Stack vs F32 challenge

This image B

Gary: Your hint that you darkened the BG makes me think you stacked image A. I do prefer it because of the BG but I really don't see much difference in focus characteristics. OTOH there is more detail on the stem of image B. I don't see a lot of difference if any in the flowers, especially at this presentation size. Some of the center details and the spots on the petals do seem a touch sharper on image A but one has to look pretty closely to see it.

I'm a capture guy and don't relish the time I have to spend on a computer. I'm not at all claiming that it's superior to get solid captures than to enhance an image with post-processing. I see both as different and complementary aspects of the art. My take on stacking - which I don't do merely because I've been too lazy to get the software - is that it allows you to shoot shallow in order to minimize the effects of the BG. This BG is obviously not busy enough to require significant capture blurring. But that also brings up another point which you don't mention and that is the effect of diffraction with small apertures. I know some folks get pretty doctrinaire about never using an aperture smaller than f16 because of the degrading effect of diffraction. I kind of scratch my head and wonder what they are seeing. Whichever of these is the f32 I can't see any defects. Interesting exercise. Thanks for doing it and I'm looking forward to the other comments. >=))>

Image A is the stacked image and I say that because of the slight softness on the flower. There's a slight softness to the edges in A (which I prefer!). I guess saying the same thing as Bill..a tad less detail in A vs B. The bg in A is preferable for me...more natural. An interesting look at the images and thanks for showing us that perhaps as like Bill, I'm just too lazy to do all that work for stacking

Gary, there's a luminosity and depth to the first image that the second lacks.

Also, I like your diagonal presentation.

Thumbnail caught my eye.

Well done,

Carol

Gary,

An interesting exercise. To me image B is the weaker image whether stacked or not. I've never done a stack using PS, but only Helicon Focus and if B is the stacked image, I think it's fairly weak stacking work - not necessarily your technique but possibly just the limitations of PS versus Helicon. If A is the stacked image, it's still not as sharp to my eye as it would be if you had used Helicon and deliberately tried to get all the bloom and stem in sharp focus. I guess what I'm saying is that neither of these strikes me as an example of stacking where you want all of the image in sharp focus. Stacking, even with Helicon still lets me control dof, in fact the idea at least for me, is that it gives me more control over dof than not stacking - I just generally end up going for full dof sharpness throughout the subject because that's usually the style I like.

Short answer I can't tell which of these is stacked. However, I do like image A the best. I'll be interested in what you tell us and this was thought provoking (at least for me) and fun to do.

pat

Hi Gary. First of all great image and which ever one is the single shot very nice job getting such great detail. My guess and it's only a guess would be photo "A" is the stacked image only because the BG is nicer and you may have added it to complete the overall "art" effect.
Well done and great exercise.

Not sure I can tell, Gary- though, unless my eyes deceive me ( and the different bgs may have an effect here ) image A looks fractionally crisper. I go for A as the stack anyway. That is the shot I prefer - the bg is perfect for the flower. Lovely image - and many congrats on your EPA. You did a wonderful series of lotus flowers last year !!!!

We don't have experience with stacking so we don't have an answer for this. We like the first image better, mainly because of the BG.

D&L

Gary, I can't see a difference in the blooms in terms of sharpness. What I do see is that the images weren't processed the same to have a true comparison between them. The PP of the respective BGs should be the same to have a true comparison. As Pat mentions, the stacking using Helicon would probably be better for sharpness. But then again, alot of folks say there is an impression of "thickening" of delicate petals when stacked using Helicon. So I think it comes down to personal preference and what "feel" you're trying to communicate will dictate what tools you'll use to do that. No right or wrong answer.

Stunning work, such beautiful colour!Image A is my favorite!

Gary, I much prefer the first image because of the background color and because it seems to have more depth and solidity while remaining lacy-looking.

Gorgeous - great colors, nice "pose" and perfect processing.
Another excellent image!
Like the first one best, whaich I think is the stacked one. There is a small blip at the base of the stem that might be cloned out - I see what it really is on the other images, but on the first one it looks like a "blip".
Sandy

The flower is gorgeous in both, but thecolor and smoothness of the background certainly works better in A. Background B has an unusual mottled look that doesn't look natural to me unless it's water or sand and B also has a slight dark halo around the flower, which suggests extra processing. I have no idea which is stacked, but I'll go against the flow and say B due to the halo.

Lori

HI Gary With my weak eyesight, i'm not the ideal judge on stacking Where i find a big difference[, is in the color tones, image A has a softer color and light, image B, seems harsher . The detail seems to be the same for me

Albert Darmo. Canada

I would like to thank everyone for taking part in this exercise. Most of you correctly identified image A as the stack one and image B as the F32. I placed a silver reflector behind the flower in f32 image to mask the bg which would otherwise be easy to pick as the F32. Should have done the same for the stack image to make it comparable but the F32 was done as an after thought.

Conclusions:
1. There is very little difference in the DOF on the flower between the stack and F32 images in this setting. However stacking is still useful to manage:
a) the background and
b) in extreme close up where f32 does not give sufficient DOF.

2. I agree with Bill's comment that diffraction blur at F32 is overstated and can be easily corrected by post process sharpening. It is not an issue for practical purpose.

Hi gary beautiful looking flower the center is really contrasty to the jagged feel of the petals
well i've done stacking quite a few times & tried to equate it with F/32 but at 100 % of my 5d i can really make some differences in the overall sharpness of the image but once u downsize it, it can be very diffcult to choose between the 2
Mike Moats use F/32 & creates breathtaking sharpness in prints

An interesting exercise Gary. I appreciate you taking the time to do it and have also enjoyed reading the posts associated with it. Thank you very much for your efforts.

pat

I think the degree of diffraction attained at smaller apertures is also dependent on the lens you use and the sensor you have. I'm shooting a D2Xs and with the 105 I see very noticeable falloff in sharpness past f16....which I cannot bring back very well with sharpening. So, I tend to use Helicon in place of smaller apertures. If it doesn't take too many exposures I will get the entire subject covered with the stack shots and then select the ones I want to use in Helicon based on what part of the subject I want sharp in the final image....a form of selective focus, I guess.

I see an appreciable decrease in sharpness beyond F/16 which I can easily spot even in the photos of people who claim its plenty sharp. I see it very easily in my photos as well and virtually everyone's photo here shot at F/22 and beyond. Since sharpness does not have a measurement criteria associated with it, we might be arguing over vaporware really. Each one to his own.

I much prefer the 1st version which is obviously stacked.