Great Image Detail In Focused Stacked Images

[rpcrowe]

I have just started to shoot and focus stack my images. Besides gaining a greatly increased DOF; focus stacking (even when working only with three stacked images) provides great image detail, as evidenced in this image...



Focus stacking with my 6D Mk.II camera is really easy, due to the articulating touch screen on this camera. I can shoot from just about any angle while viewing my composition without kneeling, stooping or standing on a chair or ladder for high shots.

I set the camera in the live view mode that will both focus on the spot selected and trip the shutter. I use a soft stylus to do this which increases the accuracy of focus spot selection. Due to the touch screen technology of the 6D2, very little pressure is needed to trip the shutter, resulting in no camera movement when I am using a sturdy tripod.

Sometimes I have problems working with live view in the bright sun. The fully articulating screen helps in that I can have the LCD out of the direct path of the sun. I also have found that a LCD shade I purchased from eBay for five U.S. Dollars doe a great job in shielding the LCD.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Neewer-3-LC...53.m2749.l2649
I can adjust the articulating screen angle so that the shade imparts maximum shielding. Using the shade, I can still operate the touch screen with the stylus. I can also increase the brightness of the screen which also helps me see my composition.

I am going to experiment linking the camera to my iPhone. If I can use the touch screen technique this way, it will help me avoid sun glare because I can hold the phone any place and easily shade it. there also be absolutely no threat of camera movement when tripping the shutter via the iPhone.

I am also going to experiment with more than three or four images...

The fully articulating LCD is a feature of this camera that I never thought I would use. However it is fast becoming one of my favorite features.

Obviously, focus stacking is not a viable technique for all genres of photography but, when it can be used, it doe a great job.

The PP portion of focus stacking is easy as pie in Photoshop. I know that I will be using this technique for a lot of my photography...

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured and processed.

[rpcrowe]

Thanks John... Now that I have the basics down, I will get more serious over the technique...

I am visiting a local botanical garden Tuesday. It's a get-in-free on the first Tuesday of the month affair. I plan to bring my 100mm macro lens + a 20mm extension tube to see what I can get focus stacking with the flowers that are just beginning to bloom.

Canon has a free photo meet next month at the Carlsbad Flower Fields
https://www.google.com/search?q=carl...iw=911&bih=468
during which they bring an assortment of Canon gear to loan for the event. This is free of charge except or a small fee charged to enter the fields.

However, I am booked on that day to shoot a radio controlled model aircraft meet. I figure that I can always visit the flower fields on my own and I have plenty of my own gear to use The model meet is a one time opportunity since the club will be dedicating the morning to getting good images for their website and other uses.

Although I am not an avid flower photographer, I do it once in a while and my new (new for me) focus stacking technique should fit right in...

[JBW]

Richard something to consider: Indoor studio is great for focus stacking. Outdoor flowers where there is almost always a breeze not so good.

[rpcrowe]

You are so correct Brian. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Focus stacking is a technique that can work very well under some conditions but, not at all under many other conditions.

What would be nice for me is if the camera had something like Auto Focus Stacking (akin to auto exposure bracketing) in which you could enter a range of focus points from front to back and the enter the number of shots desired. Then having the camera in high speed burst; click the shutter once and have the camera shoot the burst of varied focus images. That just might be able to capture the images with minimal movement,

Of course, this would not add any sales value to the camera like the capability to shoot at seventeen zillion ISO would Perhaps a App for an iPhone or iPad that controls the camera might be more feasible.

OTOH: most days, locally, we generally have very little breeze in the mornings. I think that I might be able to shoot outdoor Focused Stacked images occasionally. Well, we will see tomorrow! After all, I can always revert to "Plan B" and focus normally, capturing the image with one shot...

[JohnRostron]

Devices such as the CamRanger (other devices are available) will perform focus stacking, amongst other things, under the control of an Android or iPad app. Pity it will not work with my Sony A55.

John

[JBW]

You are so correct Brian. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Focus stacking is a technique that can work very well under some conditions but, not at all under many other conditions.

What would be nice for me is if the camera had something like Auto Focus Stacking (akin to auto exposure bracketing) in which you could enter a range of focus points from front to back and the enter the number of shots desired. Then having the camera in high speed burst; click the shutter once and have the camera shoot the burst of varied focus images. That just might be able to capture the images with minimal movement,

Of course, this would not add any sales value to the camera like the capability to shoot at seventeen zillion ISO would Perhaps a App for an iPhone or iPad that controls the camera might be more feasible.

OTOH: most days, locally, we generally have very little breeze in the mornings. I think that I might be able to shoot outdoor Focused Stacked images occasionally. Well, we will see tomorrow! After all, I can always revert to "Plan B" and focus normally, capturing the image with one shot...

or plan C. Take a movie at 30? 40? 50? frames per second . Find the software that some astrophotographers use, find the frames you like and stack them.

