# Focus Stacking



## Hack (Dec 24, 2010)

Playing around with Zerene Stacker.

Here's the first pic of the set of 7.


----------



## Hack (Dec 24, 2010)

Here's the last pic of the set


----------



## Hack (Dec 24, 2010)

And here's the stacked pic.

Hack


----------



## Hack (Dec 24, 2010)

What do you think?

Hack


----------



## Bynx (Dec 24, 2010)

Its bloody amazing. Im liking this as much as HDR.


----------



## Bynx (Dec 24, 2010)

Strange there is no visible means to edit my post. I just wanted to say I have Helicon Focus but never used it yet. Im now looking forward to some nice macro work all in focus for a change. Thanks for the eye opener.


----------



## Hack (Dec 25, 2010)

Thanks Bynx,

I had been along time since I tried it.  I find the more pix I take, at tiny intervals, the better the stack fill be.  I'd forgotten how to do it.  At first, I stupidly tried to move the camera forward, then I remembered - leave the camera on the tripod, use manul focus, snap a pic, manual focus a bit, snap a pic ... until I get to the end.  I sized them all down to 800x533 and Zerene stacker did the rest.

And I see an "EDIT" button down at the bottom right, just outside the frame of the thread, see it?  In fact, I used it to add this.

Hack


----------



## Frequency (Dec 25, 2010)

Please post all of them so that it helps in learning

regards

Outcome is excellent


----------



## Hack (Dec 25, 2010)

Here's the 7 pix I used.

Hack


----------



## Gruen Photo 7 Design (Dec 25, 2010)

very cool


----------



## Hack (Dec 25, 2010)

Thanks everyone.  This is my best outcome to date.

Hack


----------



## point-&-shoot (Dec 25, 2010)

sorry for the rookie question but what software did you use to "stack" the photo?


----------



## Hack (Dec 25, 2010)

Rookie questions welcome, Lords knows I've asked my fair share.  I use a peice of software (you download it) called Zerene Stacker. You get a month to try it out.  I'd tried a few others, that were good, too, but the folks are friendly and willing to answer rookie guestions 

Zerene Stacker -- The Basics

There's another called Helicon, but I'm not familiar with it.
http://www.heliconsoft.com/

Hack


----------



## Overread (Dec 25, 2010)

You can also use combineZP
CombineZP News 

which is a free focus stacking program. Also no program stands above the others with regard to focus stacking results; like noise reduction programs they will all perform very similarly whilst with select situations one might outperform the others. 

I generally consider, that with the amount of effort that goes into preparing and acquiring shots for a focus stack, that any person who is going to do a lot of focus stacking should start to collect the barious software options to have the alternatives on hand.


----------



## Frequency (Dec 25, 2010)

Hack, thank you for that; that is a great lesson

Regards


----------



## Hack (Dec 26, 2010)

Oh wow, Overread, I'd forgotten.  When I was first getting into stacking I used CombineZP - because it was free.  

Then someone pointed me to Zerene Stacker.  I used a 30-day trial of ZS.  Though I no longer have them.  I shared several comparison stacks of the same pix using ZP and then, ZS.

I bought ZS (the personal edition, $89, not the $289 Pro edition) because, to me and others, it's resultant stacks were clearly better than ZP's.  In fact, I no longer have ZP on my computer.  Sometimes not much better and but other times, ZS was the winner, hands down.

Admittedly, I have not used ZP in years and it is probably better now than then.  Certainly, for those just starting out, ZP is a great tool to learn with.

Here's a link to a thread comparing Helicon and CombineZP.  But for me, ZS is still the better stacking program.  The link also addresses Zerene Stacker

http://photocamel.com/forum/macro-close-up-photography/70847-combinezp-helicon-focus.html

Hack


----------



## Hack (Dec 26, 2010)

Frequency said:


> Hack, thank you for that; that is a great lesson
> 
> Regards



You're welcome, have you ever tried stacking?

Hack


----------



## Frequency (Dec 26, 2010)

No Hack; thank you a lot; i am much inspired; you also suggested the path (software) too; i will try that

Regards


----------



## NateS (Dec 26, 2010)

Stacking is definitely fun.  I use CombineZP and it works wonderfully for me.  The image below was a recent stack of mine using 5 images.  I tried to use about 10 images to get the antenna in focus too, but he started moving before the end of the stack.


