Begonia

The attached mistake of this macro was shot in 'macro' mode. I think the focus was on the leaf instead of on the flower.

 

The flower is 2 cm wide.

While sharpening and down-sizing I seemed to get some noise in my first process of this macro, so I put that one through neat image to get the attached. I no longer remember what I did to get the noise. The photo above is the original resized and just unsharpen mask and is not sharp enough, but has far less noise than my first try that I processed through Neat Image. I have much to learn about my photo editors yet. :)

Hi Maggie, is this a new lens for you? Looking at your attachment, what looks in focus to me is the records and items against the wall?? Does it switch to manual focus when in macro mode?

It looks like you've been able to maintain natural colors on the flower with this interior shot. I've just started using a true macro lens and figuring out the DOF will be interesting.

Warm Greetings, Dave

Any advise on how to sharpen in Photoshop?

Hi Dave!

 

I must try look that focus setting in macro up in my manual, but from this shot it does seem very sensitive to the focus spot, so you are probably right about that. I was very close to the flower when doing this, in fact, I got some pollen on the lens. I might have snapped the out of focus flower when it moved... maybe. :)

 

No tripod used for these shots. Hmmmmm, I should probably start using a tripod.

 

This is my fairly new Canon Powershot S3 IS. It does some pretty cool stuff. I think I will play with this little cam for a while before I go for the real thing (dslr).

Oh, come now Maggie; it's way over time for you and a DSLR!

JUST DO IT!

Dave

Yes, DAVE, you are right. The macro button is manual focus. What fun! I can experiment with selective focusing, in this mode. Now I understand why I can have a blurry subject and sharper background, or a sharp subject and blurry background. Its all a matter of precise focus. oh boy! Imagine the possibilities with a Lensbaby! Not to mention that DSLR. :)) PS: I do have a 35mm Canon. :) See my blurry dandilion in black and white. Well, somewhere in my portfolio, anyway. NOW, if I could learn your backlighting techniques, I would be in heaven.

 

CYRUS! You make me work too hard. :)) I don't understand the differences in sharpening; which tells you a lot about my opinion on sharpening. I just look at what I have done, and add more or not. ummmmmm.... But I truly need to look into this sharpening and try to understand the different degrees of sharpening. Marc G once said that Unsharpen mask should be done in increments.. like resize several times and unsharpen... but the details of it all are way beyond me.

 

Thank you both for the feedback. It has been very very helpful. Cyrus, I must re-read your information and consider the examples. Here is the original. Huge! but jpeg. I am slowly learning how to control the noise... and it is possible to control it with this S3 IS, to some degree.

 

Just as an aside: I have been reading that there is a possibility of recovering RAW from in camera jpegs. Well....... another matter to consider.

 

Also, yes, I see the sharpening in Neat Image. It just all gets to be too much. And I want to be able to do it right, in camera. Ok?

 

April 8/07 UPDATE: Since writing this comment Cyrus deleted his comment, in a dither about it not being the right image to indicate how to do sharpening or some such reason. I don't know how to delete the large photo upload with out deleting the whole comment, which I do not want to do.

Cyrus, I am intrigued by your explanation of the various frequencies--makes perfect sense as I have discovered I must approach flowers with their smoother textures much differently than the birds or animals. I'm also curious as to the best time to use unsharp mask--after image resizing for the web ? and whether doing it incrementally makes a difference as I have heard? I have not uploaded Neat Image but plan to and would appreciate any instructions on using it as a sharpening tool without affecting the background as you mentioned. I would love to supply you with a 'soft" bird image if you're up to it for a demonstration. (Just happens I have at least one "soft" shot of each variety in my portfolio....ok ok...I have hundreds...) Thanks Cyrus. Maggie, thanks for the opportunity to share this here!

"Just as an aside: I have been reading that there is a possibility of recovering RAW from in camera jpegs. Well....... another matter to consider."

 

CS3 is supposed to tackel that issue but don't expect a miracle. Just how much is compressed JEPG file can take you back to an original high content raw file, is to be seen.

You are right about your discovery. Sharpening is really an increase in local edge contrast. If you don't have mant sharp edges but have textures instead, then you may want to change your sharpening technique. By the same difinition Mary, more contrasty photos give an impression of more sharpness. AND, as you know, sharpening DOES NOT improve a missed upportunity for a sharp focus at capture time but it does give you that impression.

 

If you have a photo that you want to see if it could be sharpened, I'd be glad to have a go at it and maybe others would like to try it as well.

 

Cheers.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion MARY FRAN. Every little bit of information helps.

 

Let me know when you continue the discussion on your photo. I copy Cyrus' advice to a Word file I call CYRUS SAYS. So, this will fall into the Sharpening advice, whether it is on your photo or mine.

 

Thanks again CYRUS for making me dig deeper into the mysteries of sharpening. :)) To me, at the moment the one marked "low" looks best. Also, I sometimes use the "despeckle" thingy on the noise filter, when I get too many sharp, pointy, shiny spots turning up.

 

If I were doing this photo for show rather than for discussion, I would crop it closer, probably square and attempt selective sharpening. I must try to understand the low, high and medium frequencies stuff. That is very interesting. Look forward to more discussion and information on that. We are going to mine your mind for all the information you can give us, Cyrus. :))

 

I must contact Audrey Reid as she commented on this photo when I loaded it on another site. She said something has gone wrong on this as the flower was not sharp. She is an accomplished photographer and I see she has some recent uploads --- check by my comment on her photos if you want to get to her portfolio. I am too lazy to do that HTML thingy.

