Photoclubalpha

here is my first attempt, it really is easy, I used a free stacker called Zerene, this is 11 images focused at different points then stacked together for great depth of field, sorry about the model but I was reading about this stuff last night at around 1 am and decided to give it a try there and then, you will get the idea though, seemingly it is great for macros and landscapes, I might have some spare time today and will try it on a flower with the 90mm macro lens

I haven’t tried it yet gio67 but I’ve been meaning to give it go at some point, I wanted to get a good focus rack plate first to have that option as well if refocusing didn’t work as good as I expected, or to have that as a backup option.
I have been informed that some lenses change magnification at different focus positions and that might make it difficult for the software to meld the images together…maybe, that’s why I thought I’d probably need a focus rack plate.
But that result you have achieved there looks good enough to my eye even if it was done (I assume) with refocusing the lens from the same camera position.
What lighting arrangements (if any) was used, and f-stop?
Greg

Greg Beetham wrote:I haven’t tried it yet gio67 but I’ve been meaning to give it go at some point, I wanted to get a good focus rack plate first to have that option as well if refocusing didn’t work as good as I expected, or to have that as a backup option.
I have been informed that some lenses change magnification at different focus positions and that might make it difficult for the software to meld the images together…maybe, that’s why I thought I’d probably need a focus rack plate.
But that result you have achieved there looks good enough to my eye even if it was done (I assume) with refocusing the lens from the same camera position.
What lighting arrangements (if any) was used, and f-stop?
Greg

your right Greg,
just refocusing from the same tripod position, lighting was just the room light, I used the nex 6 and sony 35mm 1.8 focus peaking was invaluable,
I set the camera to A and took a reading at f6.3, then manually set that shutter speed and aperture, I used iso 400 because of the poor light,
I never used a remote shutter release in this instance,but will in future, so there may have been some movement cause by pressing the shutter.

Zerene seems to do a good job of aligning too, and is easy to use, it's on free trial for a month

here,s a video of what it can do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CwiEmTi-ew

here's my first go at a flower, it does make a difference to my eyes, this was an 8 image stack and a bit windy outside so aligning seems to have done a very good job

Yes I tried, but it only is a viable technique on static objects. I found it pretty hard at (close to) 1:1 magnification in real world macro situations. I had a static insect sitting on a flower, tripod, camera with Live View and focus magnification with the Tamron 90mm macro. Weather was calm, no movement on the flower, but due to the sunlight hitting the LCD screen I had a hard time seeing my point of focus. Even at crazy apertures as f/16 and up I had too much gaps in the focus due to a combo of my bad focussing skills and the sun hitting the LCD. I ended up having focus gaps in my stack. A macri rail would probably take care of my sloppy ficussing, butit would still be hard.

It'sanice technique, but not very usable for macro IRL in my.opinion.

I have been using ZS for a while. There are couple of other experts on the forum who excel at focus stacking.
I hope they are on a brief hiatus. Zerene Stack is easy to use and I think it is free for 30 days.

Here are few from recent shoot with Tamron 60 f2. Nothing major or spectacular. I did it because
I was alone at home and no one to "mock" me. Using a macro slider and Tamron 60f2 on A900.

4 Images stacked


10 Images stacked


5 Images stacked

mvanrheenen wrote:Yes I tried, but it only is a viable technique on static objects. I found it pretty hard at (close to) 1:1 magnification in real world macro situations. I had a static insect sitting on a flower, tripod, camera with Live View and focus magnification with the Tamron 90mm macro. Weather was calm, no movement on the flower, but due to the sunlight hitting the LCD screen I had a hard time seeing my point of focus. Even at crazy apertures as f/16 and up I had too much gaps in the focus due to a combo of my bad focussing skills and the sun hitting the LCD. I ended up having focus gaps in my stack. A macri rail would probably take care of my sloppy ficussing, butit would still be hard.

It'sanice technique, but not very usable for macro IRL in my.opinion.

the focus peaking and tilt screen on the nex 6 are invaluable for this type of work



nice work sury

Thank you. Here is a 11 image stack using both Dmap and Pmax options on Zerene Stacker.

This is Pmax version



This is Dmap version

what is the difference sury, I chose the dmap version on mines, for no other reason than I just did.
I think I prefer your pmx version

In my example, The petal at top is better with Pmax than with Dmap. There are other examples where it was otherway around.

From zerene stacker home page:

DMap versus PMax

To get the most benefit from using Zerene Stacker, it’s important to understand the differences between its two major stacking methods.

PMax is a “pyramid” method. It is very good at finding and preserving detail even in low contrast or slightly blurred areas. It's also very good at handling overlapping structures like mats of hair and crisscrossing bristles, nicely avoiding the loss-of-detail halos typical of other stacking programs. But PMax tends to increase noise and contrast, and it can alter colors somewhat.

DMap is a “depth map” method. It does a better job keeping the original smoothness and colors, but it's not as good at finding and preserving detail.

The two methods complement each other. Some types of subjects look good when they are processed automatically by PMax, but not by DMap. Other subjects are just the opposite. For particularly challenging subjects like bugs and flowers shot through microscope objectives, neither method is ideal by itself. In that case the best results are obtained by using human judgment and the retouching tool to combine the best aspects of both algorithms.

Basically I think it’s done a pretty good job gio67 seeing what it had to deal with, the flower being so far oof in the first shot. The bokeh is a bit spotty looking as Yildiz says and I see edge halos around the petals too, it and the bud might have ended up a tad plasticky in the end perhaps but the program seems to have potential for sure.
Perhaps there might even be differences in results if one starts with the first image being sharp at the furthest point and then stacking upwards.

Those results are very good Sury, one of the stamens look a little ghostly for some reason.
Greg

Greg,
The ghostly effect is due to misalignment primarily due to movement. I felt too lazy to fix it.

Sury