Odd artifacts in Lightroom exports
Sep 29, 2022 23:50:24 #
Robertl594 wrote:
Yes. I understand. I have always avoided jpegs as they are lossy. Once opened and re-saved, the algorithm re-averages the difference between the (8x8 grid) 63 pixels to the one on the upper left corner, rather than the actual data for each pixel.
Lossless formats, do not do this and maintain the integrity of the full image.
Lossless formats, do not do this and maintain the integrity of the full image.
As a Lightroom user, there's ZERO reason (Nil, None, Nada, Zilch) to then open an JPEG in any digital editor ever and then re-invoke the save processing. You use LR to export display-purpose-only JPEG files. That's why worrying about a lossy JPEG is to be worrying about something that has nothing to do with nothing.
Sep 30, 2022 08:15:59 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
As a Lightroom user, there's ZERO reason (Nil, None, Nada, Zilch) to then open an JPEG in any digital editor ever and then re-invoke the save processing. You use LR to export display-purpose-only JPEG files. That's why worrying about a lossy JPEG is to be worrying about something that has nothing to do with nothing.
Totally agree!!!!!
Sep 30, 2022 08:54:37 #
Robertl594 wrote:
Totally agree!!!!!
So back to the original problem, any updates on the various probing ideas to identify commonality of the issue and the edited stacks?
Sep 30, 2022 09:11:54 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
So back to the original problem, any updates on the various probing ideas to identify commonality of the issue and the edited stacks?
I had to make a trip out of town so I have not been able to do any of the suggested investigations. Plan on returning home early next week. Will be my first priority. Will post as soon as I have any data.
Oct 4, 2022 06:48:51 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
So back to the original problem, any updates on the various probing ideas to identify commonality of the issue and the edited stacks?
I have returned home. I did a new stack of new photos of the head of a bumble bee, exported using LR export to tiffs. No issues at all. Hopefully those artifacts were just a one off issue. I will keep you posted. Thank you for your suggestions.
Now I need to work on cleaning subject and adjusting lighting.
I would like to send a huge THANK YOU to Sippyjug104 who has provided me with patient, kind, diligent support and assistance in helping me transform my focus stack rig and technique over the last several weeks. Gary, I could not have done this without your help. Your expertise and knowledge is phenomenal. I hope I can return your kindness somehow, someway, someday soon. Now, we are having fun!
This is why I love UHH! There are some very generous, kind, competent people here that have the knowledge, experience, kindness and willingness to help the novice to pro photographers, advance our craft.
Oct 4, 2022 07:45:05 #
Robertl594, Thanks for your macro post of what is needed for iconic images. Fred (Sippyjug104) earned his tribute by you! A kind neighbor told me about UHH a few years ago. I'm with you in your acknowledgment that UHH is an excellent resource for photographers. I compare it with being able to have a breakfast roundtable with exceptional, instructional photographers.
Oct 4, 2022 08:17:09 #
Oct 4, 2022 08:27:40 #
Barn Owl wrote:
Robertl594, Thanks for your macro post of what is needed for iconic images. Fred (Sippyjug104) earned his tribute by you! A kind neighbor told me about UHH a few years ago. I'm with you in your acknowledgment that UHH is an excellent resource for photographers. I compare it with being able to have a breakfast roundtable with exceptional, instructional photographers.
Barn Owl,
Really appreciate your reply. I typically go way OTT when developing tools and other solutions in solving problems. My wife tells me that I overcomplicate things to such an extent, I end up wasting time and money when I could do things much simpler. But alas, I believe in form AND function and I get great pleasure in figuring out how to make things work. I guess I am an engineer at heart. It all started last year when I was trying to figure out how to focus stack marijuana buds for some marketing materials. I ended up going into that spiral of complexity, fabricating heavy vibration-free tapped aluminum plates to mount equipment on. But the equipment is only a part of it. It is the expertise and kindness of Sippyjug104 that has brought me into the proximity of a decent shot. Still miles away, but getting there. I bought the best golf clubs and still can't hit a straight shot!
Sippyjug104 has been wonderful and demonstrates the power of UHH. I like your analogy of the "Round Table"
Oct 4, 2022 08:29:37 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The details are amazing of the bee are amazing!
Thank you! Am doing more to make this better. This was my first attempt after Sippyjug104 helped me. I appreciate your suggestions on my artifact issue. Stay tuned. Hopefully will have more soon.
RL
Oct 4, 2022 09:09:29 #
Robertl594 wrote:
... May try JPEG instead of TIFF. I just don't like lossy formats.
How about PNG?
Oct 4, 2022 09:35:22 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
How about PNG?
Have not used PNG for photos, just logos. Do you? Benefits? This is what I found on the web:
Portable Network Graphics files (PNGs) are compressible and like JPEGS, can handle 16 million colors. They’re mostly used for web graphics, logos, charts, and illustrations, rather than high-quality photographs, because they take up more storage space than JPEGs. One thing PNGs offer that JPEGs don’t is the ability to handle graphics with transparent backgrounds.
Oct 4, 2022 10:16:53 #
Robertl594 wrote:
Have not used PNG for photos, just logos. Do you? Benefits? This is what I found on the web:
Portable Network Graphics files (PNGs) are compressible and like JPEGS, can handle 16 million colors. They’re mostly used for web graphics, logos, charts, and illustrations, rather than high-quality photographs, because they take up more storage space than JPEGs. One thing PNGs offer that JPEGs don’t is the ability to handle graphics with transparent backgrounds.
Portable Network Graphics files (PNGs) are compressible and like JPEGS, can handle 16 million colors. They’re mostly used for web graphics, logos, charts, and illustrations, rather than high-quality photographs, because they take up more storage space than JPEGs. One thing PNGs offer that JPEGs don’t is the ability to handle graphics with transparent backgrounds.
Like lots of things, here's a 'solution' with no purpose for a problem with no definition.
Oct 4, 2022 10:40:09 #
Robertl594 wrote:
Thank you! Am doing more to make this better. This was my first attempt after Sippyjug104 helped me. I appreciate your suggestions on my artifact issue. Stay tuned. Hopefully will have more soon.
RL
RL
Next attempt is attached. Adjusted lighting. 224 Images spanning approx 1/8th of an inch of depth = .025mm each slice.
Oct 4, 2022 12:04:34 #
Robertl594 wrote:
Next attempt is attached. Adjusted lighting. 224 Images spanning approx 1/8th of an inch of depth = .025mm each slice.
More colors are even better!
Oct 4, 2022 12:06:16 #
Robert, This is looking really good and to answer your question about the step distance of the 5X mitty infinity objective, the step distance is dependent on the depth of field produced by the optic. For microscope objectives, it becomes quite easy to determine for the objective are listed with their "NA" (numerical aperture) which is a guide to what the DOF will be at the rated magnification.
It is a fixed value and it will not change as it would with a lens with a variable aperture so your step distance will remain constant (although you can always shoot in smaller steps, but not larger ones).
It is a fixed value and it will not change as it would with a lens with a variable aperture so your step distance will remain constant (although you can always shoot in smaller steps, but not larger ones).
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.