Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses

On Dec 2, 5:12 pm, JimKramer <j....DeleteThis@jlkramer.net> wrote:

>
> >http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html
>
> > Yes, that's what I used for this pic. Excellent program.
>
> If you believe what some other people have said you can get sharper
> results by only stopping down to F/4. This was stated by someone that
> was shooting fleas using a Sigma 2X teleconverter and the MP-E 65mm
> with a 30D. 17 images to do a flea nearly full frame on a 1.6 crop
> camera. The image was impressive; you could clearly see the texture
> on the flea's chitin.

I can't ever get the damn fleas to stay still for that long.
I read that about stopping down on the Helicon forum. I never thought
about that. The whole purpose of using f/16 is to get max DOF, but
now I'll be able to get that anyway.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Dec 3, 4:38 am, Annika1980 <annika1....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

>
> I'm going for something like this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original


Nice! Stitched?
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

JimKramer wrote:
> On Dec 2, 12:38 pm, Annika1980 <annika1....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 7:38 am, Noons <wizofo....DeleteThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2:49 am, Annika1980 <annika1....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring
>>>> extensive processing.
>>> don't want to burst the surprise bubble, but:
>>> why?
>> I'm going for something like this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original
>
> Do you know about
> http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html
> ?

Must have been that or similar... you can also tilt the lens:
http://edgehill.net/Misc/misc-photos/11-13-07-cpu/pg2pc10
(another dead Dell laptop cpu)
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

JimKramer wrote:
> On Dec 2, 12:38 pm, Annika1980 <annika1....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 7:38 am, Noons <wizofo....DeleteThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2:49 am, Annika1980 <annika1....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring
>>>> extensive processing.
>>> don't want to burst the surprise bubble, but:
>>> why?
>> I'm going for something like this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original
>
> Do you know about
> http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html
> ?
heliconfocus is pretty neat, I did this with it.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65838415/original

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

"Annika1980" <annika1980.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:daf73909-45a4-4a0d-b412-be09b393cb37@l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 5:12 pm, JimKramer <j....TakeThisOut@jlkramer.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> >http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html
>>
>> > Yes, that's what I used for this pic. Excellent program.
>>
>> If you believe what some other people have said you can get sharper
>> results by only stopping down to F/4. This was stated by someone that
>> was shooting fleas using a Sigma 2X teleconverter and the MP-E 65mm
>> with a 30D. 17 images to do a flea nearly full frame on a 1.6 crop
>> camera. The image was impressive; you could clearly see the texture
>> on the flea's chitin.
>
> I can't ever get the damn fleas to stay still for that long.
> I read that about stopping down on the Helicon forum. I never thought
> about that. The whole purpose of using f/16 is to get max DOF, but
> now I'll be able to get that anyway.
>
>
>
What's up, no keygen for the can of freeze spray?
I'd recon with the menagery you live in there's be a plentiful supply of
dead one.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 12:01 pm, TH O <t....TakeThisOut@tho.23.invalid> wrote:
>>> Let's see a 40D work under water!
>>>
>>> There are underwater SLR housings available for just about every
>>> newer SLR available, including the 40D. Here's one:
>>>
>>> http://www.ikelite.com/web_two/can_40d.html
>> That thing looks so cool I may get one for my 40D just to use on
>> land!

And you wouldn't need to put the camera in there!

> I always like the way they word these ads - You can use the underwater
> housing UP to 200 feet. I suppose you can use it in the water as
> well

At $1500 I'd be inclined to get 5 compact cameras, a box of high quality
zip lock bags and a how to book. Or rent a made for.

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

["Followup-To:" header set to aus.photo.]
* Scott W is quoted & my replies are inline below :
> JimKramer wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 12:38 pm, Annika1980 <annika1....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 7:38 am, Noons <wizofo....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 2, 2:49 am, Annika1980 <annika1....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring
>>>>> extensive processing.
>>>> don't want to burst the surprise bubble, but:
>>>> why?
>>> I'm going for something like this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original
>>
>> Do you know about
>> http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html
>> ?
> heliconfocus is pretty neat, I did this with it.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65838415/original

Is that like focus stacking? I've got CombineZM which is free,
but haven't played with it much.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

In article <fiq5s0$45q$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Douglas" <just DeleteThis @the.group> wrote:

> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
> Microsoft!!!
>
> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
> as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
> love it!!
>
> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
> effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
> field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>
> Disclaimer:
> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>
> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
> Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
> civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>
Guess you're in love with the lens flare filter too?
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

In article <Jq94j.2988$Lg.627@trndny09>,
"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> David J Taylor wrote:
> > Douglas wrote:
> >>> Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does.
> >>> Learn how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message
> >>> header! "Follow-up to".
> >>>
> >> Am I missing something here? the 3rd line is Cc: as in send a carbon
> >> copy to:
> >> I guess It's RTFM time !
>
> View -> All Headers
>
Like the Mac community says <Just say NO to Microsoft>

Try the http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/ newsreader instead. it's a bit less
colourful but who cares?
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

John McWilliams wrote:
> Neil Ellwood wrote:
>> Annika1980 wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 12:01 pm, TH O <t....TakeThisOut@tho.23.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Let's see a 40D work under water!
>>>>
>>>> There are underwater SLR housings available for just about every
>>>> newer SLR available, including the 40D. Here's one:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ikelite.com/web_two/can_40d.html
>>> That thing looks so cool I may get one for my 40D just to use on
>>> land!
>
> And you wouldn't need to put the camera in there!
>
>> I always like the way they word these ads - You can use the underwater
>> housing UP to 200 feet. I suppose you can use it in the water as
>> well
>
> At $1500 I'd be inclined to get 5 compact cameras, a box of high quality
> zip lock bags and a how to book. Or rent a made for.
>

I have a friend who has an underwater housing for I believe his 20D.
The thing is huge and to make it neutral buoyancy it weights a lot out
of water.

In many ways a small P&S with a small waterproof case is pretty appealing.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Dec 4, 10:26 pm, "Douglas" <j... DeleteThis @the.group> wrote:
>
> If you actually had a clue you'd clean it out... More rocket science over
> your intellegence level. I'm surprise you figured out how to access custome
> functions on that sieve you call a camera.

Ever done any digging into a computer registry?
Sure if I was locked in a basement and had hours and hours to kill
(like yourself) I could go through there and clean it out. But I would
probably end up deleting something important. The better way is to do
a fresh install. This also gives me a chance to delete a bunch of old
programs on my computer that I rarely use. I'm a sucker for buying
software that I rarely use. I've still got RAW Shooter Premium, for
example. Why did I buy that? I never even use it! Same with Genuine
Fractals.
PTAssembler is another. I use PTGui.
And of course I've got tons of Photoshop plugins that I rarely use,
but at least they don't take up much space.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

"Annika1980" <annika1980.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:401903be-7e09-4f51-945a-f31e632c00b5@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 10:26 pm, "Douglas" <j....TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:
>>
>> If you actually had a clue you'd clean it out... More rocket science over
>> your intellegence level. I'm surprise you figured out how to access
>> custome
>> functions on that sieve you call a camera.
>
> Ever done any digging into a computer registry?
> Sure if I was locked in a basement and had hours and hours to kill
> (like yourself) I could go through there and clean it out. But I would
> probably end up deleting something important. The better way is to do
> a fresh install. This also gives me a chance to delete a bunch of old
> programs on my computer that I rarely use. I'm a sucker for buying
> software that I rarely use. I've still got RAW Shooter Premium, for
> example. Why did I buy that? I never even use it! Same with Genuine
> Fractals.
> PTAssembler is another. I use PTGui.
> And of course I've got tons of Photoshop plugins that I rarely use,
> but at least they don't take up much space.
>
>
>
And you think you'll get all this done and working in a few hours, do you?
If you weren't such a idiot I'd send you a program I wrote a few years ago
to clean the Windows registry.

Linux doesn't need the Windows registry locked to run so it can be used to
examine all of it... But you being such a smart arse know all about my old
Linux shop, eh? Probably know where to download all the free stuff I used to
offer too no doubt.

Those programs you mentioned take up less than a gig of space and have less
than 80 registry entries (a few kilobytes at most) They are not what's
slowing your PC down. No doubt you'll buy a few new computers and format a
few hard drives before coming across someone who has a handle on the issue
and can get your PC up to speed again but hey, you got plenty of crust now
your got rid the ride, eh? Pick up the phone and get a tech out to do it...
Or make a stuff up of it like you usually do.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses