Hoverfly (yes another!)

[Leon]

did I overdo the sharpenng on PB?

and the original

you all know I don't PP as a rule but PB does it for you, cheating?

[Guest]

not cheating software is the digital equivalent of the darkroom and no you havent over done it

[Heather]

looks good to me i dont consider it cheating either

[Barbara]

It's not cheating, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow ear you must have a good image to begin with.

Leon I think you need to get more into the Digital Darkroom

If Ansell Adams were alive he would be a Master and I believe he would use everything this digital age can offer, he was a master of manipulation

[Leon]

I need to learn more, a certain my URBEX was going to sort me out with a prezzie in the post but he must be busy, I did once after a computer crash edit my little girl standing near the XMAS tree using 2 pictures taken 2 weeks apart, otherwise I do try and get a good image to start with, I like everyone else delete 10x more pictures than I keep, the digital age for you!!

thanks for the input, I will one day get with the times :)

[Guest DaveW]

All digital needs some sharpening with the present type of sensors, either done by the camera itself or by you in post processing.

I think your problem though is the hover is just slightly out of focus and you are trying to sharpen a slightly out of focus image. They are pigs at that sort of magnification as the breeze or their own weight can move the flower on your in-focus shot just as you press the shutter release. If you look you can see the flower just near its left eye is sharper and more in focus than the insect itself.

There are some methods of making slightly soft images appear sharper, but never quite as good as if original focus was spot on. As said though correct focus is a no brainer in conventional photography due to large depth of field, but can be very difficult in macro work outdoors exposed to the breeze with minute depths of field.

http://www.digitalphotofix.com/fix-blurry-digital-photos.html

Still a pretty good shot though. I think it was probably subject movement as you pushed the button rather than any miss focus on your part.

DaveW

[fuzzyedges]

Still a pretty good shot though. I think it was probably subject movement as you pushed the button rather than any miss focus on your part.

DaveW

I agree with this

But not with PP is in any way cheating, if it is then all images are cheating as from camera onwards it has been PPed

Unless you have NASA software no oof image (for whatever reason) will get perfect by PP so the motto is get it right in the camera Shoot refocus shoot refocus shoot refocus as many times as is possable and one will be what you want, Pixels are so cheap nowadays

[Guest DaveW]

It may be an idea though to check camera focus is spot on for macro work, where only a few millimeters depth of field can matter. This is a test chart by a Nikon user, but applicable to all cameras. You can test both autofocus and manual focus using it.

Should either be far out, if a DSLR, the camera makers agents can alter the mirror position slightly for manual focus, or that to the autofocus sensor if that is out. To focus perfectly the length of the light path from the lens to the sensor needs to be exactly the same length as that via the mirror to the focusing screen, or to the autofocus sensor:-

http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

DaveW