[Geoff F]

Sometimes with flowers/insects etc where there has been a slight movement by wind and the images won't auto stack together I manage to get away with roughly selecting an area from one image then copy and paste into another photo to replace a soft focus area.

This can help where there is something such as a leaf/wing etc which needs improving.

[xpatUSA]

Sometimes with flowers/insects etc where there has been a slight movement by wind and the images won't auto stack together I manage to get away with roughly selecting an area from one image then copy and paste into another photo to replace a soft focus area.

This can help where there is something such as a leaf/wing etc which needs improving.

If the subject is almost filling the frame, align_image_stack.exe might help.

It looks for "control points" = bits in each image that look the same, then lines up the control points vertically in the stack by distorting the images.

Downside is that it's a Windows command-line program and quit a bit of work. It is embedded in a few pano/hdr/focus stacking apps, though.

[Manfred M]

or plan C. Take a movie at 30? 40? 50? frames per second ..

Movies will be smaller frame size. HD is 1920 x 1080 (2MB) and 4K HD is somewhere around 3840 × 2160 (around 8MB). The resolution will be a lot less than with a standard camera that will run in the 24MB range and higher.

Not really a viable solution if one is trying for a high quality still image.

[xpatUSA]

Movies will be smaller frame size. HD is 1920 x 1080 (2MB) and 4K HD is somewhere around 3840 × 2160 (around 8MB). The resolution will be a lot less than with a standard camera that will run in the 24MB range and higher.

Not really a viable solution if one is trying for a high quality still image.

Oh dear! So it seems that my 4.7MP DSLRs can't produce "high quality" stills.

How does this Forum define "quality"? Or "resolution", for that matter? Just askin' ...

[Manfred M]

Oh dear! So it seems that my 4.7MP DSLRs can't produce "high quality" stills.

How does this Forum define "quality"? Or "resolution", for that matter? Just askin' ...

As you are one of the few photographers I know who use Sigma camera / Foveon sensors, I am not going to specifically mention them unless we are discussing that particular technology. For Brian and Richard who use Bayer array camera, the information I have given is correct. I have no idea as to what Sigma does in video mode but I'm sure you are more than willing to enlighten us.

Brian made the comment, so my response was aimed at the technology he is familiar with. To the best of my knowledge, my answer is correct. I do shoot video on a dedicated HD camera as well as with my still cameras. On my video camera the sensor is indeed 1920 x 1080. On my still cameras video recording only uses part of the sensor data; which is output in standard video size / format.

[xpatUSA]

As you are one of the few photographers I know who use Sigma camera / Foveon sensors, I am not going to specifically mention them unless we are discussing that particular technology. For Brian and Richard who use Bayer array camera, the information I have given is correct. I have no idea as to what Sigma does in video mode but I'm sure you are more than willing to enlighten us.

No, I am not - trying to stay away from that and I don't recall mentioning Sigma.

Brian made the comment, so my response was aimed at the technology he is familiar with. To the best of my knowledge, my answer is correct. I do shoot video on a dedicated HD camera as well as with my still cameras. On my video camera the sensor is indeed 1920 x 1080. On my still cameras video recording only uses part of the sensor data; which is output in standard video size / format.

I was more concerned about the equating of MP to "high quality" ...

"Not really a viable solution if one is trying for a high quality still image."

I asked, in response to that: "How does this Forum define 'quality'?"

?

[Manfred M]

No, I am not - trying to stay away from that and I don't recall mentioning Sigma.



I was more concerned about the equating of MP to "high quality" ...

"Not really a viable solution if one is trying for a high quality still image."

I asked in response to that: "How does this Forum define 'quality'?"

?

If one is normally shooting with a 24 - 36MP still camera (which is pretty typical of most current still cameras) and the standard video output of that camera is a standard HD frame; i.e. 2MP, I have no issues at all in suggesting that what Brian is suggesting might not lead to optimal results.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA
No, I am not - trying to stay away from that and I don't recall mentioning Sigma.

I was more concerned about the equating of MP to "high quality" ...

"Not really a viable solution if one is trying for a high quality still image."

I asked in response to that: "How does this Forum define 'quality'?"

If one is normally shooting with a 24 - 36MP still camera (which is pretty typical of most current still cameras) and the standard video output of that camera is a standard HD frame; i.e. 2MP, I have no issues at all in suggesting that what Brian is suggesting might not lead to optimal results.

Hmmm . . "optimal results" . .

Can I ask one more time:

"How does this Forum define 'quality' ?"

[Manfred M]

Hmmm . . "optimal results" . .

Can I ask one more time:

"How does this Forum define 'quality' ?"

