I have been playing around with stacking (Helicon) and at the same interval doing some macro and close work on flowers at F22 (smallest aperture on my macro lens). At this point I'm inclined to feel that stacking, while I see fantastic results by others here, is too costly in time spent, for results gained.
Please understand that I admit to being very unschooled and inexperienced at stacking. My real purpose in this topic is trying to decide whether I wish to keep digging into, what might be a long term learning of the procedure, or continueing with old school high (numerical) F stops instead.
Any thoughts by others of your own personal experiences with learning stacking? And thoughts as to comparison of results between the two approaches to DOF.
Charlie, depends on what you're shooting. If its flowers, there are many methods of shooting them, some for minimal dof, some where you want all the detail you can get. If its the latter, bear in mind that the optimal aperture when shooting digital is said to be f/8 or f/11, that anything above that begins to deteriorate in terms of IQ. Personally I shoot at f/16 a lot for max dof, but even in landscapes f/16 or 22 doesn't do the trick a lot of the time. I then choose various focus points and stack.
Btw, Ansel Adams may very well have stacked.
First, to address the AA reference there are some things that some folks need to understand. Mr. Ansel used a large format camera and LF lenses. Typically, the smallest aperture can be from f/64 to f/128. f/22 on most LF lenses is about optimal in terms of optical performance. So, the answer to your question or reference to AA is that it's all relative. f/22 is typically the smallest aperture on a 35mm/digital lens of today I believe. Maybe f/32? Just because I can have an aperture of f/128 on one of my lenses doesn't mean that I've ever used it - because for the same reasons for the smaller formats, the optics just don't hold up at the extreme aperture. The other aspect of the large format that Ansel used was the ability to control the plane of focus by tilting the lens and/or film plane (which is what prompted today's T/S lenses we see now.) This allowed the photographer to focus on a near subject and a far subject and get them both in exact focus. But guess what? The actual depth of field as measured on either side of the plane of focus was no better than any other format. It was the ability to tilt the lens that gives the large format an "apparent" or acceptable depth of focus.
Anyway, to get to the crux of your original question, I think it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If we're talking macro and closeups, you know that your depth of field is extremely small and gets narrower the higher the magnification goes. Many times folks want a very shallow depth of field so they even shoot at the other extreme at f/2.8 or whatever their largest aperture is. If you are trying to Maximize your dof in the macro range, even f/22 will often not provide the depth you need or want - at macro ranges we're talking mm or fractions of an inch.
So, I would think first about what you want to do, what effect do you want and then determine if stacking or simply a chosen aperture size will get what you want. From a physics and practical point of view, a lens will have better performance (diffraction and other optical faults) in it's mid range vs. the extreme settings (f/2.8 or f/22) and of course each lense will have a different optimal aperture.
If your testing and measurements satisfy your requirements for printing or whatever needs you have in your images then go with it. There are those who can throw charts, lines per millimeters and all kinds of data to show you which aperture is the sharpest, but in the end if what you have determined works for your needs, then I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Having said all that, if you want to have dof from .5 inches to infinity for a 1:1 macro setting, stacking a boat load of focused images WILL be required. If you only need 1/8" of depth, then you can test whether or not f/11 or f/22 works better or not....
Hope this helps, or at least gets you thinking a bit.
I have never stacked images for focus (too much work IMO). I am hooked on my tilt and shift 24mm (and will probably sell my 16-35mm L to get a 17mm TS-E). TS helps compensate for some focus issues. Tilt shift lenses take a while to get used to, but they work for me. I used tilt and shift actions when I did 4X5 film work so it was easy for me to get used to right off the bat. I know some people will have a steep learning curve with tilt shift lenses. In general, I typically use f/8 or f/11, sometimes f/16 depending on the lens..... but then again it depends what you want to do. For some lenses, I have used F/22 but rarely.
Charlie, I've pushed my 100mm macro lens to f/32 regularly to the the dof that I want. I've also just downloaded a trial version of stacking software because I want to try it. I see lots of discussion about the deterioration of quality at high apertures due to diffraction, but I haven't noticed on my computer screen or when making prints up to 13 x 19, so I don't worry about diffraction when I want dof. As I think about stacking, I can see one likely problem when working outdoors. If the wind is blowing, there will be lack of registration between images as flowers and trees move. This will be especially bad when doing macro, so it seems to me that stacking will require still air. If others have had better experiences I'd like to hear about it.
I'll try to respond to all the points that have been made above in this response. Hope I don't miss anything. At present the interest in stacking, for me, is flowers and I've been quite satisfied with F22 or slightly lower number. Shortly I will be doing a significant amount of photos of insects moths, dragon flies, butterflies etc. I choose not to kill my subjects so many of these will have to be at high F stops, not stacking, because of movement. Moths are a different story as they often are completely stationary during the day and I will give stacking a try on them.
I'd like to do some reading on tilt and shift and may consider getting into that area too. Thanks for mentioning that Lon and Eva. I guess it is available for 4/3 systems. Eva it is the work that has me holding before committing to an all out effort to learn to be effective with stacking. My first efforts have been time consuming AND unsatisfying as to quality. Seeing the results that some display here, it is a given that it can me made to have great advantage, but I'm unsure at this point if it is worth my time and effort. I've got a different problem than I've dealt with before in my life, and that is diminishing eyesight.
Thanks for the extensive explanation Lon. I think I was able to follow most all you said and it is more a question of time required and at this point I'm more satisfied with the results I get with the higher F stops of my lens than the result of stacking I gotten. I am going to keep plugging at it some more as I may find these are beginning goofs and can be gotten through to better results soon.
Mark I feel quite a bit as you do in that I'm rather satisfied with the results of the lens extreme settings.
Anyhow thanks all, for responses. I haven't given up on stacking, just wondering how far I want to go with it.
I use Helicon extensively not only to obtain max DOF but also to control DOF.....in other words I use it as a means of selective focus. I have done many comparisons of stacking vs. shooting at very small apertures such as 22 and have found stacking to give me much better results. For my setup (D2Xs, 105) diffraction is very noticeable at f22. I shoot most of my Helicon images using f8-11, so diffraction is not an issue, and the resultant images are much sharper than those obtained by stopping down to very small apertures.
Are you having any technical problems with your stacking attempts or is it strictly a matter of time involved?
Hi Charlie:
I posted a comparison between Helicon stack, CS4 stacking and F22 on an African Violet recently if you are interested. Basically I use stack if I want to control the DOF and if conditions are favourable (usually indoors) for multiple shots. You have seen how Pat has use stack to great effect. I generally use higher F stop with bugs rather than focus stack as they are likely to move.
Hey Charlie.
I played around a little with stacking and thought it was pretty cool if maybe I spent a little more time perfecting it. My real reason for wanting to try it was the fact that i had such a hard time getting the full dof I wanted on my subject yet keeping the natural setting bg blurred. I also struggled with mother nature's gust of winds at such a small aperature with slow ss.I also tend to like to get my images the way they were intended without manuipulation so I just keep working on my "in-camera" skills.
This has been just what I needed. Thanks folks. Stacking is another tool that I want to learn to use *occasionally* as it apprears all of you do. It is a bit time consuming and there lies my problem with it. I'm with you on this Cheryl. When I master my camera a lot more, stacking will be one of the things I can move onto.
Posted by Ramamohan Pai on June 13, 2011 at 11:53 PM
Charlie, One more area where stacking is useful is when you have background close to the subject and while using F/double digit might get you the DOF you want, it may screw up your background. So you use a F/low single digit (or fraction thereof) for several shots and then stack.
I usually don't use stacking - but its a great tool to know just in case the only option left is to use it.
Yes I can see an advantage to stacking in this instance, Ram. I'll pursue this technique as a helpful thing for special situations and continue to do most things with single exposures at smaller apertures. I have not tried more than a few stackings and have achieved nothing I'd like better than my other methods, YET.
My only problem with stacking is that it seems so much like work to me. I have shot several focus bracketed images, in the intent to try stacking, I just have not gotten there yet.
Discussion
13 repliesPlease understand that I admit to being very unschooled and inexperienced at stacking. My real purpose in this topic is trying to decide whether I wish to keep digging into, what might be a long term learning of the procedure, or continueing with old school high (numerical) F stops instead.
Any thoughts by others of your own personal experiences with learning stacking? And thoughts as to comparison of results between the two approaches to DOF.
Thanks for any response,
Charlie
Btw, Ansel Adams may very well have stacked.
First, to address the AA reference there are some things that some folks need to understand. Mr. Ansel used a large format camera and LF lenses. Typically, the smallest aperture can be from f/64 to f/128. f/22 on most LF lenses is about optimal in terms of optical performance. So, the answer to your question or reference to AA is that it's all relative. f/22 is typically the smallest aperture on a 35mm/digital lens of today I believe. Maybe f/32? Just because I can have an aperture of f/128 on one of my lenses doesn't mean that I've ever used it - because for the same reasons for the smaller formats, the optics just don't hold up at the extreme aperture. The other aspect of the large format that Ansel used was the ability to control the plane of focus by tilting the lens and/or film plane (which is what prompted today's T/S lenses we see now.) This allowed the photographer to focus on a near subject and a far subject and get them both in exact focus. But guess what? The actual depth of field as measured on either side of the plane of focus was no better than any other format. It was the ability to tilt the lens that gives the large format an "apparent" or acceptable depth of focus.
Anyway, to get to the crux of your original question, I think it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If we're talking macro and closeups, you know that your depth of field is extremely small and gets narrower the higher the magnification goes. Many times folks want a very shallow depth of field so they even shoot at the other extreme at f/2.8 or whatever their largest aperture is. If you are trying to Maximize your dof in the macro range, even f/22 will often not provide the depth you need or want - at macro ranges we're talking mm or fractions of an inch.
So, I would think first about what you want to do, what effect do you want and then determine if stacking or simply a chosen aperture size will get what you want. From a physics and practical point of view, a lens will have better performance (diffraction and other optical faults) in it's mid range vs. the extreme settings (f/2.8 or f/22) and of course each lense will have a different optimal aperture.
If your testing and measurements satisfy your requirements for printing or whatever needs you have in your images then go with it. There are those who can throw charts, lines per millimeters and all kinds of data to show you which aperture is the sharpest, but in the end if what you have determined works for your needs, then I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Having said all that, if you want to have dof from .5 inches to infinity for a 1:1 macro setting, stacking a boat load of focused images WILL be required. If you only need 1/8" of depth, then you can test whether or not f/11 or f/22 works better or not....
Hope this helps, or at least gets you thinking a bit.
Lon
ps. Ansel wasn't a stacker...
I'd like to do some reading on tilt and shift and may consider getting into that area too. Thanks for mentioning that Lon and Eva. I guess it is available for 4/3 systems. Eva it is the work that has me holding before committing to an all out effort to learn to be effective with stacking. My first efforts have been time consuming AND unsatisfying as to quality. Seeing the results that some display here, it is a given that it can me made to have great advantage, but I'm unsure at this point if it is worth my time and effort. I've got a different problem than I've dealt with before in my life, and that is diminishing eyesight.
Thanks for the extensive explanation Lon. I think I was able to follow most all you said and it is more a question of time required and at this point I'm more satisfied with the results I get with the higher F stops of my lens than the result of stacking I gotten. I am going to keep plugging at it some more as I may find these are beginning goofs and can be gotten through to better results soon.
Mark I feel quite a bit as you do in that I'm rather satisfied with the results of the lens extreme settings.
Anyhow thanks all, for responses. I haven't given up on stacking, just wondering how far I want to go with it.
Regards,
Charlie
Are you having any technical problems with your stacking attempts or is it strictly a matter of time involved?
I posted a comparison between Helicon stack, CS4 stacking and F22 on an African Violet recently if you are interested. Basically I use stack if I want to control the DOF and if conditions are favourable (usually indoors) for multiple shots. You have seen how Pat has use stack to great effect. I generally use higher F stop with bugs rather than focus stack as they are likely to move.
I played around a little with stacking and thought it was pretty cool if maybe I spent a little more time perfecting it. My real reason for wanting to try it was the fact that i had such a hard time getting the full dof I wanted on my subject yet keeping the natural setting bg blurred. I also struggled with mother nature's gust of winds at such a small aperature with slow ss.I also tend to like to get my images the way they were intended without manuipulation so I just keep working on my "in-camera" skills.
I usually don't use stacking - but its a great tool to know just in case the only option left is to use it.
Nathan