Red Columbine alternative versions

Discussion forum for Tawbaware's TuFuse and TuFuse Pro software
Post Reply
dsjtecserv
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Red Columbine alternative versions

Post by dsjtecserv » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:16 pm

Incidentally, I just finished these two versions of a focus-fused Red Columbine. The only difference is in the number of focus planes I included n the fusion. I kind of like the additional impression of depth that the semi-focused version seems to impart. What do you folks think?

Image

Image

Dave

aaronpriest
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Maine, USA
Contact:

Post by aaronpriest » Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:25 am

Both are great! I prefer the 2nd shot with shallower depth of field because the edges of the petals against the background look better to me. How many images in each?

Jim Z
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:16 pm
Location: Tahoma CA

Post by Jim Z » Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:09 am

Dave, I prefer the second. As Aaron says, both are great pictures.
Jim Z

dsjtecserv
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by dsjtecserv » Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:23 pm

Thanks, Jim and Aaron. It's interesting that my son made a similar comment, that in the first one the flower seems to be pasted against the background, and he has said that abut other TuFused images where a sharply focused object edge interfaces with a very blurred background. Yet such images created in the traditional way, with a single image, don't give the same impression. There must be something about the edge created by focus fusion that is in some small but critical way, qualitatively different from a single continuous-focus image.

Dave

aaronpriest
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Maine, USA
Contact:

Post by aaronpriest » Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:42 pm

Yeah, it almost seems to produce a lightly colored halo effect around a sharply defined edge if there's a big difference to the background. You can just barely start to see it in your first picture. But I wouldn't have necessarily noticed without the second picture to compare with.

Jim Z
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:16 pm
Location: Tahoma CA

Post by Jim Z » Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:20 am

Dave, the edge created by the focus fusion does look different, to me (looks different that an ordinary photo focus difference/delta to me... Maybe someone can show good A / B comparisons, or show that the 'difference' is idea wrong?)

(The difference in the two images might also be sharpening for display; maybe the sharpening exagerates the focus blending halos.)

(Without regard to the reason) I agree with your son; the 'problem' with the first image is that is that is looks a little like a composite photo. I prefer the flower in the first photo, it's all in focus, but the over-all picture isn't as natural looking.

Either way, I'd be happy to print either of the pictures.
Jim Z

munchmeister
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:52 am
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado

Post by munchmeister » Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:09 pm

Late to the game (hey, it is still 2009) but I like the first one Dave. It almost looks as if the flower is rising out of a pool of green. Very unique, yet quite natural, which is all the more attractive to me. As usual though, your work with these programs is just exceptional in my view. Wish I could figure out how to use these programs as well as you (and, of course, start with a stunner !!). Thanks for posting it.
:D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest