A Successful Failure

[Michael Erlewine]

This image is ultimately a failure, but a successful failure. I am always trying to push the envelope one way or another, just to see what happens. Here is a stacked shot taken with the CRT-Nikkor, f/1.2, using 180 layers. Now the distance between the front and the back of these New England Asters is too far for the stacking software, so there are more artifacts than I can retouch. However, the overall feeling of the image is nice, and I could not really get it with that lens other than wide open. The CRT-Nikkor only really works at the widest aperture.

I just share it here for those of us who like this kind of thing.

Nikon D810, f/1.2, ISO 64, 1/100 sec

[Fons Baerken]

One of your best, imo, for its natural "softness".

[pluton]

I agree on the 'successful' part;  I can't see any artifacts at native web size on a 27" monitor.  The shot moves into the realm of what would normally have to be done with paint and brushes.  Fascinating look.

[John Geerts]

I agree with Fons and pluton. It's fascinating.

[elsa hoffmann]

works for me too

[Frank Fremerey]

How did you manage air movement here? Or is that indoors?

[Airy]

I do not see artifacts. I see a fine picture, and quite unusual.

I myself wondered about air movement, or movements caused by the flower itself, or by varying humidity. I guess everything must be controlled...

[Jakov Minić]

I wish my failures were as beautiful.
I even like the cooler white balance.

[Bruno Schroder]

Artifacts in this picture belong to the same category as bokeh or residual aberrations which are defining the character of a lens. They are produced by software instead of glass and mechanical construction but who cares when they contribute to the artistic side of the image?

[Michael Erlewine]

Artifacts in this picture belong to the same category as bokeh or residual aberrations which are defining the character of a lens. They are produced by software instead of glass and mechanical construction but who cares when they contribute to the artistic side of the image?

Exactly.  There is no such thing as a stacked photo, a DVD, CD, or anything that is “sampled” that does not have artifacts. Perhaps they are beneath the threshold of what we are aware of or care about, but they are there. Even analog recordings (or photographs) have the artifacts of noise, distortion, etc. IMO, photography is all about impressions. Even so called photos of “reality,” like nature field guides, are just another kind of impression, as I see it. As for me, I am always trying to convey the impression life offers me, to impress myself through photography.