I've been visiting the amazing macro gallery more these days and I notice alot of you refer to the technique of stacking. Does anyone feel like explaining this to me? I'd love to know what you are all getting into. thanks
I suspect they are referring to using extension rings. These are basically metal rings that go between the lens and body and allow you to shoot at closer distances. These rings usually come in sets of different widths and you can stack them on top of each other to get closer and closer distances with greater magnification. They don't have any glass components so no degradation of image quality occurs. The only downside is you have to take your lens off each time to change the stack so more chances for dirt to get in. However you usually end up using just one combination for most work. I used rings with a Canon 18-55mm for years on my film camera and got good results. However digital cameras are more demanding so I just decided to go with a Canon 100mm macro to avoid this issue of fiddling with rings. But to be honest with you I'm not sure it was worth the extra cost if you already have a good prime lens to use with the rings. Unfortunately all my lenses are zooms so I bit the bullet and bought one from someone here--Larry
Actually I've used that term and, assuming others are using it as I am, it refers to focus stacking. That is, stacking a few to several images focused at different points into the subject to increase DOF. I use Helicon and have very good success with this program. You can use it for macro as well as other types of photography.
Focus stacking is at Mark described. Here is a bit of an elaboration:
You've probably taken pictures where you want two parts of the image to be in focus, but DOF considerations means that you have to make one choice or the other, assuming that you are going to take one shot.
Wouldn't it be nice to take two shots (or more) and cut out the the pieces that are sharp and the picture out of those pieces?
With digital, we can do that, which is the heart of focus stacking. One approach is to do this manually. Create two layers, use on layer for the first and the second for the second image, erase the OOF areas in the first shot and erase the OOF areas in the second shot. Flatten and process as you normally would.
Easy enough.
But suppose the scene requires 4-10 images, or if a macro shot, 40-100 images. You certainly don't want to do it by hand. That is where softwarre comes to the rescue. Helicon Focus was the first program to make it to the big time to automate this process. I've used it and it works well. Zyrene Stacker is also very well respected in the macro community but I have never used it.
Here is the really big requirement with any stacking program. The subject has to be still. If there is motion, the software is going to try really hard to figure out where a tree branch should be, or where the insect leg should be. I've seen 13 legged beetles appear (Run for your life, Mother! To the hills and don't look back!) and wierd artifacts in windy landscapes. But overall, these programs open a lot more possibilities when we dreamed of in the film days.
Here is the real question: how much better is Helicon to CS4 (with the updated stacking)? I assume its better--but how much better??
Posted by Dan Borzynski on June 23, 2010 at 11:17 PM
I just went from CS2 to CS5 so I haven't had a chance to evaluate that feature yet. Actually, I haven't even found it - not a surprise since tonight is the first evening I've had to really look at the software.
The big key is going to be how fast and how well it can handle a 50+ image stack. It sounds like a lot but it is not a rare event if you are working at several multiples of life size. Helicon Focus and Zyrene Stacker both handle it very well, both in terms of speed and the end result.
Posted by Robert Cubit on June 24, 2010 at 1:35 AM
Cheryl, I've been using focus stacking software for over three years for both landscape and macro photography, up to 10x magnification). The back-lit orb web spider and web I just posted in the macro gallery was focus stacked from 3 images at different focal planes so I could shoot each image at f/8 instead of f/32, to get both maximum sharpness, DOF, and render the bg oof at the same time. It works extremely well with some limitations. The major limitation as Dan mentioned is movement in the scene. It's OK if the whole frame shifts between shots (it's even possible to capture focus slices hand held)---the software will re-align the frames. Some of the sw will also warp the frames slightly for problems like wing movement (CS5 auto-align layers can do small amounts of warp and de-ghosting). There can also be artifacts (halos) around high-contrast edges in some focus stacked images.
The best programs for this are Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker (not Zyrene, Dan). I own and use both regularly. The results from CS4 were nowhere near as good as HF or ZS. I have CS5 but haven't bothered to try it, as I've heard from reliable sources that it's still not very capable. I heard Tim Grey say there was no change from CS4 to CS5 for the focus stacking feature. There's also a free program called CombineZP, but it only works on 8-bit images, not 16-bit.
Between Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker, both are good at different tasks and on certain images. HF may be better at stacking landscape images, but ZS is far better (no contest) at stacking most macro images at 0.2x to over 40x magnifications---fewer artifacts like halos, very fast even when stacking the sometimes hundreds of images needed for high-magnification stacks. It's also much less expensive than the Pro version of HF. Zerene Stacker was written by Rik Littlefield who is one of the admins at www.photomacrography.net, which is the top site for true macro photography (greater than 1x). The forum at PMN is a treasure trove of knowledge on macro lenses, hardware and software for macro and close-up photography.
http://photomacrography.net/forum/
Focus stacking has revolutionized photomacrogaphy and photomicrograpy (through the microscope). But its been very slow to be adopted by most close-up and landscape photographers. This has changed somewhat since George Lepp wrote an article in Outdoor Photographer a few years ago about extending DOF using Helicon Focus. It's still a good starting point for discovering the potential of this technique:
I have always thought that "stacking" was putting a 200mm prime lens on your camera and, via two reversing rings stuck back to back screw a 50mm prime lens, reversed onto the end of the 200mm lens.
I used to use this fantastic technique until someone pinched my lenses.
Check out JOHN SHAW'S "CLOSEUPS IN NATURE" book (fantastic) pp112-113 for details.
OK , thanks everyone for the input. I do believe I was talking about the focus stack not the rings but thankyou Larry as well. Sounds like alot of work but the images are really very cool. Especially that web shot Robert which is amazing. My brain does not like technical work, it is very creative and artistic but not technical. I have to re-read your instructions over and over to get it. I'm gonna attempt i tat some point.
Posted by John W. Wall on June 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM
FWIW, I posted a note about the difference between Helicon and CS4 here: http://jwallphoto.blogspot.com/2010/03/stacked-denizens.html
Posted by Robert Cubit on June 24, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Cheryl, sorry for the long-winded post. I realize that was a way TMI for your first question on focus stacking. It was just my attempt to clear up some of the confusion even amongst pro photographers regarding the different programs and techniques.
However if you haven't yet done so, you really should check out George Lepp's article (last link in my previous post), for a good introduction on focus stacking. And while you’re at the Outdoor Photographer site, enter "focus stacking" in the search window to bring up results from George's Q&A column on the use of focus stacking. As John points out in his blog, focus stacking is really not that difficult. If the technical side of your brain can handle basic Photoshop processing and focusing your lens, you can get good results in Zerene Stacker or Helicon Focus using the default settings, within an hour after installing the sw. Perhaps a little bit longer learning curve is necessary to become familiar with the technique of capturing the series of "focus slices" with your camera gear---but that's all nicely covered in the OP article.
John, in case you haven't looked at the Helicon Focus updates for awhile, the newer versions have a feature called Helicon Remote (built-in to Helicon Focus, but also works stand-alone), which performs precise automatic-stepping of the lens' focus motor, when the camera is tethered to a computer through USB. They're still working out some bugs, but it generally works very well with most DSLR's that have LiveView (it does only work with LiveView cameras, due to limitations in Nikon and Canon's SDK's, on which the sw is based).
Although Helicon Remote works OK with a decent laptop (it struggles on Netbooks), for field use, there's a new player in this game called StackShot. It includes both hardware, in the form of an automatic motor-driven focus rail and control sw (in a separate controller unit). By moving the camera on the automatic focus rail (mounted on a tripod), it's possible to perform as low as 10-micron steps needed for 5x to 10x magnification macros. The captured images are then imported into your favorite stacking program, as usual.
Posted by John W. Wall on June 24, 2010 at 5:06 PM
Great info, Bob. I'll have to check that out. It took me three tries to settle on a focusing rail that I liked (I picked the Kirk). Now this.
Interesting that it's similar to the RRS rail, which I found completely useless for focus-stacking because it didn't maintain a centered axis point through the stack. Obviously, though (see the Flickr photo), the Cognisys rail works despite the screw-type mechanism: http://www.flickr.com/photos/13084997@N03/4439102395/
By the way, that photo was done with a D200 (no Live View needed).
Posted by Robert Cubit on June 24, 2010 at 8:10 PM
John, glad you liked the StackShot info. Personally, I’m holding off on this until the next generation is released. Although it looks like it’s working quite well, there appear to be a few mechanical issues with the first version:
Also, there are reports that they may be working on a controller that is battery powered for field work, which is more in line with what I need.
"By the way, that photo was done with a D200 (no Live View needed)."
Yep, that’s the great thing about using an automated focus rails, they’ll work with any camera.
One more thing since I seem to be unable to shut up on this subject (sorry again, Cheryl, didn't mean to highjack your thread! ), a glaring omission to my list of extended DOF options above is the one Don mentioned, blending images shot at different focal planes in PS. While the automatic focus stacking programs are getting continuously better and these may become a requirement when you need to stack over about 10 frames, there are many cases (especially for landscapes) where the very best results are provided by blending different focus layers in PS (BTW, the same is often true of automated HDR sw vs PS blending). And you don’t need CS4 or CS5. However, this can be a bit more labor intensive and may not work well with complex images. I usually try the fully automated methods first. And if I don’t like the results, I employ Tony Kuyper’s “Digital Scheimpflug” technique (just don’t ask me how to pronounce “scheimpflug” ):
His implementation greatly simplifies the process. As with all of Tony’s great procedures (Luminosity Masks, etc.) it’s available for a small donation. Please donate; I hear he needs the money!
Discussion
15 repliesYou've probably taken pictures where you want two parts of the image to be in focus, but DOF considerations means that you have to make one choice or the other, assuming that you are going to take one shot.
Wouldn't it be nice to take two shots (or more) and cut out the the pieces that are sharp and the picture out of those pieces?
With digital, we can do that, which is the heart of focus stacking. One approach is to do this manually. Create two layers, use on layer for the first and the second for the second image, erase the OOF areas in the first shot and erase the OOF areas in the second shot. Flatten and process as you normally would.
Easy enough.
But suppose the scene requires 4-10 images, or if a macro shot, 40-100 images. You certainly don't want to do it by hand. That is where softwarre comes to the rescue. Helicon Focus was the first program to make it to the big time to automate this process. I've used it and it works well. Zyrene Stacker is also very well respected in the macro community but I have never used it.
Here is the really big requirement with any stacking program. The subject has to be still. If there is motion, the software is going to try really hard to figure out where a tree branch should be, or where the insect leg should be. I've seen 13 legged beetles appear (Run for your life, Mother! To the hills and don't look back!) and wierd artifacts in windy landscapes. But overall, these programs open a lot more possibilities when we dreamed of in the film days.
The big key is going to be how fast and how well it can handle a 50+ image stack. It sounds like a lot but it is not a rare event if you are working at several multiples of life size. Helicon Focus and Zyrene Stacker both handle it very well, both in terms of speed and the end result.
The best programs for this are Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker (not Zyrene, Dan). I own and use both regularly. The results from CS4 were nowhere near as good as HF or ZS. I have CS5 but haven't bothered to try it, as I've heard from reliable sources that it's still not very capable. I heard Tim Grey say there was no change from CS4 to CS5 for the focus stacking feature. There's also a free program called CombineZP, but it only works on 8-bit images, not 16-bit.
Between Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker, both are good at different tasks and on certain images. HF may be better at stacking landscape images, but ZS is far better (no contest) at stacking most macro images at 0.2x to over 40x magnifications---fewer artifacts like halos, very fast even when stacking the sometimes hundreds of images needed for high-magnification stacks. It's also much less expensive than the Pro version of HF. Zerene Stacker was written by Rik Littlefield who is one of the admins at www.photomacrography.net, which is the top site for true macro photography (greater than 1x). The forum at PMN is a treasure trove of knowledge on macro lenses, hardware and software for macro and close-up photography.
http://photomacrography.net/forum/
Focus stacking has revolutionized photomacrogaphy and photomicrograpy (through the microscope). But its been very slow to be adopted by most close-up and landscape photographers. This has changed somewhat since George Lepp wrote an article in Outdoor Photographer a few years ago about extending DOF using Helicon Focus. It's still a good starting point for discovering the potential of this technique:
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/photoshop-and-other-software/unlimited-depth-of-field.html
Hope this helps,
Bob
I used to use this fantastic technique until someone pinched my lenses.
Check out JOHN SHAW'S "CLOSEUPS IN NATURE" book (fantastic) pp112-113 for details.
However if you haven't yet done so, you really should check out George Lepp's article (last link in my previous post), for a good introduction on focus stacking. And while you’re at the Outdoor Photographer site, enter "focus stacking" in the search window to bring up results from George's Q&A column on the use of focus stacking. As John points out in his blog, focus stacking is really not that difficult. If the technical side of your brain can handle basic Photoshop processing and focusing your lens, you can get good results in Zerene Stacker or Helicon Focus using the default settings, within an hour after installing the sw. Perhaps a little bit longer learning curve is necessary to become familiar with the technique of capturing the series of "focus slices" with your camera gear---but that's all nicely covered in the OP article.
John, in case you haven't looked at the Helicon Focus updates for awhile, the newer versions have a feature called Helicon Remote (built-in to Helicon Focus, but also works stand-alone), which performs precise automatic-stepping of the lens' focus motor, when the camera is tethered to a computer through USB. They're still working out some bugs, but it generally works very well with most DSLR's that have LiveView (it does only work with LiveView cameras, due to limitations in Nikon and Canon's SDK's, on which the sw is based).
Although Helicon Remote works OK with a decent laptop (it struggles on Netbooks), for field use, there's a new player in this game called StackShot. It includes both hardware, in the form of an automatic motor-driven focus rail and control sw (in a separate controller unit). By moving the camera on the automatic focus rail (mounted on a tripod), it's possible to perform as low as 10-micron steps needed for 5x to 10x magnification macros. The captured images are then imported into your favorite stacking program, as usual.
http://www.cognisys-inc.com/stackshot/stackshot.php
Bob
Interesting that it's similar to the RRS rail, which I found completely useless for focus-stacking because it didn't maintain a centered axis point through the stack. Obviously, though (see the Flickr photo), the Cognisys rail works despite the screw-type mechanism: http://www.flickr.com/photos/13084997@N03/4439102395/
By the way, that photo was done with a D200 (no Live View needed).
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9547&highlight=stackshot
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10041&highlight=stackshot
Also, there are reports that they may be working on a controller that is battery powered for field work, which is more in line with what I need.
"By the way, that photo was done with a D200 (no Live View needed)."
Yep, that’s the great thing about using an automated focus rails, they’ll work with any camera.
One more thing since I seem to be unable to shut up on this subject (sorry again, Cheryl, didn't mean to highjack your thread!
http://goodlight.us/writing/digitalscheimpflug/digitalscheimpflug-0.html
His implementation greatly simplifies the process. As with all of Tony’s great procedures (Luminosity Masks, etc.) it’s available for a small donation. Please donate; I hear he needs the money!
Bob
1001 apologies, Cheryl !