You're welcome Maggie, I've sent Cyrus two shots to select from as a demo. I too keep a file of his instructions, together we may be able to publish a book --Cyrus's Cliff Notes to the Digital Darkroom :)) I've only recently learned Elements and am at a very basic level, I can now say though that I much prefer taking pictures to editing them! Books can be overwhelming and I find these tutorials helpful as I can digest one thing at a time.

 

Yeah, we'll make him publish his stuff on line or hard copy. :)

 

I like to follow Lex Jenkins around. He always has excellent information. Here is a goody of his today from the Nikon forum:

 

"The trick is to maximize JPEG quality in the camera. Exposures must be darned near perfect, just as with Velvia. Ditto tone compensation, white balance and other factors. And I always use the second-highest sharpening setting in the camera, and add no sharpening in post processing. At least in the D2H the results are as good as any of the popular sharpening software I've tried, and much better than most. Of course, I can't speak for any other Nikon dSLR."

 

And I have turned off the sharpening in the camera after reading some time ago that you should turn it off in the camera. Mine is going back on. Lex has forgotten more stuff about photography than I will ever know.

"I must contact Audrey Reid as she commented on this photo when I loaded it on another site. She said something has gone wrong on this as the flower was not sharp."

Welcome to the world of macro where DOF could be paper thin! I looked at 100% crop and the focus on the petals are just fine, specially for an out of the camera file.The center of the flower however, is just a bit out of focus. Also yellow is a high luminusity color and light can go through, specially when over exposed and hence, give it a softer look. But I do think, you could have put your plain of focus closer to the tip of the stamens(manual focus) and that would have given you an even softer leaf in the background. How tall werer the stamens? Also, remember, you have a bigger DOF with a P+S camera than a DSLR.

I think I'm going to stop this discussion about sharpening here and do it some place else and start form the basics. Also, some friends are very new to Photoshop and I think it's going to be helpful to do it in a way so that they get to find their ways around the program as well. It's going to take some effort from every one who likes to be involved and we are going to discover layer work as well. So, if I can get involved in this then we should have a start date and do it.

LOL. typing at the same time.

 

The petals were 2 cm at the most. I measured them. The stamens were much smaller. Maybe .5 cm?

 

oh drat, and most the the macros I have been trying to do recently have yellow in them. But I must say, the my colors set to 'vivid' is dealing with these luminosity matters very nicely! The colors of these photos shot in 'vivid' are just a tiny bit saturated, but true to the real color. The flower is just a bit more delicate pink.

 

Well ... to set a date for it puts you under pressure. Why don't you start up when you have the time and are finished with any work projects. This is for fun and I, for one, do not intend to make anyone feel obliged to do anything they have no time for.

 

Going to my music to find the Stones.... Start Me Up. :))

"This is for fun and I, for one, do not intend to make anyone feel obliged to do anything they have no time for." LOL, It's for friends like you who come up with questions. I know of at least three other friends who are VERY new to PS. Therefore it is not much use explaining how to avoid much of the noise resulted from sharpening if they don't know about layer work!

 

Is this very useful discussion going to be continued someplace like the Digital Darkroom? Please leave a note if it is. Thanks.

 

ps: I love the begonia leave behind the flower! I did a shot of begonias on an old garden bench. Got all of one or two comments I think!

 

I don't think all images have to be crystal crisp. Sometimes flowers are so sharpened they look like taxonomic specimens and have no intrinsic beauty. As a botanist (once) I like to see more than clinically perfect shots. Otherwise I can just visit the herbarium.

 

This image only suffers from being too close to the flower. Back up an inch and you've nailed it. You didn't handhold this at 1/10" exposure did you? That would be amazing to get this close to focus. Great job!

Hi William, yes it is and can be found in my portfolio in a folder titled just that- "Digital Darkroom". Cyrus has been so generous with his time, as have you and so many others I decided to offer a space and some pretty bad shots (I have no pride :) for discussion. There's a lot of data and ideas being shared and I know I'm looking forward to your valuable input as well!

We decided it would be a good way to direct people when we encounter common problems and are finding there are multiple approaches that work. Some data for beginners like me, but some of the discussion is getting more advanced and in your league.

Hi WilliamThanks for joining the discussion on this begonia. Yes, I did a shot of the leaf quite a while ago and will attach it. The leaves are the real show pieces of these plants as you well know. I must get to yours, and put you on my friends list to do follow up.

With regard to sharpness -- I recently found this blog through my blogging group naturally soft I rather like how he is using the blurred elements to highlight the main subject. Very interesting stuff. I don't think Mary Fran's birds would work very well with softness, nor would Cyrus's bugs. But it is another avenue to explore in macros.

Yes, it was hand held, in super macro mode.

I have checked by the digital darkroom occasionally. I don't find too many examples of what they are talking about. It would be good if this was available in that forum. I think we could put a link to a discussion in the forum, maybe? And link of Mary Fran's discussions, or anyone else who has an ongoing discussion -- all in the same thread. Maybe that way everyone could have their individual photos assessed, yet still be within the same discussion? Here is another photo with some very good information about noise, use of ISO and sharpness Dave's Pheasant