Post Processing Play Time

Message

KurtM · #1 Post by **KurtM** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:10 am

I have been busy exploring the inner workings of Zerene Stacker using the free trial version, and today decided to just go ahead and use it, Light Zone, and Paint.Net to totally cook a few images just for fun. Not saying I made a breakthrough or decided this is my new approach or any such thing, just having fun cutting loose and really putting them through the wringer. If this were stringed instruments, it would be called free form jamming to see where, if anywhere, it goes. All were originally shot through the 100x/1.25 and DIC, stacked, sharpened, otherwise tweaked, and generally abused thoroughly. The last image is untouched for comparison (except for resizing). As is true in all these cases, only stacked images can tell the whole story in single frames.

Be interested to hear your critiques, and please feel free to be merciless.

gekko · #2 Post by **gekko** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:22 am

I don't know what you've done, but for what it's worth, I found all (except the last one) very nice indeed: sharp, and they give a very "visual" 3D effect. Especially the first image: you can almost feel the texture and shape.

rnabholz · #3 Post by **rnabholz** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:39 am

I am with Gekko.

I would be pleased to call any of them mine (except maybe the last, but you showed that you know how to handle that one too)

Whatever you did, write it down, it is a pretty darn good recipe. You can use it as a base and spice to taste.

KurtM · #4 Post by **KurtM** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:58 am

Rod, better study the Retouch tool in Zerene, because you're gonna wanna be using it ... a lot! That ain't bad news either; it's actually easy to figure it out and use. What it does is combine the best of both Pmax and Dmap processes, and who can deny the awesomeness of that? Also, the How To Use It article on Dmap is well worth looking into, it's another powerful and exceedingly handy tool. Man, I'm loving Zerene, mostly because the excellent documentation is really helping me make progress quickly, and with minimum learning frustration. I hate studying, y' know; puts me to sleep.

http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/howtouseit

http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/do ... g001/index

So those images don't look overcooked to you?

McConkey · #5 Post by **McConkey** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:18 am

KurtM wrote: So those images don't look overcooked to you?

Not even close!! I think you did an excellent job here Kurt. The highlights are not burnt out, you still have detail in the brightest area's and your contrast is spot on. I strongly agree with Rod here, whatever process you did...it worked! So write it down!

Really looking forward to seeing more of your work!

c-krebs · #6 Post by **c-krebs** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:30 am

Kurt,

One thing you will find in some stacks like these is that the background can get really junky looking because you are picking up new debris from all levels and combining it all in your final image.

Try taking the "finished" image back into retouching and select a single source image with the most pleasing background. Use it to retouch all around the detailed stacked subject part of the image. The difference can be very satisfying. I think this would be the case in the #3 and #4 images you just posted.

zzffnn · #7 Post by **zzffnn** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:34 am

The first photo wowed me. What makes it so much better than other photos? Combination of a quality/flat (lucky) mount and black/clean background?

rnabholz · #8 Post by **rnabholz** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:36 am

No overcooking to be seen to my eyes.

I always watch for the halos that comes from oversharpening, no evidence of that here.

As McC says, great dynamic range, nothing burnt or blocked up.

Well played.

McConkey · #9 Post by **McConkey** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:38 am

c-krebs wrote:...Try taking the "finished" image back into retouching and select a single source image with the most pleasing background...

This is an incredibly useful method and i thank you for bringing it up again here and in a previous post! It's a hell of alot faster and easier than using the Healing Brush Tool in PS.

vasselle · #10 Post by **vasselle** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:40 am

Bonjour
Belles séries
J'aime beaucoup la première photo
Cordialement seb

c-krebs · #11 Post by **c-krebs** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:58 am

Kurt,

I took the last two images you posted and did (in Photoshop) what I suggested just earlier. Here is an animated GIF to show how much cleaner the background can look if you use just a single source image (via retouching in Zerene). I don't even know if the last "single" image you posted would have been the best choice without seeing the others but it made a significant improvement IMO. Notice how much more the viewers attention become centered on the part you want them to see rather than wandering around the picture looking at "debris".

(You had mentioned in another post that it was OK with you to post like this into your threads (for educational purposes

). If you would rather not have this let me know and I will make it disappear)

Johann · #12 Post by **Johann** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:02 am

Very nice, freestyle and play is the best way to learn.

KurtM · #13 Post by **KurtM** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:04 am

Charles, thanks again!! Agree with Karl, great tip, much better than the cloning tool, etc. Sure appreciate all your help, it's great to finally be making progress after having been more or less stuck in a rut for what seemed like ages. And YES, I expressly welcome any and all input and/or manipulation of any images I post for instructional purposes, you bet! I'll make another pass at that one tomorrow using what I have learned this evening and post the result.

Fan wrote:What makes it so much better than other photos? Combination of a quality/flat (lucky) mount and black/clean background?

