It is also interesting what you can do with multi-shots with a single-shot back too.
No matter how hard you try, without some serious stabilization, such as subject and camera mounted on a granite slab floating in a pool of mercury, there will be minor movement of subject and camera due to room vibration and even due to the movement of air.
Such vibration is hard to exactly duplicate, so with multiple shots, it can work to your advantage in eliminating stuff like moire and enhancing apparent resolution. I use the phrase apparent resolution carefully, since once, software has been used to combine several images, resolution is really something that is not well defined in any rigorous way or at least in any commonly accepted way.
One package that does this is photoacute.
I have used it in the past and the results I achieved with it look remarkably similar to what I see in the examples below.
So perhaps someone with access to both SS and MS backs might try to take the same number of exposures with the SS back as the MS back (4) and then run the results through photoacute before comparison. I will bet a quarter that the results would be remarkably close.
-bob
No matter how hard you try, without some serious stabilization, such as subject and camera mounted on a granite slab floating in a pool of mercury, there will be minor movement of subject and camera due to room vibration and even due to the movement of air.
Such vibration is hard to exactly duplicate, so with multiple shots, it can work to your advantage in eliminating stuff like moire and enhancing apparent resolution. I use the phrase apparent resolution carefully, since once, software has been used to combine several images, resolution is really something that is not well defined in any rigorous way or at least in any commonly accepted way.
One package that does this is photoacute.
I have used it in the past and the results I achieved with it look remarkably similar to what I see in the examples below.
So perhaps someone with access to both SS and MS backs might try to take the same number of exposures with the SS back as the MS back (4) and then run the results through photoacute before comparison. I will bet a quarter that the results would be remarkably close.
-bob