# Moss Cliff - another focus stack



## jrice12 (Sep 19, 2011)

Had one left over that I was working on.
Canon 550D with EF 100mm/f2.8 lens. Natural lighting, tabletop tripod, ISO 400.

Not sure I have the hang of manual focus stacking yet , but still experimenting with it. This one is of a small, sawed off, tree trunk with moss growing on it. Took 6 images at f2.8 and stacked them. The idea was to get the cliff and moss nicely in focus but the background way out of focus so it would like like fog - sort of a "Lovers Leap" affair. I think f2.8 is just too narrow and would need like 10 shots to do it right, plus I don't think this works well with subjects that have lots of elements at different focus points (the "trees" criss-cross each other etc.). Still, it makes for an interesting picture - the whole thing is about 1.5" wide but does begin to look much bigger. At least, one doesn't want to get too close to the edge!

The areas in the moss that are still out of focus gives it that swirly wind, motion blur look.


----------



## Overread (Sep 19, 2011)

I think part of the confusion is that, with the very thin f2.8 aperture, you've ended up missing out focus segments, which has given the photo an odd look since there appears to be more than one plain of focus. Maybe try f4 next time - still a creamy background, but a bit more depth either side to work with. 

That said I do really like the "Flow" that the saturated greens have to them - certainly a worthwhile subject and shot, just not quite the number of stacks needed. 

Also its a good move to often nab a "record/keeper" shot before you start stacking (esp with bugs) where you just use a normal aperture for the depth; so that at least you walk away with something closer to your intentions even if your stack fails.


----------



## jrice12 (Sep 19, 2011)

The other problem with the narrow DOF is that this subject has interwining peices (overlapping etc.) so it is not a simple job to thread out which image has the perfect focus for each part of the subject segments.  Not like doing a stack of a shot of a floor or something that is coherent!  

Still, I think there is potential to use stacking for certain effects so I will keep at it.


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2011)

Typically speaking I'd shoot a stack like that (ie one at f2.8) on a solid tripod and I'd just make a single series of shots from closest to furthest points with small variations on the focusing rail between each shot; then I'd do it all again as a second series. If I felt really bad about the situation I'd then do it a 3rd time (the subject is going nowhere). 

I'd then see which series of the stacks came out the best from the stacking software, maybe selectively removing poor frames if they showed up problems. Otherwise if it failed trying to stick together fine focused shots independent of a series can be a nightmare indeed.


----------



## jrice12 (Sep 20, 2011)

I never thought to do several series and pick the best - great idea.  I my case I am still doing manual stacking for experimenting and for a shot like this, one series is a lot.  Another idea I had was to take the series at higher f-stop and the just one at lower f-stop, stack the series and then scale it up a bit (to cover halo'ing) and then past into the single at lower f-stop.  This might be easier with the wider DOF on the stacks.


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2011)

That might work, but it sounds like a bit of a nightmare getting it all to work. However you touch upon the use of varying apertures which is a valid method with stacking; The idea being that if you take a series of shots at f2.8, once you stack them if you've any fore or background elements that drive into or out of focus from the main subject you get a very sharp line of infocus then out of focus on the subject (as a result of the stack). To counter you'd, say shoot the main body of the stack at f2.8, but would shift to f4, f5.6 and maybe even f8 at either end of the series so that when it is stacked into a single shot the blend into back/fore ground elements is smoother and thus more natural looking.


----------

