Carl Warner's Images

[Harold Gough]

There is inspiration here:

http://www.carlwarner.com/warner.html

Click on Fotographics, the second square from the left (orange) on the
Home page.

This might be a bit "arty" for the present forum but it shows what can be done. For the foodscapes he photographs foreground, midground and background separately and combines them by digital manipulation. (Stacking on a grander scale than usual?).

Harold

[rjlittlefield]

This is fun stuff!

Hardly anything beats a talented artist using "brushes" that paint details by themselves while the artist concentrates on concept and composition.

Danny does some stuff like this. Wonderful images!

And very welcome in this forum, as long as they meet our size criteria.

Among Warner's images, the mushroom "trees" on a landscape of seeds would fit well here. But when a whole head of broccoli or a whole coconut is a small part of the scene, it's too big.

--Rik

[augusthouse]

Harold wrote:

This might be a bit "arty" for the present forum but it shows what can be done. For the foodscapes he photographs foreground, midground and background separately and combines them by digital manipulation. (Stacking on a grander scale than usual?).

I assume that Carl Warner is making a composite image using the three shots: foreground, midground and background and using the resulting image(s) as the base for his artwork.

Not so much "stacking on a grander scale", the granduer comes with his working of the image(s) into the final artwork.

Composite Focus improves depth-of-field. If you take a sequence of focus positions (not too many) and combine them.

'The technique involves taking a series of shots, each focused on a different part of the object. In an image-editing program they are then assembled in layers, and the out-of-focus areas of each layer removed with a soft erasing brush.

If the sequence of shots was planned and executed properly, what is left in the composite image is a set of sharp zones that fit together seamlessly. Success is all in the planning, because you cannot afford to have gaps in the sequence, and it is safer to overshoot than risk having a zone that is unsharp.This is not too complicated; but it does take a considerable amount of work.'

I would rather stack 3 images as opposed to making a composite from 3 images.

Stacking software, such as Helicon Focus or CombineZM are designed for just such a purpose and will handle sequences of hundreds of images or just a few. Imagine trying to make a composite out of 100 images manually.

I should post this question elsewhere; but at the current level of development with regard to stacking software - at what point does the pursuit of clarity begin to work against itself? Does stacking software introduce small undesirable 'elements' that at some point are multiplied and amplified by the number of images in a stack? Do we reach a point of one step forward two steps back? On second thoughts I'll re-word and post this question in a new topic.

Craig - with some help from Michael Freeman

[Harold Gough]

Harold wrote:

I assume that Carl Warner is making a composite image using the three shots: foreground, midground and background and using the resulting image(s) as the base for his artwork.

Not so much "stacking on a grander scale", the granduer comes with his working of the image(s) into the final artwork.

Composite Focus improves depth-of-field. If you take a sequence of focus positions (not too many) and combine them.

Craig - with some help from Michael Freeman

Correct

Harold