# Sometimes it needs a different approach



## Overread (Nov 26, 2010)

The shot processed with CombineZP 





http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4291191547_954473af8d_o.jpg

The shot processed with Zerene stacker:




http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5210003510_1998f4893e_b.jpg

Just to show what a different type of software can do - I tried this stacked shot again, this time with Zerene Stacker and its done a fantastic job! Still not quite as ideal as I'd like (it still blows out many of the brighter areas of the shot); but its a massive improvement over CombineZP's attempts with this series of shots. Note that I did alter the white balance between the two shots and this is not a product of the different software approaches (just me not being consistent )

Note that shouldn't read that CombineZP is incapable as a focus stacking software choice - its just that sometimes a different approach is needed to get the best possible result. You see a similar pattern with things such as noise reduction programs - each one performing to a high standard, but when faced against specific shots some can outdo the others. 
Generally for noise I've not been too worried to use different programs, but because of the more complex and intensive method of focus stacking (ie taking all those shots and finding an insect to stay still) I'm fully prepared to use multiple programs to get the best possible finish.

Interestingly so far Zerene is giving me softer, more noisy and slightly more washed out shots than CombineZP does (excluding the softness on the failed combinezp stack above). Part of this is most likely the settings I'm using, but it appears that whilst CombineZP applies additional sharpening and noise reduction as part of its program Zerene might not be (totally based on guesswork at the moment till I get more into working with Zerene).


----------



## Markw (Nov 26, 2010)

That's interesting.  Ive had combinezp downloaded for some time now and have never used it.  I cannot seem to figure it out and have yet to look at tutorials 

Mark


----------



## Hack (Nov 26, 2010)

I purchased Zeneme Stacker, after trying out CombineZP.  I prefer ZS.

hack


----------



## jake337 (Nov 27, 2010)

I actually like the combinez's better, maybe its the wb is different in the two photos. I lose the subject in the second photo. stands out more in the first.

But there is much more detail in the second which is what you were going for I believe.


----------



## Overread (Nov 27, 2010)

An interesting point Jake and I would say that I don't think its the white balance, but rather the way the two programs have approached producing the final composite - CombineZP has done more to preserve (if making slightly greater) the varying exposure values of the shot - so darker areas remain dark in the final composite - whilst Zerene has done more of a tonemapping job to combine the exposures - boosting lighting generally over the whole shot (much to my dismay both however seem to add up blown areas - even when they are only blown in a colour channel). 

The final output of Zerene was actually quite grey overall with tones and need a lot more contrast adding to get to what I have above. I suspect I'll have to work on such shots with local contrast and brightness tweaks to reduce the tonemapping effect (unless I can find controls to reduce/alter the effect within the program itself

Mark - its almost as simple as - add the shots - align shots - do stack  
grab a series of shots for a focus stack and I can walk you through it (at least at a basic level)


----------



## ChrisA (Nov 29, 2010)

Nice stack and info.  I too have noticed that different software works better of different images.

Also tried out Helicon Focus, the full version lets you edit the individual layer image if you don't get a perfect stack.

I had posted some simple stacking tutorials on my site earlier in the year.


Helicon
http://www.macro-photo.co.uk/2010/focus-stacking-with-helicon-focus-tutorial

CS5
http://www.macro-photo.co.uk/2010/stacking-macro-photographs-in-photoshop-cs5

Also reminds me to finish off my CombineZP and Zerene articles some time soon.


----------



## Frequency (Nov 29, 2010)

Which image is more near to reality, i wonder; for me both are disturbing


----------



## NateS (Nov 29, 2010)

Try altering each exposure to match before throwing them to the stacker and see what you get.  I always edit my photos to make sure the exposure looks similar throughout on all of them....I never get blown highlights and never get weird color issues.  I use CombineZP exclusively as well.


----------



## Overread (Nov 29, 2010)

Thanks Chris - I'd forgotten about Helicon Focus!

NateS I think that it might simply be because the colour channel in those areas is blown out - even when editing the RAW its sitting right on the edge. I think what I'll have to do is go through each shot - processed twice and combine the exposures so that I keep enough good light data in the whole of the shot whilst also bringing down the exposure over the blown areas. 

It will take time - however since the brightness is the (now) only major error in the shot its worth taking to get the final good result. It does however mean that I'll probably have to play around with the white balance more to get it finalised (I don't want to do this twice)


----------



## Stormchase (Nov 29, 2010)

good thread. I have only used CZM. If i remember right they had a coulpe blown colors in the final result. I have heard the other names but its good to see and learn more about them. Nice shots BTW.


----------

