1st. Attempt at Image Stacking.

[Lancashire Lad]

As torrential rain stopped my normal fungi hunting today, I decided to have my first play with the free download versions of Combine ZM and Neat Image.

I must say that I didn't really know what I was doing with regards to the capabilities of the software, and basically just let both software programs do everything automatically.

This is produced as a stack from 9 originals, each at slightly differing focus: -


To give an idea of scale, the largest of these pin-like fungus fruitbodies are about 1mm tall. (Maybe not the best of subjects for this sort of thing , but being a fungi fiend, it fired my enthusiasm to have a go).

Any comments on what I should or shouldn't be doing to improve technique on this sort of image manipulation will be much appreciated.

Regards
Mike.

[Tormentil]

Judging by this image, you've cracked it.

You could also try Zerene Stacker (also free), which I think is easier to use than CZM.

[Ollie]

Well I wouldn't have realised it was a stacked image so I guess going by that you made a very good job of it

[ron1863]

Excellent work Mike

[Lancashire Lad]

Cheers guys. - As the image appears acceptable by just having used the default settings of both softwares, I might be tempted to use the technique more often.

Although I suppose different problems might occur dependent upon any given image being attempted, in which case delving deeper into the user help menus might be necessary.

Regards,
Mike.

[WhiskyBottle]

I thought I was looking at the top of a tomato until I read the comments.
I've found CombineZM sometimes works brilliantly, and sometimes makes a right pigs ear, and I due it manually. I can't predict the results from the start images but always worth a go.
The other advantage of stacking is you can use a larger aperture to loose the background, then stack to get the DOF on the subject. But take a small ap. shot in case it doesn't work.

[Maccattack1]

Nice one LL , I gave up after a few failures(too much hassle with artefacts) , now I might try again .
Sharp in all the right places .

Malcolm

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by WhiskyBottle

....I thought I was looking at the top of a tomato until I read the comments....

It is the top of a small cherry tomato, but it was the tiny pin like fungi that I was concentrating on.

I had the camera on a manfrotto focussing rail, where one complete turn of the focus screw moves the camera 1mm, so the 9 original images were each focussed 1mm apart. (Having first ensured that the final image of the 9 would be just inside the closest possible focussing distance for the lens - a Sigma 180mm macro).

Exposure for each of the 9 shots was 1.8 seconds at f25, but even using f25, the critical focus plane at the lens's 1:1 macro limit is very shallow.

I've uploaded one of the 9 frames below as a comparitive example of DOF: -


Regards,
Mike.

[WhiskyBottle]

Good comparison.

Do you find moving the camara better than adjusting focus?

I've found changing the focus on the lens changes the image size. Modern lenses tend to change the focal length as well as the focus distance as you focus. It's this change in image size that often causes me problems with stacking. My subjects tend to be a bit larger, perhapes 1:2 - 1:4

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by WhiskyBottle

....Do you find moving the camara better than adjusting focus?....

I haven't done very much of this sort of thing at all. My few previous image combining attempts were done by setting the camera up on a tripod, and then taking three or four frames, adjusting the focus in-between, rather than keeping focus constant and moving the camera+lens.

Attempts at combining those images were by selective use of opacity & layers, in either Paintshop Pro or Photoshop Elements. (This is the first time I've used proper stacking software.

I must admit the previous results were far from adequate, because as you mention, keeping the camera static seems to have an effect on the relative image size with each change of focus.

I think moving the camera+lens and keeping focus constant will be the way to go, as there were no "artifacts" whatsoever in main image area of the above stack of 9. The only thing I needed to do was crop a tiny amount from all four sides of the image, as there were some strange overlaps & image deformation at the extreme edges of frame. (From what little reading I've done on the subject, that is apparently quite usual).

I don't think I'll make much use of stacking per-se, but it might just come in handy if I were to find a particularly photogenic example of, for example, a very tiny fungus in situ, as the technique will lend itself well to very small static subjects. (I look in awe upon those who can manage this technique with insects etc.).

Regards,
Mike.