good to keep a few of these around as reminders in any case.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6416



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2009, 11:51:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
There might be a way to further sharpen this without exaggerating the existing blur, but so far I haven't found it.

Dale, Actually, there's a simple solution: grab a tripod and go back and re-shoot it. Unlike people on the street, fungi don't usually walk off.
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2009, 03:50:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Dale, Actually, there's a simple solution: grab a tripod and go back and re-shoot it. Unlike people on the street, fungi don't usually walk off.

I wonder if the problem occurred because the camera was well stabilized on the monopod, yet the IS was on on the camera. There shouldn't be a problem shooting something like this handheld in the middle of the day, with a good IS lens (Panasonic), an effective focal length of 90 mm, and a shutter speed of 1/100 second. Even without IS/VR that should work.
Logged
John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1037


« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2009, 04:25:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
I wonder if the problem occurred because the camera was well stabilized on the monopod, yet the IS was on on the camera. There shouldn't be a problem shooting something like this handheld in the middle of the day, with a good IS lens (Panasonic), an effective focal length of 90 mm, and a shutter speed of 1/100 second. Even without IS/VR that should work.
Interesting observation. In my experience having the "shake reduction" on when using a tripod does indeed cause the image to go blurry. I have tried this many times using a tripod and couldn't quite figure out what was going on. I bought a cable release and still blurry images. I finally got some feedback on the Pentax site and read the manual which does indeed indicate that one should turn off the 'shake reduction if using a tripod. Of course, like you, I often get up in the moment and forget!

JMR
Logged
AndrewKulin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2009, 07:56:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R
Interesting observation. In my experience having the "shake reduction" on when using a tripod does indeed cause the image to go blurry. I have tried this many times using a tripod and couldn't quite figure out what was going on. I bought a cable release and still blurry images. I finally got some feedback on the Pentax site and read the manual which does indeed indicate that one should turn off the 'shake reduction if using a tripod. Of course, like you, I often get up in the moment and forget!

JMR

I really noticed this effect once with my 17-55/2.8 mounted on a tripod and using the live view zoomed in (10x).  I was wondering why the image was moving around (not shaking but rather drifting around).  When I examined the camera I saw IS was on, turned it off and the drifting stopped.  And I think (would have to check canon site or lens "manual") that the 17-55/2.8 generation of IS is supposed to be advanced enough iteration that it can be used on a tripod.  Apparently not.

Andrew
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad