Photocameras

All these marumi - just a waste of money, except for those who easily get them Because on the one hand-no marumi from the soap box will not make something too cool, on the other hand, flea markets are full of lenses and lenses at popular prices, which may be no worse or even better than imported ones priblud.

This is of course tin, the aperture is crazy Today I forgot what ISO200 is and the aperture is more than 5 ) And this is a small percentage of all the photos that are just made in passing, and at the same time, well, 99% of hits, I don't even remember who managed to escape )

Pictures:

P3280045.jpg — (433.79к)


P3280060.jpg — (354.77к)


P3280071.jpg — (344.94к)


P3280102.jpg — (401.92к)


P3280122.jpg — (594.11к)


P3280128.jpg — (499.49к)


P3280253.jpg — (395.6к)


P3280171.jpg — (343.97к)


P3280373.jpg — (441.91к)


P3280284.jpg — (419.1к)


P3280263.jpg — (358.42к)


P3280317.jpg — (478.8к)

For fans of "eyes"=)
Although, this does not say anything about any detail, but about sharpness-yes. These are clippings, almost all the photos from above were in full frames.
So all sorts of marumi rest, the flea market rules, well, you also need to work with your hands )

Pictures:

P32800312.jpg — (235.87к)


P3280050.jpg — (238.51к)


P3280132.jpg — (210.48к)


P32802472.jpg — (360.24к)

All these marumi are just a waste of money, except for those who get them easily

No need to drive on Marumi, quite cool glass.
Galeatus on a goose bow or something? What kind of grass is there?

No, Marumi all these-this is exactly trinkets, especially since in order to attach it to the soap dish, you still need to farm, and this is for such a price...
And the price.. one macro lens, which will never give the same magnification effect that, for example, I have now, costs so much that I could buy 4p sets for this price, one of which includes: BU fotik Olympus (working), two Industrial i11-m objects, two OP objects, and a set batteries for each set ))))) + drill and tap and multi-metal for gluing together all strays (but this is only in one copy )

For the definition of bedbug thank you, it is he who crawls on adonis.

barry, which is better in terms of quality: marumi or Reynox? At the macro club, they mostly use reinox and praise it very much. Marumi is also used, but by a smaller number of people, and it is not particularly praised or scolded.

Oh, now the bronze is much better than last time, but we can't live like this. Would you like to try out the diffuser? Do you breed Annamians?

Here I found a graph of the resolution of the Zenitar-M lens (although this picture is for a specific lens)

By the way a very interesting site http://t.hacquard.free.fr/site1/sitemap_en.html
http://t.hacquard.free.fr/site2/studio_1_en.html

In principle, the" light scattering " was just used for me, and since the paper is ordinary "bleached" printer paper, it starts to light up with a bluish tone when it flashes (from UV radiation), hence the pictures "in blue".
The subject is set inside the "circle", and when macro shooting, it turns out that the native flash is almost there and the lighting is almost circular.




Annam stick insects, do I breed them? This is probably too loudly said, I just keep them since 2011, they become less and more (for some unknown reason, although the main care happens in winter - it turns out to feed only with dry leaves).
You may have seen my diary http://myreptile.ru/forum/index.php?topic=11679.0 there is everything that I have contained and is contained.

barry, which is better in terms of quality: marumi or Reynox? At the macro club, they mostly use reinox and praise it very much. Marumi is also used, but by a smaller number of people, and at the same time they are not particularly praised or scolded.

Both are good, but I didn't really delve into the resolution, maybe there is information on the network, in theory it should be close and quite high-quality.
It's just that Marumi, as far as I know, has only one normal glass - Marumi DHG Achromat Macro-200(+5), the magnification is quite weak. And Rainox has a wide range of macro converters with different magnification levels. I'm currently working on the main set-Raynox CM-3500, three glasses (6x, 12x, 24x).
I use it on the A650 IS. The distance to the object is obtained somewhere from 3 to 20 cm.
And very rarely I use Marumi +5 on the SX30 IS, for large butterflies from a distance of 1..1.5 m.

Here is another discussion with my participation
http://macroclub.ru/club/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1646

Interestingly, judging by these tests, Jupiter and Helios are several times better than those macrolenses, despite the fact that only Jupiter-9 approaches the cost of such a lens, but everything is much cheaper, and Helios is several times cheaper. Only the focus distance is small, but this is being finalized with a file
At the same time, Raynox DCR-250 clearly gives chromatism at the edges, and marumi-blurring.

By the way, to determine the lenses by how the image blurs when they zoom in on the eye - dumb, yes, if at least a little blurry, it's no longer good, but if it doesn't blur, then it's not a fact that everything will be fine when shooting. This is especially true for all sorts of magnifying glasses, they are quite normal in my opinion. the image is given, but as attachments are not suitable.

Hierophis, stop telling the "cheap and angry" fairy tales. This doesn't happen in the photo department. And the very helios or industriar that you now admire is by no means as cheap as it seems: its price in the Soviet Union, when it was produced, is by no means as affordable.

Modern lenses are definitely better than these glasses. Usually, it's not the camera that shoots badly, but the photographer

and more. for example

Pictures:

001.jpg — (814.05к)

Well, only the reader heads were not here yet )))
As for the price, "once upon a time" Lenin was alive. And now Industriar or Helios on baoaholk for $ 3 can be bought from us, but these marumi all sorts-no, you can not.
And the fact that some imported objects are better than Helios is most likely also a fact, but, again,the difference in their quality can be measured in small numbers, and in the actual price - very large.

Canon 700d + Whale Shifter EF-S 18-55mm

This post was edited by gstalker - 03/29/2016 22: 55

Pictures:

vespa_rufa.jpg — (162к)

Canon 700d + EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Pictures:

Oryctes_nasicornis__Linnaeus__1758_.jpg — (196.62к)


g.jpg — (179.69 k)

It seems to me that for people who read this topic, it will be more useful to learn and see what someone is getting and what technical aspects exist, rather than discussing prices and availability (each of us has different opportunities).
It is clear that everyone tries to praise their own and there is no point in convincing each other, there will be no benefit from this.
The topic itself is interesting.

This post was edited by Yuriy352 - 29.03.2016 23: 12

Here's another question: what should be the optimal image size for posting on forums and in general on the Internet, I think not everyone now has 32 " monitors for viewing full-size frames and not all sites automatically reduce the published photos, and it's not very comfortable to watch a page with "corners" from images.
Who has an opinion?

I usually reduce it to 800 points on the larger side.

Well, I don't think the price and availability are also important, of course you don't need to convince me, but you need to write about how much this or that alteration or stray cost, and where to get it - too.

Well, there are some rational limits, for example, for me it is somehow dark to buy on my soap dish which costs $ 20 actually new, a nozzle priced at $ 100

Here's another question: what should be the optimal image size for posting on forums and in general on the Internet, I think not everyone now has 32 " monitors for viewing full-size frames and not all sites automatically reduce the published photos, and it's not very comfortable to watch a page with "corners" from images.
Who has an opinion?

I usually reduce it to 800 points on the larger side.

This is very relevant. There was even a voting topic about it. For example, I have a 22-inch monitor, not much and not a little, but a photo of 1500 already causes inconvenience when viewing, the page layout is lost, and I turned off auto-reduction for certain reasons.
I think up to 1000 on the top side is ideal. There may be more on the side pages, at least 2500, but this does not greatly affect the layout..

Well, I don't think the price and availability are also important, of course you don't need to convince me, but you need to write about how much this or that alteration or stray cost, and where to get it - too.

Well, there are some rational limits, for example, for me it's kind of dark to buy a $ 100 nozzle on my soap dish that costs $ 20

So I'm talking about the same thing, you can indicate the costs (for a specific area on the planet) if you want, but it's useless to argue and convince someone.

This is very relevant. There was even a voting topic about it. For example, I have a 22-inch monitor, not much and not a little, but a photo of 1500 already causes inconvenience when viewing, the page layout is lost, and I turned off auto-reduction for certain reasons.
I think up to 1000 on the top side is ideal. There may be more on the side pages, at least 2500, but this does not greatly affect the layout..

Many work from a laptop, for example, I have only 1280 in width, and you can still evaluate the photo at 1000 points.

Here is a slightly modified image (a small correction in color and contrast, as well as added sharpness, maybe even superfluous). Size 1024 on the larger side.
What I liked about the flash in the "reflector" and the "object" inside it (even though the paper is blue), the shadows under the objects are quite transparent and "do not hurt" the eye.


This post was edited by Yuriy352 - 30.03.2016 00: 52

Yury352, your shadows still cut, because the pathfinder's reflection only takes up a sector of the circle. Although this is someone who likes it better. I have almost no shadows, like under a surgical llama:



And then this is an option adapted for field shooting, in the initial shading was even more pronounced, but it turned out to be inconvenient to shoot with it - it rested on the substrate before the object came into focus. Now this problem is solved - the new version is made of finely smeared aluminum foil, rolled up between two layers of wide adhesive tape, you can bend as you want.

rhopalocera.com I'm sorry, but the moth came out very mediocre. For comparison, look at the field photos of Anuras and NakaRB. And on a fixed material, it should be much better. So, obviously, you still do not have enough "expensive and good-natured", quite so at the level of the best attempts of Pan Stepovoi with his junk nozzle. I'm talking about the resolution, I don't understand anything about tone transitions and range widths. Of course, I would have been worse off, but the investment is incommensurable. This conversation reminds me more and more of a lively discussion that I once had on a Ukrainian forum on the topic of fishing gear.

  
Well, there are some rational limits, for example, for me it's kind of dark to buy a $ 100 nozzle on my soap dish that costs $ 20

Here yes-everyone decides for himself. For example, the Raynox CM-3500 is very convenient for me, three lenses in one bottle cover virtually the entire required shooting range.
The same Helios-44 is bulky and with a fairly strong magnification, it will not work for large insects. He also needs his own specific mount. Although Raynox, although it has its own on the springs, I still peretachival itself under the threaded sleeve, I do not like that it falls off. Once even lost, but successfully... The next day I found it. It's a good thing that it happened in a Forest Park near the house, and not somewhere on a long trip.
Again, you can search for something else that is suitable and cheap in the markets for months, and depending on where someone lives, what is the availability.

Well, now on the Internet flea markets almost everything is there, but there is a minus-you will not see what and how, when I went to buy my industriar, I applied various objects to the camera, since we have a lot of them taken out, and picked up what I liked. On the Internet flea market only by name..

By the way, I recommend I-11M, but this is only as a macro attachment for a zoom camera, with a zoom of at least more than 5X and preferably 10-15. At 10X zoom, the minimum focus distance is approx. 45 cm and a frame field of 3 cm, that is, almost 1:1 for film cameras. And of course, this scale can be reduced by simply reducing the zoom.
After throwing out the excess weight, his weight decreases by 60 grams, his total weight is 230 g, and then 170.
And the shooting distance is very important, now I just remember how I used to suffer with shy animals, and now you just come up and sit down not even completely, clicked three times and went on )
Distance is one of the most important advantages.
With such a nozzle, photographing becomes "transparent", it does not take time, and nerves) although, sometimes of course I would like a longer distance, but then too much loss is obtained and shutter speeds of less than 500 are almost not suitable

Photos only through I-11M, with different zoom levels..

Pictures:

P3290384.jpg — (448.22к)


P3280080.jpg — (390к)


P3280093.jpg — (345.29к)


P3280117.jpg — (376.21к)

Every month's ass is in focus, keep it up! True, makrushniki in the absence of alternatives usually try to put it in the eyes, but this is someone who likes it better. And why not a single insect in the world has not yet been removed, for example, the same buzzer? With an afocal nozzle, this should be a no-brainer.

This post was edited by ENO-30.03.2016 21: 25

Today I have achieved perfection in redirecting the flash light as per my taste:









All are complete frames without any processing. A spider is most likely an Araneus diadematus that has recently emerged from its egg cocoon( or maybe some other crossbeam), imagine its size. The front sight, the one that is not hollow, is generally one and a half or two millimeters long. Polleniya, by the way, also some kind of small, 5-6 millimeters, before I did not come across such. Agree, if you do not zoom in, it looks quite glamorous and not at all soapy. But here it is worth starting to turn the wheel... How creepy is the soapbox matrix matrix in a compartment with a camera zhpegom! And this is at ISO 80, that is, the best possible. My matrix is already a veteran, but at the very beginning it was almost as noisy against a uniform background, for example, I was initially annoyed by the way this camera shoots the sky. And with the magnifying glass, there is a lot more blurry in the frame, which makes the noise even more unnerving. Still, probably, a really artistic macro on a soap dish is an unrealistic task, at least do not attach any optical stray to it. Pan "forgot about ISO200", by the way, the noise will be even sharper. That is, the whole and its "heavy R & D" in order to "surpass watering cans" are empty. Without the DSLR matrix, artistic goals cannot be achieved in any way. And he will eventually have to put up with buying and dragging around the fields in many ways an extra piece of iron with a motor and a huge piece of glass. I wonder why they didn't think to replace this terrible pentaprism with a second small and light matrix. In this scenario, you can also do without a mirror - the weight and dimensions will decrease significantly. On the second matrix, in addition to aiming, you can also shoot many hours of video and generally rape as soon as you want, and save the main one only for solemn especially important artistic shots. How do you like the idea?

This post was edited by ENO-30.03.2016 23: 23

This morning it was sunny, by noon +15, I think I'll go out now and cut so many stacks that it will be enough to drain for the rest of my life.And figs to you, only I for borog, as the sky was sharply covered with clouds and the wind blew, stashno swaying the flowers, on which there were still belated bees. At first, I tried shooting at ISO 200 in between gusts of wind. The result, to put it mildly, is not very good:







And even the most successful pictures, most of them were completely ruined by the wiggle.

Again, I had to screw on the reflector and puff, but the result was worth it:






It is especially convenient to shoot on willow branches - you do not need to bend down.

[attachm
entid()=258297]

But with larger objects, everything is not so rosy, for example, in order to fit at least most of the bumblebee uterus into the frame, I had to remove the schum altogether, as a result, vignetting and terrible aberrations along the edge appeared:



Still, it is better to take pictures of such hefty animals without any attachment lenses:



The second problem is the capacitor recharge interval, when it is fashionable to forget about cutting a stack of pictures of someone who is moving at least a little. Even bees that were completely asleep due to bad weather woke up from the first puff. Only for one, we managed to suffer two two-frame stacks of c with a noticeable dip in the middle. Just for fun, I'll try to sew it later, although I strongly doubt the result. It should be concluded: the bundle "soap dish + macro lens + vspyshka + stacking + live insect", with rare exceptions, does not work. I didn't mention the exception by accident: I made a very good stack with a live scoop that week by turning the camera lens strictly down on a tripod and then twisting the handle. The secret was that the dustpan had just emerged from its chrysalis and was drying almost motionless. But the stitching of the hands will not soon reach, still there are as many as 28 frames, while not everything is in order (twisted back and forth), and the butterfly still moved the mouthpiece a little.

And yes, as in the previous post, this time there were no gimpozhops.

This post was edited by ENO - 31.03.2016 21: 14

Pictures:

______730.jpg — (649.62к)

It was overcast yesterday. a light rain that made the grass tremble. But nevertheless, I basically took a picture without a flash, oddly enough, something watchable turned out.

Plutella xylostella somehow turned out to be better than the bee, although smaller... as it seems to me. And I think sometimes you can take pictures from a tripod, at least the simplest, if it adds up ситуация.
РЅ. Take a look in the PM...

Oh, so it's still definable! Thank you. And what exactly turned out better than the bee and which one of them? The initial two frames or the final result of shamanism? In fact, as for me, it came out badly: a wiggle + a small defocus + a raised ISO due to bad weather, and even not a single frame, so that both the head with antennae and the wing in a relatively sharp form fit in it at the same time. With bees, everything is almost perfect (as for this equipment). The only drawback: I forgot to set the compression level of the chamber zhpeg to a minimum, it remained at an average level. And if you look very carefully, you can notice quite large square blocks of pixels. And after deconval-ution, which was applied to the moth at the initial stage of kamlyaniya, they appeared very clearly, so I had to do so unloved resize. But the outlines of the scales also appeared. Today I will try to shoot in maximum quality, see what changes.

By the way, I shot the moth yesterday with a flash. However, I don't know if it's the same type or already different, I don't have a foot in them at all. But the angle is less successful, the light is a little too much, and the focus is not perfect. But since you know a lot about moles, I'll lay it out:



From processing, only a small crop.

Regarding the tripod, not everything is so simple. With the head that stands on mine, it is impossible to move the camera back and forth for stacking. Only up to the bottom. But few people will sit still when such a system unfolds above them at the zenith. And to carry a tripod with you, fold and unfold to make just one frame, which will obviously be worse (for my taste) than a similar frame taken with a flash, somehow not hunting. You will also need to try to make a sunlight reflector in the form of a collecting mirror. In theory, this can help in cloudy weather to get rid of the limitation of the "rate of fire" associated with the flash. I already have LED lighting, but it turned out to be weak for the photo, an acceptable result is obtained only at long exposures, and the spectrum leaves much to be desired. I decided to leave this option only for video shooting in a very dark time.

I looked in the personal account, there are 10(!) duplicates of one letter from a terribly frightened lady with a question about the crawling of bedbugs, which she stubbornly calls beetles, in her ears and nothing more.

