# First attempt at macro and stacking.



## DigiFilm (Mar 9, 2019)

I guess I'm not dissatisfied for a first go. We had Lobster the other day and a racoon got into the trash last night. As I was cleaning it up I thought the end of the tail looked like a candidate for practice. 

I don't know much about stacking and proper distances between focus points, so I just adjusted about the same amount on the focus ring each time. This is about 25 images made with a Lumix G-Vario 45-150 and a Raynox 250. I don't have a regular Macro lens, it's not something I do often. I got the Raynox and some tubes for Christmas. It looks to me like I could've focused a bit farther in both directions. I reckon I'll learn as I go. 

Stacking was done in an open source program called Picolay. Easy enough, although no idea how it compares quality-wise. 

Tips? Comments? Thoughts? Advice? (other than quit and take up knitting!)




Lobster by telecast, on Flickr


----------



## Jeff15 (Mar 9, 2019)

Looks OK to me.....


----------



## Jeff G (Mar 9, 2019)

I think you've avoided the knitting needles, looks great.


----------



## Overread (Mar 10, 2019)

Looks like a very good first result!

A few tips/thoughts
1) There's no "proper" distance to move, there isn't even really a general agreement on if adjusting the focus or moving the camera closer is "better" than the other. The only requirement is that each frame overlaps the other a tiny bit with regard to depth of field, so that when they stack up there are no gaps and the software can match the sharp points to each other easily. This can result in a bit of trial and error but its also a case of more is better than less.

2) Learn to shoot wide. Your first shot (most start furthest out and then move in) should be shot wider than you need because your last shot is going to be moved into the subject, which is going to lose frame around the edges. That means you've got to factor that in somewhat if the composition is going to be tight. Sometimes (esp if you've got a static subject) its good to go to the last frame first just to set yourself a minimum distance and then zoom/move out and then start the series

3) I've not used that software, though CombineZP is also legal freeware and if you use the adobe subscription then Photoshop can also do stacking. There's also Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus. Each stacking software operates a little differently to the other and sometimes that can make or break a stack. I've had stacks that failed in one but worked in another because of very subtle differences. Someone did a test a few years back (can't find it now) which compared them and did identify a few key properties that could make one work better over another, but they were impractical elements to consider when taking photos (ergo you couldn't practically tailor your shooting to suit one software package over another).
The upshot is that if your stack fails do consider another software program to try out - it might make all the difference.


----------



## DigiFilm (Mar 10, 2019)

Overread said:


> Looks like a very good first result!



Thanks! Very informative response. I watched a few videos after posting and see exactly what you're saying about how many shots or the difference between. Overlap seems to be the key. Also excellent info about trying different programs, I'll check into a few you suggest. 

One thing I don't understand in your post:​


Overread said:


> 1) There's no "proper" distance to move, there isn't even really a general agreement on if adjusting the focus or moving the camera closer is "better" than the other.



I am under the impression that you can't move the camera or reframe the shot since the images wouldn't line up. Wouldn't it make stacking the images impossible?


----------



## Overread (Mar 10, 2019)

Even when you move the focus the edges of the frame content will change; esp since moving the focus point often makes small changes to both focal length* and magnification factor on most lenses. If you consider that at its closest focus a regular macro lens achieves a magnification of 1:1 (size of the image on the sensor is the same as real life) then any deviation from that focus point is going to change the magnification. 

With a regular macro lens the fine control over focus makes it possible to change the focus in very small degrees that are more or less similar to shifting the focus by moving the lens/camera in and out. With more regular lenses and a filter you might find the lens harder to focus in fine small steps. A focusing rail on a tripod would let you move the whole setup closer/further in very small steps. The magnification for each shot remains the same, but the frame will shift a little. 


Like I said I've not seen any example/test that really worked out if one approach was superior to the other and I'd wager that the results of any such test would likely find that for most photography its not important unless the photos are to be scientifically accurate and to scale. Otherwise artistically its no worry at all. Plus I'd wager the differences might not be all that apparent for most practical macro applications of this method - one might see far more of a variation doing more extreme stacking photos. 


*many lenses reduce effective focal length to focus closer. It's something many do but isn't stated since by and large it has no effect on things and isn't noticed; though some lenses are more extreme than others. One of Nikons more recent 70-200mm lenses has quite a significant shift in focal length at the closer distances if I recall right.


----------