Fan, wasn't luck. Stacking made everything sharp, and a lot of little manipulations in Light Zone and Paint.Net cleaned up the picture. After stacking and retouching in Zerene, I used Paint.Net to clone out background distractions. After that, over to Light Zone to adjust light levels, sharpen, and tweak saturation. The background was dark because I had the DIC prism set to max effect, and this particular diatom was bright enough to really punch through; so by the time I had the diatom exposure correctly set, the background was underexposed, and adjusting light levels further darkened it.

The other Gyrosigma shot was made with the DIC prism well to one side, with the effect being that the frustule and background were more equally lit. I did that one to make 75RR happy, lol.

billbillt · #14 Post by **billbillt** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:20 am

I am with everyone else.. All but the very last one are wonderful sharp and clear..

BillT

mrsonchus · #15 Post by **mrsonchus** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:10 am

Great examples and superbly interesting thread - well done Kurt!
The sheer pleasure of just -'going native' with the pp is to be experienced by everyone!

What a nice thread to sift through - great fun and I'm learning a lot from every such one!
Keep it up Kurt & all - it's great!

exmarine · #16 Post by **exmarine** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:02 am

Fantastic, just perfect for studying the stria, stigma, raphe and end nodule. 11 out of 10. Well done that man.

75RR · #17 Post by **75RR** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:32 pm

Very nice.

I did that one to make 75RR happy, lol.

:) :)

Everyone is giving the last image a hard time. The image is in fact innocent. This is what KurtM says in his OP:

The last image is untouched for comparison (except for resizing).

Lets give the last image a break ;)

gekko · #18 Post by **gekko** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:03 pm

75RR wrote:Very nice.
I did that one to make 75RR happy, lol.

Everyone is giving the last image a hard time. The image is in fact innocent. This is what KurtM says in his OP:
The last image is untouched for comparison (except for resizing).
Lets give the last image a break

Yes, I realized that, but I was trying to say that Kurt's expert processing resulted in a great improvement on the original image.

KurtM · #19 Post by **KurtM** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:30 pm

gekko wrote:...but I was trying to say that Kurt's expert processing resulted in...

Tut man, watch your language! 'Expert'?! I think 'daring', or perhaps better yet, 'reckless', would be the better fit.

KurtM · #20 Post by **KurtM** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:32 am

Playing with Zerene some more, trying to get good with it. Practice makes perfect, right? So for today's exciting episode, the first image contains what is probably the easiest, and the toughest, of all the diatoms as far as stacking is concerned; the Rhopalodia is absolute murder, and many liberties were taken in retouching. I could re-do this one a dozen times and still have plenty more to go, what an exasperating - I mean challenging - frustule it is! The Nitschia is child's play, but still looks pretty cool. The Navicula is always intriguing for the areolae in the striae and the challenge to image it, and this stack does the best I've managed so far in showing it. Both through the 100x. The Amphora next to it is another thoroughly rebellious form that is practically guaranteed to defy all attempts at good pictures till the day it dies. The last two are Radiolaria from Bermuda, from a Klaus Kemp slide in my collection, through the 16x. All are DIC, the weird colors are the 1st order red compensator plate.

exmarine · #21 Post by **exmarine** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:19 am

I'm impressed sir, great photography. You certainly have the processing of the subjects to perfection. More I want more!!! Nice one Kurt.

75RR · #22 Post by **75RR** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:53 am

Man, I'm loving Zerene, mostly because the excellent documentation is really helping me make progress quickly, and with minimum learning frustration.

Well that makes it official! Judging by those last 4 images reading the manuals/instructions actually helps. Who knew? ;)

By the way the 3rd one is something special.

rnabholz · #23 Post by **rnabholz** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:44 pm

Holy smokes, those are all top drawer!!

The last two are killer images.

I am going to have to sit down and do some studying, but the potential rewards are well worth the effort if I can get anywhere close to these results.

Excellent Kurt.

McConkey · #24 Post by **McConkey** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:11 pm

...I mean I guess they're ok

Great job Kurt! I'm loving the detail you are getting! How many images are in each stack?

KurtM · #25 Post by **KurtM** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:57 pm

Thanks for the comments guys, it's encouraging to hear. I stare so long and hard at these images I feel like I lose all ability to judge them after a while, kind of like how if you say a word over and over it starts sounding nonsensical. I hope that makes some kinda sense...

McConkey wrote:How many images are in each stack?

I'm glad you ask, because it brings up a question I have and am working on getting an answer to, and I'm sure has been asked a million times before: what sort of incremental focus steps should I be taking? Specifically, on something like that Radiolaria in the last couple images or the star sand shots in another thread, I can cover the entire depth of field in, say, 6 images, and get a decent looking stack. But ...

1. Will it increase or decrease quality to go ahead and make it twice as many, with lots of overlap? I don't think so, but...

2. The more images in a stack, the better stereo pairs you get, right? So if I can cover a Radiolaria in five frames, would making it ten frames help the stereo image? Radiolaria would make especially cool 3D images.

I shall perform these simple enough experiments later today since I'm pretty well stuck waiting for fiberglass to get here...

gekko · #26 Post by **gekko** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:30 pm

I love them all! Well worth the effort you put into this, I think.

MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

Post Processing Play Time

Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time

Re: Post Processing Play Time