Here is what we managed to collect from three not quite aligned shots taken on the last day of March:



Too bad, my head, for example, remained in the abyss. In general, field stacking with a flash with a soap dish, as I said, is not very realistic. But as yesterday's experience showed, without a flash on a sunny day, things are no better: bees on flowers are so mobile that even the speed of two frames per second is not enough to cut a high-quality stack. They're just bad objects for stacking. That's when bees rest motionless, for example, they sleep with a blade of grass clamped in their mandibles, you can try it. But it is not for nothing that the request "stacking" is Googled, mainly, photos of flies, beetles, spiders and other creatures prone to frequent and prolonged immobility.

Even today's photo hunt was very hindered by a strong wind. The willow branches were shaking. The option of holding them with my hand also turned out to be difficult: if I grabbed far from the photographed point, the branch still continued to move, only instead of a sweeping wobble, a small tremor was obtained, which did not really save the situation. And when you try to take as fashionable as possible closer to the bee, it either got scared and flew away or... In general, without repeatedly stung fingers, small halictids burn quite noticeably, like the floor of a sheet. And there were several dozen of them on each branch, while you keep your eyes on the subject, on the camera display, and the second hand, trying to grab a branch in the right place, almost always runs into at least one, and they don't like it. But with grief on the sexes something nasnimal. At first, I set ISO 100, but it seemed to me (rather at the level of intuition, since you can't see anything on the poor screen of the A550 fig) that there was movement in the pictures. Switched to ISO 200, despite the clearest sun. As the subsequent viewing on the screen of the monitor showed, the wiggle was present in both cases. Still, I could not overcome the movement of branches under the gusts of wind. Only the pictures of the insects that had landed on my arm were completely blurry. Apparently, I don't have Parkinson's yet. But with the rest, everything was not so terrible, I passed them through SmartDeblur, and thus saved almost everything. True, at the cost of a noticeable increase in noise, which is already terrible at ISO 200. I didn't put any pressure on it, because these are primarily not works of art, but scientific material, God forbid even one hair should be cut off, let it stay that way.












[attachmentid()=258370]







Another problem remained unresolved: if all the small things fit in a full frame, then larger insects do not. And if, in order to accommodate a huge bumblebee uterus, it is difficult to come up with anything other than a regular pseudo-macro, then for objects the size of melphera, you will obviously have to get a weaker lens, at the same time the GRIP will grow, however, only at the cost of a drop in resolution. But so far they have also been removed without a nozzle:




This post was edited by ENO - 02.04.2016 16: 35

Pictures:

______765.jpg — (179.17к)


______766.jpg — (282.05к)


______769.jpg — (399.97 k)


______787.jpg — (325.47к)

Dear sirs, the technical topic has turned into a photo gallery, nothing is clear, huge pictures, photo evidence of "who has the best"! Sadly.

In my opinion, it was much sadder when there were almost no photos in this topic. Discussing cameras without taking pictures of them is like trying out fishing gear in an apartment: the theory is clear, but how it will fit in with practice is a big question. Only by comparing photos can you discover such seemingly non-obvious facts as the fact that a diffuse flash gives a picture richer in morphological details and more pleasant to the eye than natural sunlight, and you can programmatically make a candy out of photos damaged by a wig and defocus. Why are they big? So because if there are clear small details in the photo of an insect, I think it's just criminal to make a killer resize. The forum accepts images almost without restrictions (or rather, with purely nominal restrictions), it would not be wise not to use this truly unique opportunity. In addition, many of the flooded images will still be useful to me in other topics.

Dear sirs, the technical topic has turned into a photo gallery, nothing is clear, huge pictures, photo evidence of "who has the best"! Sadly.

This is more in the field of culture and education )) Well, people don't understand that tapestries with a size of 1500 on the big side are terrible just for this reason, not to mention other nuances ) Although I personally can't see them by default

I'm just wondering why Ezox's images have very poor detail, color saturation, and contrast when sharpened.
The object there is of course very dark, with a 4x zoom, the aperture drops from 2.6 to f5. 5 at the far position, of course this is not small,but still.. I would certainly like to look at the result with the "correct" lens, how much what affects

Well, where does the detail go, I have already "found out" Examples of images with different cameras-Olik SP510, Olik C-480 and mobile phone Diamond, and in the last two cases - a double compensated lens with a diameter of 2.5 cm, from the MBS eyepiece, that is, "from the microscope", if you look through it, then it is quite normal, but if to take a picture, distortions get out.

