Shooting One Layer or Few/Many Stacked Layers?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I'm afraid this - again - only muddles the concepts involved. Anything image-wise coming from a digital camera is digital data. The stacking process samples and massages these digital data points. The source of the digital image(s) to be processed could be from a lens or already in digital form.

[Michael Erlewine]

This was an analogy, which is why the word "analog" was in quotes. I will go back and modify the original, so that we can move on. The idea was simply that there is the intact original photo, whether a film image or a digital image, from which we sample, keeping some, but ignoring other parts of the image. I feel the concept was just illustrative, and what I intended as clear, was not clear enough.

[simsurace]

Ok, it seems I misunderstood the intention behind the phrase. Not so important.

For me, the sampling analogy is helpful in thinking about "how" to choose the focus points when capturing the images.

[Michael Erlewine]

For me, the sampling analogy is helpful in thinking about "how" to choose the focus points when capturing the images.

I intention of the post, aside from the illustrations that probably are too small to be of much use, but which in full-size are useful in looking for artifacts, etc., was to examine my "cage," the parameters that I am caught up in (and can't just ignore) when trying to capture a photo.

There is no one answer, and for every photo, perhaps a different approach may be required. Heaven knows, I try them all, endlessly.

I never think in terms of a finished photo that I would hang on the wall. I have no photos on the wall, nor have I ever printed-out a single photo or had it printed. That’s someone else’s idea of photography.

For me, everything is an experiment to see how far I can push this or that, and I look to see the results in the photo that I see in the eye of my mind.

Obviously, I would like a camera that photographed everything perfectly in focus, and from which I could paint in the degree of focus/non-focus for each part of it, shape and shade it to create the impression I intend in my mind.

I am sure I have too many lenses, and somehow assume that gear will lead me into the future. To some degree that is true or it has been true. Gear is important. A fine lens is a fine lens, etc.

At this point, I feel that I should try some other forms of photography than just close-up. I have been there, done that, and mastered enough to know my way around with a camera and lens. Perhaps I will look into landscape, mid-range, or just whatever looks interesting.

My idea of a photographer who is totally skilled in the “find what’s interesting” department is Ming Thein. IMO, he is the best of this generation, overall. He sees exquisite photographs… everywhere.

I need to find my equivalent of that. Other than plants, etc.,  I have never even tried to express what I see in my day-to-day life, and I see very vividly. I just have never jumped into the swimming pool… yet.

[ColinM]

Have you tried action much before Michael?
It's a broad topic, with maybe enough challenges of technique (as opposed to equipment) to pique your interest?

[Michael Erlewine]

Have you tried action much before Michael?
It's a broad topic, with maybe enough challenges of technique (as opposed to equipment) to pique your interest?

Years ago, of course. I am getting a little old for it and am more interested in composition these days. I am definitely going to look around this year a bit.

[Bill De Jager]

The obvious rebuttal to my previous post, which now is painfully clear to me, is that any digital capture system with a properly functioning lens is going to have a real image projected onto the sensor by the lens, not just in the case initially outlined by the OP.  So my previous point is spurious; I was not thinking clearly last night.