----------



## NateS (Dec 26, 2010)

Hack - Your images look to be framed really well together (no movement).  Did you use a tripod or rail?  Mine above were done on the floor scooting the camera along, but man, a tripod rail (which is on it's way) would make it much easier to do.

Oh and your original post in this thread is a great way to show people what stacking really does.  I think a lot of people don't completely understand it and they should after seeing your post.  I plan to try a 50-60 image stack next weekend.


----------



## Hack (Dec 26, 2010)

Very nice Nate, but how far down did your stacking go?  I mean, why isn't the tips of it antennae and its hind legs in focus, too.  If I had done it, I would have started snapping pix at the tip of the antennae and snapped all the way to the far end.  Now, that would be a great stack.

Hack


----------



## Bynx (Dec 26, 2010)

NateS could you show us a single focus shot of the bee? I cant see any effects of stacking with what I see now. And the bee looks dead.


----------



## Hack (Dec 26, 2010)

NateS said:


> Hack - Your images look to be framed really well together (no movement).  Did you use a tripod or rail?  Mine above were done on the floor scooting the camera along, but man, a tripod rail (which is on it's way) would make it much easier to do.



I tried to use my tripod and tripod rail, but it didn't move the camera far along enough to get the entire thing. 

So, then I simply put the camera on its tripod and used the manual focus ring to work my way down the subject.

I only use the rail when the object is real tiny and I don't want to make gross movements of the tripod. The rail may work on something small like an insect, but when you actually move the camera along with the rail, you're going to get changes in camera angle that I think will mess up you stacking attempt.  

I have much better luck when I leave the camera on the tripod and just use the focus ring the "walk" down the length of the subject.

Hack


----------



## NateS (Dec 26, 2010)

Hack said:


> Very nice Nate, but how far down did your stacking go?  I mean, why isn't its hind legs in focus, too.  If I had done it, I would have started at the tip of the antennae and snapped pix all the way tot he back.
> 
> Hack



Because this was shot at 3:1 magnification at 252mm and the bee was maybe 4-5mm.  It would have taken in the neighborhood of 20-25 images to get all of that in focus..maybe more.  The bee started moving after about 10 seconds of shooting (brought in from the cold) so you would have never been able to get that much in focus on this.  My stack was merely to get the entire face and eyes in focus.  Honestly...I wouldn't have wanted the back legs in focus....it would add nothing to this image and the DOF I achieved gives it more depth.  I think one of the keys with stacking is knowing when not to stack.  I would have liked the antenna to be in focus but he was moving them all over the place.


----------



## NateS (Dec 26, 2010)

Bynx said:


> NateS could you show us a single focus shot of the bee? I cant see any effects of stacking with what I see now. And the bee looks dead.



Yup..give me a minute to upload one.  You'd be surprised at how thin the DOF is at 3:1 magnification.  I've seen images at 10:1 where 60 images were used just to get full focus on an insects eyeball.  The bee was very much alive.


----------



## NateS (Dec 26, 2010)

Another thing to remember is that the higher you go in magnification the larger you want your aperture to be to prevent diffraction.  There is a science/math behind it that I don't completely understand, but if diffraction starts at f/16 at 1:1 then it will start at f/11 at 2:1 f/8 at 3:1, etc....those aren't the exact numbers, but the principal behind it.  Above my head a bit, but it's true...if I shoot at f/13 at 3:1, the diffraction is horrible, but shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 at 3:1 and stacking 2-3 images gets much, much higher quality images.

Here's a single image as requested.  Eyes in focus, but face is way out of focus.  These were shot at f5.6 I believe (might have been f/8 though).





I probably could have shot at f/13 and gotten away with 1...maybe 2 photos, but they wouldn't have been nearly as sharp.  Also, this single image doesn't really even get ALL of the eye in sharp focus, but mainly the hair sections of the eye...the next closest (to me) shot got the front of the eye more in focus.


----------



## NateS (Dec 26, 2010)

...and I don't mean to take away from Hack's images at all....I'm merely trying to supplement with my experiences.  Hack's examples show a much, much better view of what stacking does.  I stack primarily to overcome the crappy DOF of shooting with an 180mm macro lens.  Stacking is my area of focus (no pun intended) for improvement in 2011 though.


----------



## Hack (Dec 26, 2010)

Nate, I appreciate your contribution to my thread, that is one awesome shot you showed us.  And I can see the difference in the two images.

I remember (35+ years ago), in college, we did research using fruit flies.  We put them under (not to kill them) and made counts of eye color, wing shape, etc for genetic studies.  I'm trying to remember, I think we used a small amount of ether in a cotton ball.  I'm gonna trap me some bees this summer and use that the put them under, while I take the pics for stacking.  I was thinking if you did something similar to make your insect stay still.

Hack


----------



## NateS (Dec 26, 2010)

Hack said:


> Nate, I appreciate your contribution to my thread, that is one awesome shot you showed us.  And I can see the difference in the two images.
> 
> I remember (35+ years ago), in college, we did research using fruit flies.  We put them under (not to kill them) and made counts of eye color, wing shape, etc for genetic studies.  I'm trying to remember, I think we used a small amount of ether in a cotton ball.  I'm gonna trap me some bees this summer and use that the put them under, while I take the pics for stacking.  I was thinking if you did something similar to make your insect stay still.
> 
> Hack



I was told this by someone else recently as well.  I do think it is something I will try this coming year, though I don't know how easy ether is to come by these days.  I am also going to try and do some avid baiting this year with a honey mixture....that seems to be another approach that gets them to hold nearly still for awhile for stacking.....I also plan to force myself up early when it's still cool out to get some when they are still sleeping.  I look forward to seeing what you come up with.


----------



## Bynx (Dec 26, 2010)

Thanks Nate. The more I see image stacking the more I understand. Ive definately got to give this a shot or 60.


----------



## Hack (Dec 27, 2010)

The ether I plan to use in the ether in the aersol cans that you can buy in an auto parts store for starting a motor.  One dap on a cotton swap should do.

Or just make a ham sandwich - whenever I go canoeing, and pack a few ham sandwiches for lunch, the bees always want to eat, too.  

Hack.


----------



## Overread (Dec 27, 2010)

Interesting - I've never had bees come after my ham sandwiches - might be I've not been close enough to any whilst eating or that its a difference in bee species.

Also to add to NateS point regarding diffraction it might help to know that (as far as I know) most methods that allow you to increase the magnification of the lens (extension tubes - close up lens attachments; reverse mounting; the MPE 65mm macro lens) also result in changing the actual maximum aperture of the lens setup. 

This is something that happens with regular macro lenses as they approach 1:1 - something that Canon camera bodies don't report but Nikon ones do - with most f2.8 macro lenses becoming f5.6 lenses by 1:1. Increasing the magnification further again reduces the aperture so even if its not reported through the camera body the actual aperture is getting smaller and smaller. This is part of the reason that you have to keep selecting a wider and wider aperture as the magnification increases if you want to preserve image quality. 

You can see this in effect in this test I did here:
MPE 65mm test shot series - a set on Flickr

This test is also the best way to get a idea of any high magnification setup - its simple and quick to do and gives you an idea of how well you setup performs at varying apertures - since the specific aperture that is the "best" to use will depened upon the lens setup; camera body; photographers own standards and also the output medium of the shot itself


----------



## Hack (Dec 27, 2010)

Fantastic test on the Canon MPE 65mm macro, got to start saving.

The geared Manfrotto head, I assume it was the Junior 410.  I've been looking into one.  What are your thoughts on how well it does what it is supposed to do?

Hack


----------



## Overread (Dec 27, 2010)

The head itself is a great performer and the smooth precise control on each axis is fantastic for macro work and it will take a good weight of camera and lens without any dipping or such problems. 

The only part of it that does, sadly, underperform a little is the quick release plate, or rather the rubber grip upon the plate. Sadly I have found that it can be prone to let a camera setup slip around the screw mount. Unfortunatly its not a regular manfrotto quick release plate, so there are few adaptors/alternate designs on the market. 

It's a minor weakness and might only be a problem because the quick release does not hold well with the focusing rail I use, and I've already considered using a welder to stick a better plate onto the regular plate.


----------



## Hack (Dec 27, 2010)

Wow, that Canon MPE 65mm macro is expensive.  Thanks for letting me know about the geared head.  I read a lot of good reviews for it

I played around with my Canon 100 mm Macro lens, all thee of my extension tubes and the Canon 1.4 TC and soon realized that I wish I had a geared head.  

Hack


----------