This forum has nothing to do with it. This is my personal opinion and experience.

I view photography as someone who does a lot of prints in medium to large format. Can I see the difference between a 2MP or even a 12MP image versus one that is 24MP or 36MP in a large print. Definitely. By large print, that would be anything over 8-1/2" x 11". My view of format definitions was formed in the wet darkroom days, and I continue to think in those terms.

If I did not crop my shots and posted them on the internet using the "Facebook standard" of a maximum of 2048 pixels on the long side, then 2MP would not be so bad. The average photographer that only posts on the internet does not need large format sensors if they are viewing on a standard screen.

[JBW]

This forum has nothing to do with it. This is my personal opinion and experience.

I view photography as someone who does a lot of prints in medium to large format. Can I see the difference between a 2MP or even a 12MP image versus one that is 24MP or 36MP in a large print. Definitely. By large print, that would be anything over 8-1/2" x 11". My view of format definitions was formed in the wet darkroom days, and I continue to think in those terms.

If I did not crop my shots and posted them on the internet using the "Facebook standard" of a maximum of 2048 pixels on the long side, then 2MP would not be so bad. The average photographer that only posts on the internet does not need large format sensors if they are viewing on a standard screen.

Manfred, to answer two of your posts.

We have discussed that I only display on the web.

You have posted time and again that for web work two mp is all you really need.

My camera shoots at 20mp and no doubt many others here have less than 24

Seeing as you are now shooting digital perhaps it is time to move your mind to a digital dark room?

As for 'the average photographer that only posts on the internet' you seem to express the opinion that we are more than willing to put out substandard ho hum work.

Brian

[Manfred M]

Manfred, to answer two of your posts.

We have discussed that I only display on the web.

You have posted time and again that for web work two mp is all you really need.

My camera shoots at 20mp and no doubt many others here have less than 24

Seeing as you are now shooting digital perhaps it is time to move your mind to a digital dark room?

As for 'the average photographer that only posts on the internet' you seem to express the opinion that we are more than willing to put out substandard ho hum work.

Brian

Brian - I stand by what I have written. It's all about the resolution of the output device. A standard desktop screen displays around 1920 pixels on its longest edge, which is somewhere around 80 ppi. If one does the math of mulitiplying the height x width, we get somewhere around 2 MP. That's why I suggest that a 2 MP camera is effectively all one needs if that is what one is displaying on screen.

When it comes to printers; specifically Epson photo printers like the one I use, the native resolution of 2880 dpi (Canon and HP printers have a slightly lower resolution of 2400 dpi). While a dot and a pixel are not directly comparable, one gets the idea that my printer puts down more almost 50% more dots in an inch of printing than the entire width of your computer screen displays. The reason for the incompatibility is that my printer lays down 8 different colours of ink to make a shade, so a closer comparison is that when we group the dots together, one gets a resolution of 360 dpi, or about 4.5 times greater than a computer screen. Even the really high end Apple Retina 5K displays displays are around 15MB, so a higher resolution camera will make a difference on those displays.

I have moved to the digital darkroom. One of the main reasons that I went to a full-frame, 36 MP camera is that I do print; usually around 100 medium to large format (8-1/2" x 11" / A4) to (17" x 22" / A2) per year. Can I tell the difference between a full-frame and crop frame sensor; can I see the difference between a 20MP and 36MP print - the answer is yes, because in both cases I will be upsizing the images and there is definitely a degree of softening that can be seen. The software has to interpolate the "missing" data and that results in some softening to the image. That is why output sharpening is very important when printing.

So my comments have nothing to do with the quality of the photographic work, but rather the resolution of the output medium.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Can I ask one more time:

"How does this Forum define 'quality' ?"

This forum has nothing to do with it [quality]. This is my personal opinion and experience.

OK. I withdraw the question.

I view photography as someone who does a lot of prints in medium to large format. Can I see the difference between a 2MP or even a 12MP image versus one that is 24MP or 36MP in a large print? Definitely. By large print, that would be anything over 8-1/2" x 11". My view of format definitions was formed in the wet darkroom days, and I continue to think in those terms.

Thanks for the explanation which I do now see as a personal opinion, rather than general advice to the Forum or indeed to Brian.

If I did not crop my shots and posted them on the internet using the "Facebook standard" of a maximum of 2048 pixels on the long side, then 2MP would not be so bad. The average photographer that only posts on the internet does not need large format sensors if they are viewing on a standard screen.

Your "standard screen", if you mean 1920x1080px, seems to be fading away. 3840px (8 MP) is becoming common and 7680px (33MP) is available. Neither are any good to me because of my poor eyesight and lack of space in my computer area.

[Rufus]

Having recently bought a 6D/2 and never attempted focus stacking it was very interesting to read the original post and the first few responses. Thank you!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk