Soft Combinez4 - help !

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: MacroMike, nzmacro, Ken Ramos, twebster, S. Alden

Locked
User avatar
Holmes25
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Nice - France

Soft Combinez4 - help !

Post by Holmes25 »

Hello guys ...

I am rather novice in the utilisation of the software Combinez4, I would like I could correspond with you to learn better to use this software, indeed, by having using the basic functions to treat 3 or 4 photos, the final result contains more or less incomplete zones! How use you Combinez4 of the best way? Please help me to work better with this software!
The best all you !

Oliver :oops:
Last edited by Holmes25 on Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Olympus IMT-2
Luxeon 5w
ToUcam Pro

At soon to read you ! Oliver

User avatar
gpmatthews
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:54 am
Location: Horsham, UK
Contact:

Post by gpmatthews »

I quite often use CombineZ4, and find it requires quite a bit of luck - sometimes I get excellent results, sometimes lots of artefacts. I have taken to using CombineZ4 for producing a basic image and then retouching by cloning from the original images. The following image was prepared this way from 3 original images. The bristles on the ends of the legs required retouching, the rest came out fine.

Image

Unidentified Nauplius

Zeiss GFL Microscope
Objective: Zeiss x20 plan achromat
Ocular: Watson x8 compensating
Brightfield
ISO50, F8.0, 1/640 sec

All I can suggest is trial and error...
Graham

Charles Krebs
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:50 am
Location: Issaquah, WA USA

Post by Charles Krebs »

Oliver.. Like Graham, I have had mixed results. The best are when the images have been taken very carefully with CombineZ in mind. The program does best if there is detail in every part of the subject in at least one of the pictures. If there is any part of the subject that is not sharp in one of the images used, the program creates some strange results for that part. Frankly, I now use Photoshop most of the time when I combine images for depth-of-field.

One thing that I have had some good results with using CombineZ is when I have only two images (maybe three) that need to go together. I will then use the "average" function rather than the "combine" function. The results look soft at first, but with some contrast adjustment and sharpening in a photo-processing program they can turn out pretty good. This image was done using the "average" function:

http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... .php?t=436

Locked