Sorry, I uploaded an 800x533, but dpc resized it to 640x426, degrading the image further.
Here is a link to the 800x533 version
Here is a link to the 3072x2048 version (warning: very large ~4Mb).
We should all still listen to Kate Bush.
Does it really look like nothing at all is in focus? I admit that I manually focused, but that's only because taking the shot from the floor was ideal for this particularly test.
Yeah, it's a composite of 7 images, each (manually) focused on the foreground elements (pen and 5 cds) plus hyperfocal (only approximated), all shot at 28mm f/8. The pen was the most prominent problematic element and the ghosting/out-of-focus background would require substantial editing (mostly cloning) to achieve a more seamless composite. I tinkered with some cloning on the top edge of the rightmost CD (and this is obvious in the 3072x2048 image) to remove obvious issues with the white object behind it. The effective DoF is "equivalent" to something smaller than f/64, but is quite a bit of work (2 hours). For anyone interested, you can see a list of the layer images.
I'll give it a less pedantic attempt in the field sometime. This was a(n extreme) proof of concept to use my (cheap) lens at its shortest focal length and sharpest aperture to get large DoF (even in the f/16 to f/36 range would be nice) without the visible diffraction associated with those apertures (8x10 print or larger). I'm hoping the effect will be more convincing with a composition containing fewer linear elements.
For fine macro work, I would guess that even 2 or 3 shots would yield excellent results (recalling a link that Gordon posted in another thread), but I haven't decided on a macro lens yet (recommendations welcome).
This is a similar shot I took at the weekend - two frames in this case, one providing about 90% of the image, background and flower center, and the second providing the leaf details in the immediate foreground:
Awesome work. What lens did you use and what aperture did you use for both shots?
Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens with a polariser, on a tripod for the shot.
Probably about f4 for the aperture, and manual focus, firstly on the flower edge, then on the center. The shots I took with a smaller aperture had more detail than I wanted in the background, so I just overlaid the two shots, and nudged them until they were registered correctly, ,then just painted a mask on to bring out leaf details.
Edit to answer Mags question. The background flowers were about 2 inches away from the foreground flower. It took about 2 minutes to do the edits, so I don't consider it a whole lot of work...
I just overlaid the two shots, and nudged them until they were registered correctly
Gordon, can you explain this.... I'm not sure what you mean by 'nudge' and 'register correctly'..... possibly showing a high level of ignorance here...
This was a composite of 3 shots, 1 colour and 2 b&w.
The shadow obliterated any detail so I opened up the aperture which overexposed the sun drenched area but revealed sufficient detail within the shadow. A little bit of careful erasing gave me the final result.
I just overlaid the two shots, and nudged them until they were registered correctly
Gordon, can you explain this.... I'm not sure what you mean by 'nudge' and 'register correctly'..... possibly showing a high level of ignorance here...
I noticed that on the floor, the pieces of tape are sharp, but between them is a region of floor that is less sharp. This is an interesting technique. I will have to learn more.
photo
Click to enlarge further.
