Focus Stacking

[WestLothian]

Has anybody here tried "Focus Stacking" using combineZM.
It looks impressive and the tests that I have tried seem to work okay.

These ones look superb:
More natural light macros - FM Forums

[Kev Lewis]

Originally Posted by WestLothian

Has anybody here tried "Focus Stacking" using combineZM.
It looks impressive and the tests that I have tried seem to work okay.

These ones look superb:
More natural light macros - FM Forums

yup it's a great piece of software for maximising DoF and allows you to use the best aperture (around f16) for maximium sharpness. I started with the CombineZ5 version and the CombineZM has improved an already great program. It can also be used for stacking video clips for astronomy work

And it's free

LordV has some superb macro work and really sets a high standard to aim at

[WestLothian]

Do you have a link to some instructions?
(edit: I found them here: CombineZM Help )

- I used the "Do Stack" macro and it worked fine.
There are loads of menu options but no help under the menu button.
My tests shots worked quite well apart from some missing layers in my shooting.



Shot at deiliberately shallow DOF (f/2) in a stack of 10.
All insects ran for cover when they saw the tripod

[Jon]

Couple of points if someone could clarify for me:
The colours on the website used by LordV are like many other American websites, they seem to have a different quality to those in UK. They seem brighter and almost pastel like shades, doe anyone know what I mean? I like them but I am not convinced they are so natural as the ones on WAB.
This Focus stacking, is it (1)a series of shots superimposed to provide an apparently greater DOF. Or, and I assume this is the case - is it (2) one shot effectively stacked to provide an illusion of greater DOF.
If it is (2) it gives good results but I am not sure about it. It seems a bit like a fiddle to me, the point of macro for me is to search for that perfect shot with optimal DOF, focal point exposure & composition etc. I know many of us use a little cropping here or there but stacking the focus point (if I am correct) does not seem entirely ethical to me. Having said that I would suggest it was ethical if it was always declared. I suppose I have opened a can of worms over what is ethical in digital photography and what isn't - is there really any difference to changing apparent DOF to removing a highlight or a twig etc. I would suggest enhancing the pictorial element as opposed to enhancing the primary subject is slightly different. The more I write the more I wish I hadn't started because I can see and appreciate many different points of view! Hope I haven't started a revolution!
Jon

[WestLothian]

It is a lot of shots stacked with the sharpest part of each layer in the final result.

It does defy the laws of optics and physics and is a form of cheating (but very clever).

[pressld2]

Aha, so you need a) a static subject and b) a tripod. A bit like combining two shots with different exposures instead of using an ND grad. Sounds interesting but I would imagine it's use is fairly limited - not going to help much with shots of insects in flight!

Dave P.

[Kev Lewis]

Originally Posted by Jon

Couple of points if someone could clarify for me:
The colours on the website used by LordV are like many other American websites, they seem to have a different quality to those in UK. They seem brighter and almost pastel like shades, doe anyone know what I mean? I like them but I am not convinced they are so natural as the ones on WAB.
This Focus stacking, is it (1)a series of shots superimposed to provide an apparently greater DOF. Or, and I assume this is the case - is it (2) one shot effectively stacked to provide an illusion of greater DOF.
If it is (2) it gives good results but I am not sure about it. It seems a bit like a fiddle to me, the point of macro for me is to search for that perfect shot with optimal DOF, focal point exposure & composition etc. I know many of us use a little cropping here or there but stacking the focus point (if I am correct) does not seem entirely ethical to me. Having said that I would suggest it was ethical if it was always declared. I suppose I have opened a can of worms over what is ethical in digital photography and what isn't - is there really any difference to changing apparent DOF to removing a highlight or a twig etc. I would suggest enhancing the pictorial element as opposed to enhancing the primary subject is slightly different. The more I write the more I wish I hadn't started because I can see and appreciate many different points of view! Hope I haven't started a revolution!
Jon

Interesting comments in here

The technique is mainly used for static subjects but with some practise and luck it can be used on slow moving subject especially if they are moving directly towards or away from the lens. ie. they move instead of the camera.

Personally I think the technique helps to overcome the DoF limitations caused by the optical laws in photography and allows the photographer to show an image which the human eye appears to be capable of naturally seeing and achieving. By this I mean when you look at something closely the very narrow band of focus that is seen in a picture isn't seen by the eye because it constantly changes focus to show the whole subject, this technique mimics this natural action.

Is it cheating? only if you want to deceive someone into believing something that isn't 'real', imo, the limitiations of DoF in photography isn't natural and it is the final result that is important. How that result is achieved is irrelevant as long as the photographer and viewer enjoy the image.

[matt_xyz]

this technique does sound interesting and I'm keen to give it a try at some point. One thought that springs to mind is how many shots to take i.e. how big should the jumps in focus be. Too few and you presumably end up with 'stripes' of focus with out of focus stripes in between.

Matt

[glsammy]

I had a go at this, it was an interesting exercise, but to be honest I can't think of when I could use it. A definite lack of imagination is my biggest problem.

[matt_xyz]

I would imagine it could be particularly useful if you're using extension tubes where the DOF is obviously extremely limited. I like the idea of taking, for example, a full frame image of a hoverfly with every part of the insect in full focus. As long as the insect sits still long enough of course

Matt