Pictures:

SP510.jpg — (375.36к)


C480_.jpg — (357.34к)


C480.jpg — (342.03к)


SP510_.jpg — (380.77к)


Diamond.jpg — (652.27 k)

Now, if you make an analysis, try - the lens from the microscope that I used for shooting on the Olympus S-480 camera has a power of about 20 diopters and two-way illumination, consists of two lenses glued together.
Olympus S-480 has a F5 aperture at a zoom of 3X (114mm in eq.), which was used for shooting, that is, the object there is even darker than on the Canon A540, there is 5.5 at 4X(which is not surprising, the outer diameter of the lens is less than 1 cm, compared to the SP510 frame, the outer lens diameter is 4 cm, with a zoom of 10X, the aperture is f3. 7, with an initial value of 2.8

At the same time, everyone, the photos have a pretty good brightness, comparable to the SP510, although the distortion introduced by the lens is high, and the overall detail is at zero.
So the same lenses are special, from microscopes and objects, steering

Disordered stream of consciousness. Where is Pan's lens, and where is the camera? Was I too lazy to sign it? The only thing I understood: in the first case, even without the "lens from the microscope", the palette of baidishchi is "more acidic" (unnaturally), and in the last two, on the contrary, it is unnaturally dull. Counting colors (although resizing is a thankless task) this confirms. I don't know about the number of colors, but the height of my kenon would be something in between, closer to what I see with the naked eye. So what does this have to do with special lenses? The last photo is especially creepy, the backlighting is terrible, although it seems that there is no place for it to be especially. But if this is a mobile phone, then what can you do with it?

About zoom and the A540-the stream of consciousness is even less coherent. It seems that Pan said that his kayak has the maximum aperture at maximum zoom and at the same time higher than mine? I can even give you a quote. And another thing: I have written more than once and not in the same topic, then I have A5 5 0

But all these minor technical issues fade before the main one: where are the new mega-images? I can't believe that Pan hasn't done one in the past three days. It must be creepy out there.

Here I also tried to take pictures of small flowers: Canon 700d + EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Pictures:

Bellis_perennis.jpg — (68.37к)


Veronica_hederifolia1.jpg — (132.63к)

Very nice, but IMHO with the first one you should make a smaller resize and more crop, the descendant like small flowers-this is just what turns yellow in the middle. And another immodest question: what is that fat dark border around the outer edge of the tabs? Is this an optical effect or a Photoshop artifact?

Here, by the way, on the theme of flowers mother-and-stepmother:



Contrary to my custom, this is a resize, since the photo was intended for illustration in the botanical section, and not for determining or demonstrating the capabilities of the equipment. I won't fill in the same full-size image. Stack of, if memory serves, 5 frames..

This post was edited by ENO-02.04.2016 23: 46

Yes, the weight of the object is 600g, 15 lenses, cool ) And where are the specks on the images from, is there really garbage on the lenses? Although in theory it should not be displayed, then on the matrix.

Very nice, but IMHO with the first one you should make a smaller resize and more crop, the descendant like small flowers-this is just what turns yellow in the middle. And another immodest question: what is that fat dark border around the outer edge of the tabs? Is this an optical effect or a Photoshop artifact?

Here, by the way, on the theme of flowers mother-and-stepmother:



Contrary to my custom, this is a resize, since the photo was intended for illustration in the botanical section, and not for determining or demonstrating the capabilities of the equipment. I won't fill in the same full-size image. Stack of, if memory serves, 5 frames..

Thanks ! Border yes - this is the effect of stacking in my opinion about 15 frames ... by the way, I noticed that the result of stitching stacks with different programs is different . I use Photoshop , Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker after stitching, I choose the result I like best...
Oh, yes ! I took a picture of the whole flower for identification ..

This post was edited by gstalker - 03.04.2016 00: 22

In Helikon, if I'm not mistaken, there are three modes (plus several sliders), in Zerene - two, in Photoshop one, but slow. In CombineZP, you can run 6 methods at once with one macro, but they say it's better to do this before going to bed, and in the morning you can already analyze the results. On a full automatic machine, it is almost impossible to sew perfectly. You always need to manually finish it later. By the way, I also didn't bring this mother-and-stepmother to mind in some places in the corners, I'll have to fix it a little. The essence of manual debugging is as follows. that after automatic stacking, you need to save all aligned frames and open them as layers in the image editor. Next, we look at what turned out better on one and the other layers than on the result and wipe in these places. We reduce two layers and repeat with the third and so on until one stops. Pedants should limit themselves to pre-alignment, and then draw everything manually to a state of complete catharsis. They say that in previous versions of Photoshop it was only done in this way

This post was edited by ENO-03.04.2016 00: 22