My First Macro Focus Fusion

[xpatUSA]

I'm quite pleased at the result:



Sigma SD14 + the older 105mm f/2.8 Macro under a single CFL.

Just an experimental capture, no special care taken with composition or lighting.

How I did it plus more scene info:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59971277

Comments/advice welcome.

[DanK]

Not bad, but on my lousy laptop monitor, it looks like there is fairly severe haloing at the near end of both bugs.

I had never heard of TuFuse, despite the fact that it is one of the earlier packages. For a little bit of history, and some discussion of the links between the various packages, see Rik Littlefield's post here. (Rik is the author of Zerene, which is the stacking software I use.)

[xpatUSA]

Not bad, but on my lousy laptop monitor, it looks like there is fairly severe haloing at the near end of both bugs.

Yes, that comes mainly from the Sigma converter - I had left their sharpness slider in the middle, 'zero', and that does give halos on sharply captured edges. Then the TuFuse selected only the sharpest edges and then I added a bit of deconvolution while looking at the legs at right which probably didn't help.

I had never heard of TuFuse, despite the fact that it is one of the earlier packages. For a little bit of history, and some discussion of the links between the various packages, see Rik Littlefield's post here. (Rik is the author of Zerene, which is the stacking software I use.)

Thanks for the link, Dan - I'll look later.

[rpcrowe]

A killer of a shot

[xpatUSA]

A killer of a shot

Thank you, Richard.

[Shadowman]

Nice shot.

[JBW]

what's the difference between fusion and stacking

[xpatUSA]

what's the difference between fusion and stacking?

Hello Brian,

Stacking is the act of creating a number of shots of normally identical scenes as layers that can be manipulated as a group.

Fusion is the act of taking the "best" parts of each layer and combining those parts into an output image.

"Best" is implied by the pre-noun given to the word "stacking", e.g. "focus" or "exposure".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking

A related action is that of aligning the layers by some means prior to fusing them. In alignment, the application identifies points in each layer that it considers to be the same parts of a scene and distorts each layer until the points line up vertically. i.e. up and down in the stack. This same action is used in stitching programs for panoramas.

The GIMP can do "exposure blending" where blending can be though of as a form of fusion:

https://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Blending_Exposures/

All very clever. Hope this helps.

[Rent]

What is best way to get the stacking shots, to move the camera, or to alter the focus ring on the lens with the camera static ?
Roy

[xpatUSA]

What is best way to get the stacking shots, to move the camera, or to alter the focus ring on the lens with the camera static ?
Roy

Very good question. Got me stumped. If the camera is moved, e.g. on a focusing rail then the scene perspective changes, albeit slightly. But I don't know how the focus ring affects the scene at all.

Anybody?

[Stagecoach]

What is best way to get the stacking shots, to move the camera, or to alter the focus ring on the lens with the camera static ?
Roy

Roy, I seem to recall that the general consensus is that for small objects one method is best and for larger objects the other method is best. But I can't remember which is which

[xpatUSA]

Roy, I seem to recall that the general consensus is that for small objects one method is best and for larger objects the other method is best. But I can't remember which is which

TuFuse posted this image as a focus-stacking example:



Source: http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

I can imagine that focusing with your feet for that scene would cause a considerably different perspective in each shot making successful fusion rather difficult. So, perhaps the focusing ring is better for large objects?

By extension, the use of a focusing rail for a small object at a reasonable distance from the camera might be better than trying to adjust the focusing ring in hopefully equal steps.

Just guessing . . .

P.S. found these:

https://www.photigy.com/best-focus-stacking-macro-rails-vs-focus-variation/

The above link seems to confirm my guesswork, I am pleased to say!

Focus Stacking: Lens focusing or Rail focusing

https://petapixel.com/2015/11/03/usi...ehold-objects/

[DanK]

There are previous threads about this. Bottom line: for most purposes, it makes no difference. Perspective changes either way. The stacking software deals with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rent]

Thanks for the replies Gentlemen
Roy

[Mike Buckley]

Stacking is the act of creating a number of shots of normally identical scenes as layers that can be manipulated as a group.

I wonder if this is yet another photography term that regularly has different meaning for different people. As an example, the wikipedia article you provided explains that focus stacking "combines multiple images taken at different focus distances." My point is that according to that article, stacking refers to combining the captured photos, not the act of creating or capturing the photos.

[ajohnw]

In the extreme the "camera" is moved not refocused. I'm thinking in terms of when it's done with microscope objectives. If the camera is refocused the magnification may change so on that basis I would always go for move the camera for macro work.

What Ted could do is set up the same shot and shoot at an aperture that doesn't need focus stacking and compare the result. The general idea behind stacking like this on macro is it enables a wider aperture to be used = higher resolution. Most camera lenses need stopping down some what to achieve their best figures so it's really a question of if the aperture needed for the required depth of field is significantly reducing resolution and the subject needs it.

The software he used is a rip off of an opensource package with some added controls. It will do excellent HDR shots that tend to look natural. One odd aspect is that the default settings in the gui to go with the basic OS package usually work well.

Lots of people use Zerene for focus stacking. It used to be free for personal use but people need to earn money some how. Many of the people on this site used it in the past and very probably still do.

http://www.photomacrography.net/

John
-

[xpatUSA]

<>

What Ted could do is set up the same shot and shoot at an aperture that doesn't need focus stacking and compare the result. The general idea behind stacking like this on macro is it enables a wider aperture to be used = higher resolution. Most camera lenses need stopping down some what to achieve their best figures so it's really a question of if the aperture needed for the required depth of field is significantly reducing resolution and the subject needs it.<>

For the record, Ted has already done that a time or two. f/5.6 vs. f/22. At f/22, as said above, the effect of diffraction is too much for my taste, sorry.

[JohnRostron]

What is best way to get the stacking shots, to move the camera, or to alter the focus ring on the lens with the camera static ?
Roy

I tried a comparison of these two techniques a while back. The lens-barrel focussing was much more convenient and gave results that were easier to stack. Using a focussing rail requires very precise alignment, otherwise the subject moves in the field of view.

John