Stuart Ord  


Circuit Board by Stuart Ord

November 2019 - Circuit Board

About the Image(s)

When I first started photography, the proud owner of a Zenit 3M aged about 14, fancy accessories were out of my budget. Then I discovered extension tubes – simple tubes with screw threads, nothing complicated like today. Alas film was expensive so unlimited snapping like we enjoy today was out. However I got some memorable macros, some of the inside of my transistor radio.

This circuit board is part of the back of an electronic Christmas tree by Radio Shack, no more that 6” tall. This of course is a very small part of it. We can see a capacitor, a transistor, two resisters and a couple of wires. And a lot of dust! I did blow on it before pressing the shutter, honestly!

How I did it

This was taken using an automatic focus stack, camera on a tripod, using ambient room light. I selected 14 of these images and stacked them a variety of ways. First I used Helicon Focus Lite. It offers 3 rendering methods – weighted average, depth map, and pyramid. If you select weighted average or depth map, it then offers two more variables – radius and smoothing. Radius can be varied from 1 to 50, and smoothing from 1 to 10. There’s no extra parameters for pyramid.

So I used each one, with radius set to 8 and smoothing to 4 for weighted average and depth map, which wasn’t chosen for any reason, it was just what I’d last used. Then I thought I’d vary these parameters for weighted average, being (1,1), (1,10), (50,1) and (50,10) to give the limits. Comparing all the results, I ranked them from 1 to 5 in terms of clarity, shadow detail and lack of artefacts, and figured that pyramid was the best.

Then I used Affinity. It has nothing to tweak once you have loaded the images, just a “go” button. Comparing that with my best Helicon result, there was little in it – if anything, Affinity had a slight edge.

Maybe there’s a better setting for Helicon – are there any guides as to what to use got the slider parameter values, perhaps for different types of images?

And should I renew my Helicon Focus Lite license which runs out in 35 days??

Olympus OMD-E-M1ii, Olympus 60mm macro lens, f6.3, 1/40 sec, ISO 3200.


13 comments posted

Janet DiMattia   Janet DiMattia
Hi, Stuart.
This image overwhelms me a bit. I'm not sure what I am looking at. To me it is quite busy. I am drawn to the red area at the lower right and all the letters are distracting also.
However, I really admire the work you went through to take the image. It seems quite complicated and it looks like you have it all under control. Great effort.
  Posted: 11/09/2019 18:26:01

Madhusudhan Srinivasan   Madhusudhan Srinivasan
A good output for a product photography. Red being an arresting color, as Janet mentioned, viewer's attention is drawn to it mostly imo. I think, may be showing a little more of the motherboard might help to understand the role of this capacitor and also enriches the brand image of Jamicon. Just a thought, although some may not appreciate due to too many components then   Posted: 11/09/2019 20:53:44

Dick States   Dick States
Interesting subject to shoot. I have wanted to do something like this but wasn't sure how to make it work without looking to busy. I may try this this winter, it would be a good winter project.
When I look at the right side of this image on the background green area I see horizontal areas (rows) that are sharp and then horizontal areas that are not sharp. I feel you need to use a smaller lens opening, this will give you more DOF. I use f-8 which most prows recommend. I feel these areas that are not sharp is also from not enough focus overlap. This might be hard to shoot with really two levels to deal with. Not just the parts on the circuit board but at the same time the green circuit board (background). With Helicon Focus I have been using the rendering method B depth map and using a radius of 8 and smoothing of 4. I feel you just have to work with these until you find what works for you. There's a lot of good information in the Helicon Program press Help in the top line. I have enjoyed looking at your image. I find it interesting and feel you did a good job on a complicated subject that's not easy to do.   Posted: 11/12/2019 20:43:39
Stuart Ord   Stuart Ord
I seem what you mean by the rows, Dick. I hadn't noticed before. It's a stacking artefact, and as you say I could have improved it by reducing my aperture so that each image had a greater DoF, or I could have used more and closer stacked images to that they would stack without including out-of-focus areas. Careless me.
I see now that Helicon is telling me that I have 14 days left, which I presume means it's on a lease and they'll want to be paid again. I'm not very happy with this selling philosophy, I guess I tried it because people extolled it. However generally I've found as good or better results with Affinity, albeit it has fewer controls, and I've not experimented that much with the various settings in Helicon. However I suspect I'll not renew Helicon and work on mastering Affinity better.
  Posted: 11/14/2019 12:04:39
Dick States   Dick States
To my eye these rows are due to not enough over of the focused area. You need about 20% overlap of the focused area. It's really not so much lack of DOF as it is taking more shots for more images in the stack. I don't feel these rows across the background are artefacts.   Posted: 11/14/2019 17:43:29
Stuart Ord   Stuart Ord
Yes, I'd agree. I just meant artefact in the sense "misleading or confusing alteration.... resulting from flaws in technique or equipment" (This is one of several Wikipedia definitions). My technique wasn't so good. It's great the way other pairs of eyes spot things and I can watch out for this in future. One sadly lacking aspect of Olympus' stacking / bracketing system is they give no guidance on what the increments mean when setting it up to be done automatically. It's a good facility, just lacking any user guidance. I've found some web information where people have done their own experiments to clarify what the settings mean, I should follow those more carefully. Alternatively the tried and tested technique of physically moving the camera within the known or observed DoF is foolproof if a little more time consuming. Or more critical examinatin of the result and repeat until correct! As usual I'm in too big a hurry.   Posted: 11/15/2019 04:31:41

Dick States   Dick States
I would go with around 28 images and go to f-8 to gain more DOF but don't go much more than that as far as f-stop goes. f-8 is close to the sweet spot of most lens to keep diffraction to a minimum.   Posted: 11/14/2019 12:18:18
Stuart Ord   Stuart Ord
The debate over f-stops is interesting I think. Most tests suggest that 2 stops less than maximum aperture is the start of the best region, and then for a couple more stops before it starts going downhill again. So we'd expect my f2.8 macro lens to come good at f5.6, down to f11, then falling off. Yet we've seen photos by Tom in particular which use f32, smaller than my smallest of f22, which you'd think would be poor due to this and yet they certainly weren't. Maybe that lens is unusual in its design.   Posted: 11/14/2019 12:36:46

Dick States   Dick States
Your right about the f-stops you should use with your lens. Its interesting if you go to Luminos-landscape.com and look at the series of shots with a Rodenstock medium format lens and see the difference and that's no shabby lens. The other thing, when you look at a single shot at f-22 and have nothing to compare it with there's no way to know. It may look sharp by itself when it really is not tack sharp. Finally, if I can get a tack sharp macro image at f-22 or f-32 there's no point in in doing stacks no matter what program one is using. I don't have many different programs. I do a lot of macro and have for years. When I got my program to stack images it has been well worth the money. Most of my macro images are stacks now.I would be lost with out it. What a great tool. I am not saying which brand is best, some are better than others.   Posted: 11/14/2019 13:06:00
Stuart Ord   Stuart Ord
Thanks for the link, Dick! I've not seen Luminous Landscape before. Searching for "Rodenstock" didn't find anything, but I'm going to have fun finding it. And lots of other things, it seems.   Posted: 11/14/2019 16:21:10

Dick States   Dick States
You can do a search under lens diffraction and go down through the sites till you see Luminous Landscape. You can go to Luminous landscape.com/lens diffraction that worked for me.   Posted: 11/14/2019 17:18:30
Stuart Ord   Stuart Ord
Yes, "lens diffraction" is a better search term. I didn't discover the Rodenstock pictures, but I did find enough to keep me reading for days!   Posted: 11/15/2019 04:48:02

Sandra Irwin   Sandra Irwin
Interesting photo -- quite a challenge. Great discussion, too. Wish I could understand more of it, but maybe I'll get there some day!   Posted: 11/16/2019 10:00:27

 

Please log in to post a comment