Focus Stacking in Macro Photography

In the world of photography we often work hard to obtain a shallow depth of field. When we take portraits and wish to separate the subject from the background, we use bulky lenses with large apertures just to get that magical 3D effect we're striving for. In the world of macro photography, as demonstrated in a previous article, things are entirely different.

I couldn’t have gotten this red-eyed tree frog shot without use of a special image-combination technique. Its body is very deep and if shooting conventionally, I wouldn’t have been able to get all of the subject’s interesting parts in focus.

Canon EOS 7D, Tamron 180mm f/3.5 macro lens, 2 shots both at 5 sec, ISO 400, f/16. LED torches were used to light the subject and background, and I took this shot in La Fortuna, Costa Rica.

As I’ve mentioned before, depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification. The wider the aperture we shoot at, and the closer we get to the subject, the shallower the depth of field becomes. When doing macro work, we often shoot at 1:1 magnification or more, compelling us to be extremely close to the subject. This inevitably means that depth of field is extremely shallow - so shallow that in many cases, most of the subject goes out of focus, even if it’s as tiny as a fly, and even if we close the aperture to f/16 or more. 

This robber fly was shot at f/9, a medium aperture setting, and it’s not
even close to being entirely in focus. Canon EOS 7D, Sigma 150mm
f/2.8 macro, 1.3 second exposure at ISO 200, f/9.

This phenomenon simply results from the rules of optics, and can’t be solved conventionally unless we close the aperture so much that it will critically hurt image quality (and sometime even that doesn’t suffice). Yet it turns out that if we're willing to put in a little more effort and work carefully, we could take macro pictures at any magnification, with close-to-optimal apertures guaranteeing high quality and still get our desired depth of field – all by using a method called focus stacking.

The same fly, focus stacked from 8 different images, all 1.3 sec
exposures at f/9. ISO 200.

Focus stacking is a process that involves two tasks. The first task is to take a series of pictures at different focal distances, such that the entire depth range we want to have focused is covered by the series. For example, say we’re shooting a fly from the front. We could take one picture where the fly’s head is in focus, one with its thorax (middle body-segment) in focus and one with its abdomen in focus. 

Another robber fly, focus stacked from 11 different shots. Each shot
supplied sharpness in a different part of the subject's body- the first
shots were focused on the front legs, then the eyes, thorax and so on up
to the back part and wings.

Canon EOS 40D, Tamron 180mm f/3.5 macro + extension tubes,
1/6 sec, ISO 100, f/7.1.

This may sound easy, but when shooting a live subject in nature (and moreover, as I usually do it, in natural light and extreme magnifications), there are a number of things that can go wrong. For example, the lighting may change if the clouds move, or the subject might decide it doesn’t feel like staying put, move and destroy this sensitive process. You must remember that it’s critical to get all the images in a stacking series at the exact same conditions and parameters: aperture, ISO, shutter speed and white balance.

This might seem obvious but when the light changes, auto WB might shift and shutter speed could change, altering the images to be stacked, which could result in a strange outcome. I recommend shooting in the shade as during periods of as little wind as possible, to get the consistency needed to produce a good stack.

A dragonfly, final image stacked from 8 shots, all at 1/50sec, ISO 100, f/5.6 .

Canon EOS 40D, Tamron 180mm f/3.5 macro, Rishon Lake, Israel.

I am a nature photographer, and I only shoot wildlife in the field and not in studios. There are studio-stacking artists out there who produce stacks from hundreds of images, but to do this you have to use some kind of precision rig, as well as studio lights and probably a stone-dead subject, and that’s just not what I personally do.

I shot the red robber fly shown above in nature, under pouring rain. This shows you that focus stacking can be done even in the roughest conditions- it’s just a question of technique, will and patience. Now that’s nature photography! By the way, can you see the reflection of the red/white umbrella in the final image? 

Image courtesy of Shay Habba.

Click here to go to page 2 of this article - Focus Stacking in Macro Photography

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Comments

Total comments: 127
12
Bobbyob
By Bobbyob (2 months ago)

For the "is it natural" question, I vote yes. Our way of seeing things means that we can't focus on everything at once, but wherever we do look, that point is in focus. This seems to be the closest to replicating our vision, in my view, in some ways more natural than narrow DOF, because when I look at your fascinating images, my eyes move around the scene, and I see each part in focus, just like my eye. When I look at the nose, I don't "see" the eye, sort of, but just as with nature, it doesn't become blurry, it just isn't what I am focusing on. Just my opinion!

0 upvotes
JABB66
By JABB66 (2 months ago)

So you have to be very careful to keep the camera steady changing the focus distance so the frame don't change, what can be a bit tricky even using a tripod... there isn't any camera that can do focus bracketing automatically?

Apart from the new premium compact Casio EX-10 of course ;)

0 upvotes
jcuknz
By jcuknz (3 months ago)

While it is nice for photoshop users to know the programme can do it I don't have PS and with a bit of labour do it with a much less expensive programme PSP :)

0 upvotes
snarasoft
By snarasoft (3 months ago)

Wow Article. Thanks for sharing, have to try the merging with photoshop.

1 upvote
Amnon G
By Amnon G (3 months ago)

Thanks! I definitely want to try this. Didn't know Photoshop could do the merging!

4 upvotes
triplet1
By triplet1 (3 months ago)

Nicely written article! I recently got a set of macro extension rings and was wondering how to increase the DOF. I will certainly give this a go.

1 upvote
J4Hug
By J4Hug (4 months ago)

Excellent article, thank you Erez for writing and DPReview publishing.

1 upvote
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

Thank you Erez and dpreview for this article. It is very informative and was an absolute pleasure to read.

1 upvote
Piotr64
By Piotr64 (5 months ago)

does anybody know which software works best with the Mac operating systems and which has focus stacking capability?

1 upvote
Dimitri Geystor
By Dimitri Geystor (5 months ago)

I would recommend Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker. Both work very well. You can download free trials, and experiment by yourself.

2 upvotes
ecologist1234
By ecologist1234 (6 months ago)

Does Pshop Elements have the same Auto Align feature as full Pshop does? (mentioned in point #2 at the end of this article)

1 upvote
The A-Team
By The A-Team (7 months ago)

It's very informative and interesting. I shall try it.

1 upvote
larpad81
By larpad81 (7 months ago)

Great article, and beautiful images!

May I have a question here?
Is focus stacking available in PS CS6, or the CS6 extended version is required?
I guess it should not be an extended feature, as it is available in CS4 and CS5 if I know well. Just want to make sure.

Thanks for answers

1 upvote
TLD
By TLD (2 months ago)

Auto Align and Blend came in with CS3. It's possible that the process has been refined in later versions, but AFAIK it is exactly the same in CC as CS3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history#CS3_.2810.0.29

0 upvotes
Sudhakar Mi
By Sudhakar Mi (7 months ago)

Awesome!! Thanks!

1 upvote
Eyefull Tour
By Eyefull Tour (7 months ago)

Great article. Thanks!

1 upvote
Theophilus101
By Theophilus101 (8 months ago)

Splendid article, thank you! For the lay person, is there software you'd recommend for focus stacking besides the more expensive photoshop? Will HDR software like photomatix be able to focus stake? Thank you!

1 upvote
misscoley
By misscoley (9 months ago)

This is such an awesome article! Thank you!

1 upvote
VincentPaulRevo
By VincentPaulRevo (10 months ago)

This is the first time I've heard of something like focus stacking but I must admit I've learnt from this article. I guess there's about macro then I could remember haha.

1 upvote
chewhow
By chewhow (11 months ago)

This was a great sharing.

I just start to venture into focus stacking.
I found out there are 3 methods to capture the photos for focus stacking:

1. macro rail which move your camera (variable distance between subject and camera)
2. macro rail which move your lens (fixed distance between camera body and subject)
3. change focus point by turning the lens focus ring

Personally I tried option #1 and #3. Result looks fine at zoom out view. If you zoom in, certain part of the object (after stack) was not stacked properly. Guess due to low contrast of the subject and software not capable enough to process it.

Anyone have tried option #2? Do you know what is the pro and cons on those 3 options above?

Hope some one can guide on this.

Thanks in advance.

1 upvote
emneto2
By emneto2 (8 months ago)

I had the same problem. Particularly, areas of bad focus around focused ones. As if the software selected areas bigger than should, including non focused parts. Dont know how to solve. Otherwise, general result was acceptable.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
TLD
By TLD (2 months ago)

I'll add a vote for a focus rail, and the decent Manfrotto version as opposed to the weak and bendy Chinese variety you find on eBay. Also use a longish focal length so your field of view does not change as you move in, plus it leaves room for your lights.

0 upvotes
Michelle Savanna
By Michelle Savanna (11 months ago)

nice pictures.

0 upvotes
kevlineuh
By kevlineuh (Apr 23, 2013)

I'm curious about how is it possible to do focus stacking without tripod ? like Thomas Shahan.
Anyway very good article.

2 upvotes
leno
By leno (3 months ago)

Impossible unless you have hands made of stone.

1 upvote
JABB66
By JABB66 (2 months ago)

Or you have a Casio EX-10 that can do focus bracketing. This model and any Casio EX-ZR series camera model from 2013 and posterior have the feature "all in focus macro" but you get the background in sharp focus too (the stacked images are processed in camera and you only get the final result).

1 upvote
mediasorcerer
By mediasorcerer (Apr 23, 2013)

Very nifty technique, thankyou for the heads up. Keep them coming if you don't mind.

1 upvote
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (Apr 21, 2013)

Great article, Erez Marom, and superb images.

Some years ago I experimented with macro stacking with an old version of photoshop, but I had to do every step by hand. This required so much time that I finally gave up this then extremely time-consuming technique and returned to classic macro, also because in the field you don't find often so steady objects (if they are alive).

This post is really encourageing to start playing again with stacking, thank you so much.

2 upvotes
SUE O''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''BRIEN

WOW, what beauty and intricacy you captured! Absolutely superb images, kudos!

2 upvotes
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Apr 15, 2013)

Just one problem... You must wait for that fly to come to you, and strike a pose holds still while you twist the focus and shoots...

Only if I'm on a fixed income and not payed by results or stuck on a deserted island with my gear...

0 upvotes
leno
By leno (3 months ago)

If you want it enough you will make it happen.

0 upvotes
dwill23
By dwill23 (Apr 15, 2013)

Nice technique. I don't use my 100mm canon f2.8 L IS USM MACRO hardly enough.

This will only work while bugs are small. Lets just genetically mutate them into HUGE bugs like they were 100million years ago, and presto, we can use our 50mm lenses again. haha

1 upvote
Tan68
By Tan68 (Apr 14, 2013)

The author mentions that leaving some part of the image unfocused looks good.

Focus stacking also lets the point of transition between in and out of focus to be precisely selected.

In addition to better image quality, another benefit to using moderate apertures is that the depth of field is simply narrow and with several images, the exact point of transition can be chosen.

While I am taking the series, I wouldn't necessarily think 'I want to cut off focus on the back of the eye' or whatever and stop there. I think I would take a few pictures more both in front of and behind the area I intend to.. focus on. If I don't want to use the extra pictures in the stack, they can be left out.

I have only ever stacked static images (leaf, flower, etc.). I used a fairly wide aperture and small steps and took more pictures than I needed.. It was interesting to later decide exactly where I would cut off focus by selecting the images to include in the stack.

1 upvote
fredrbis
By fredrbis (Apr 14, 2013)

Highly systematic technique is obviously required; remarkable images requiring remarkable discipline and patience. The Helicon remote described by GURL (http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconremote.html) sounds like the right kind of tool for those that would pursue this approach.

0 upvotes
shahid11235
By shahid11235 (Apr 13, 2013)

This is a very well written article.

Thanks for sharing with us.. :)

2 upvotes
GURL
By GURL (Apr 13, 2013)

Helicon Remote - http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconremote.html

Helicon Remote is a utility that automates focus and exposure bracketing. The program changes focus distance by moving the lens with regular steps and takes shots.

Helicon Remote 2.x is capable of controlling external stepper motors and macro rails.

I use Helicon Remote to control a Nikon DSLR on a tripod from an Android tablet. Main point: you don't need to touch the camera between shots to change settings.

0 upvotes
Erez Marom
By Erez Marom (Apr 13, 2013)

What if there's wind and you need to wait, or redo a shot?

0 upvotes
GURL
By GURL (Apr 14, 2013)

The shorter the interval between shots the better (wind or any other anoyance.)

I often used a stitcher (Autopano, PTassembler) to align shots in a series using automatic or manual control points placed on the same subject features.

Panoramic images stitching, HDR and focus stacking have a lot in common, under the hood that is...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mac&Camera
By Mac&Camera (Apr 13, 2013)

I take my hat-off for all people like Erez Marom who are willing to put so many efforts in making stacked macro shots with equipment that is basically not designed or suited for the task.

It comes in mind that as soon as lightfield cameras can deliver higher image resolutions all this stacking fuzz and the need to limit to shoot only objects that behaves if they are already dead will be passed forever.

If you are not familiar with lightfield systems you can read about it in this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera

I think this is the future.

Wim

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (Apr 12, 2013)

I just would like to mention how happy I can be owning a camera with a touchscreen, an Olympus E-PM2 (an O-MD or an E-PL5 will do as well), in that the touchscreen will allow me within a very short period just by tapping on it to focus on the points of interest and take the shots at the same time - camera on a tripod, no rails.

Hermann

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
MP Burke
By MP Burke (Apr 12, 2013)

I think that the interest in photographing animals in the field is the ability to capture behaviour, such as fighting, feeding and mating.
Going out when the insect is at its coldest and immobile prevents such behaviour being observed.
The dragonfly in the photograph is not identified and indeed could be difficult to identify, since the view does not show the top of the abdomen or thorax where many characteristic markings are likely to be. Some may regard the image as novel or attractive, but it says little about what the insect is and nothing about what it does, so I do not regard it as being particularly useful nature photography.
It should be said that if people become fixated on stacking and want a static subject there are many pinned specimens already in museum collections. Some invertebrates are in decline: no need to kill them.
Finally many small animals have been photographed using the scanning electron microscope, with higher DOF and resolution than optical can provide.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
JayFromSA
By JayFromSA (Apr 13, 2013)

You're missing the point of the article. I'm not about to explain it to you, to make it clear to you what it's about, go and read all of Erez Marom's articles. If you still don't get it, you are wasting your time reading and commenting here.

4 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Apr 14, 2013)

Forget the article, there are many aspects of photography in general you do not appear to fully understand.
If I were to put it in the same 'black and white' context you have shared, there would be two types of photographers:
1 - Those that use photography as a tool for creative expression and/or interpretation.
2 - Others similar to yourself primarily interested in 'cataloging' everything around them through photography.

There is no right/wrong either way - just a different usage.

In contrast to your assertion however, I would dare say that most viewers and photographers looking at the dragonfly image noticed the symmetry, colors, fragile nature of its wings, etc and were not concerned what specific variety of its species it belongs to. It is simply a moment frozen in time that we are able to capture, study, enjoy, and at times even compose the perspective to produce imagery that is interesting/pleasing to look at.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
Mousehound
By Mousehound (Apr 20, 2013)

I agree 100%. I take both types of picture. Some are just for identification or recording. Others are about an aesthetic. When I'm lucky I get both - but sadly not often.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Apr 12, 2013)

" it’s better to change the focal point by moving the lens physically back and forth rather than using the focus ring"

I am curious as to how to do this...

I'm imagining my camera on a tripod, and I have to move it by a fraction of a millimeter... how does that work?

0 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Apr 12, 2013)

There's no way to reliably move a stationary tripod a fraction of a millimeter. In the old days, we used to either mount the camera on rails or attach the lens to a bellows. I imagine this kind of setup still works with modern equipment.

0 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (Apr 12, 2013)

You would use a focusing rail. Moving the tripod will almost never work. At least not with these micro adjustments.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (Apr 12, 2013)

@ skytripper Yup. The modern equipment will only set you back $600. :-)

http://www.cognisys-inc.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=24&osCsid=cadff164ab40c7c62cc7ffdf28f22003

0 upvotes
Thomas KP Lee
By Thomas KP Lee (Apr 13, 2013)

Usually I am using three dimensions gear head when doing such macro photo, it n get very fine movements easily.

0 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Apr 14, 2013)

Timmbits,
There are numerous styles of rails that will mount to your tripod, to which your camera mounts to the rails, allowing you to slide your camera forward/back in small increments (typically marked in millimeters.)
That would allow you to keep the same focal length of the lens while moving the focal plane forward or back for each image needed.

1 upvote
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Apr 14, 2013)

Didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression, or have you think that rails are the only/best way.
-Ideally- you would look for a macro lens that does not 'focus breath' (change its magnification) though many lenses people use do. The author mentions the Canon MP-E 65 which is a fantastic lens though big heavy and expensive. One of its benefits though is that it does not change its magnification through short adjustments unless you wrack the focus from min to max, and even then it isn't much. That allows you to simply bump the focus ring a little, capture an image, bump it a little further, capture another image etc. That will result in a series of images that are the same magnification (distance) on the sensor - only differing in what is in focus from front to back of the subject.

0 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (Apr 15, 2013)

@SiliconVoid - I think you must be confusing the Canon MP-E 65 with a different lens, since it behaves precisely the opposite of how you describe. The lens has only one control ring, for changing the magnification of the image. Focus is achieved solely through moving the image plane itself.

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Apr 15, 2013)

With all the motors and electronics in some modern lenses, it would be easy enough for a company to design a macro lens that automatically incremented the focus over a series of exposures. I know some cameras have limited focus bracketing, but do any of them shoot a long sequence easily? Something to ask for.

0 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (Apr 16, 2013)

This needn't be a feature of the lens, any lens with an auto-focus motor will be quite capable, if the camera supports it. It's annoying that so few do. I believe the Magic Lantern custom firmware for Canon cameras offers this feature, though I've not tried it myself.

0 upvotes
wkay
By wkay (Apr 12, 2013)

I'd really like to know how you get your bugs to sit still for 10 minutes while you setup the tripod in their faces, compose, and take 11 shots..

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
racketman
By racketman (Apr 12, 2013)

your best bet is to get up early and look for insects that have not warmed up yet, if there is a dew so much the better, they are very unlikely to move whilst still cold. Up to about an hour after sunrise is best.

6 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Apr 14, 2013)

heh.. you can also use the machine gun method, especially if you plan to do a little bit of cropping in the final image. In that you simply take a series of shots at your cameras top fps rate while you slowly turn the focus ring, lol.
Not the best method for absolute critical sharpness, especially if your camera body vibrates too much, but in stacking you have lots of room to make small adjustments.
(Need to be on a tripod of course.)

2 upvotes
Pedagydusz
By Pedagydusz (Apr 12, 2013)

It is interesting that, even after reading this (excellent) article, some readers didn't get an important fact: for DoF, what counts is magnification and aperture. FF DSLR or compact, the result is the same.
The author says it in the very beginning:
"[...] depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification. [...]"
It is important to keep that in mind.

1 upvote
wkay
By wkay (Apr 12, 2013)

It's also highly dependent on lens F.L., which is why this is better suited to small sensor cameras.

0 upvotes
Pedagydusz
By Pedagydusz (Apr 12, 2013)

No, read again: "depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification".

3 upvotes
_sem_
By _sem_ (Apr 16, 2013)

The appearance of depth depends on the FL, due to *relative background blur*, which is another relevant issue in addition to DoF.
Small sensor is "harware cropping", which does increase DoF in certain circumstances (limited ambient light), but I believe you get the same DoF if you work at the diffraction limit in comparable conditions (DoF equivalence, light not the limit).

0 upvotes
John Clare
By John Clare (Apr 12, 2013)

Great article. Since you plug Mr. Marom's Costa Rica tour, I think it's a little dismaying that the races of Strawberry Poison Frog that he displays as being from Costa Rica are not actually found there. The red one is only on Isla Bastimentos, Panama, and the green one is only on Isla Colon, Panama. Misleading advertising to potential paying tourists. True there are other races in Costa Rica, but they are not as varied in coloration.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Apr 12, 2013)

Excellent article.

But wouldn't using a camera with much smaller, more efficient sensor improve DoF to begin with? A lot of superzoom cameras have very impressive macro modes.

0 upvotes
photoguy622
By photoguy622 (Apr 12, 2013)

I love that he's "only" using a 40D to take these amazing photos. It just goes to show that it really is the photographer and the technique that makes most of the difference.

8 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 12, 2013)

Excelently explained! Thanks for this article.
Perhaps I should mention another stacking program which lets you mark certain points that one needs to co-ordinate and align throughout the stack.
This one is a standalone, so it can be used without Photoshop (for people who use other photo-editing software).
It is called RegiStax, current version update is v6.1.08 - requires V6.1 (6 may 2011). You need to have RegiStax 6 installed before installing this update.
It is freeware, and although intended for astronomy, it will work with all kinds of images. Find all the versions here:
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/download.html

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
_sem_
By _sem_ (Apr 12, 2013)

There's a table of focus stacking software, some of it free, at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking

3 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 12, 2013)

Good source. Thanks!

0 upvotes
Wildbegonia
By Wildbegonia (4 months ago)

Nice! Thank you both.

0 upvotes
stratplaya
By stratplaya (Apr 12, 2013)

Very interesting but wouldn't your subject need to remain still while you adjust the focus points?

Don't move grasshopper!

0 upvotes
Erez Marom
By Erez Marom (Apr 12, 2013)

Yes, it would.

1 upvote
photoramone
By photoramone (Apr 12, 2013)

How in the heck do you make all the changes, take all the shots, at differing F-stops, and NOT lose the subject to a "fly-away" ??

2 upvotes
Erez Marom
By Erez Marom (Apr 12, 2013)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3957977643/finding-macro-wildlife

1 upvote
TheShihan
By TheShihan (Apr 12, 2013)

Good and interesting article. Thank you.

1 upvote
Julian
By Julian (Apr 12, 2013)

Really useful article. Thanks dpreview!

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Apr 12, 2013)

thank you for a well written, informative, and helpful artible

3 upvotes
_sem_
By _sem_ (Apr 12, 2013)

Another very good macro stacking resource:
macrostop.com/pdf/ArtofFocuStacking.pdf

0 upvotes
Noveenia
By Noveenia (Apr 12, 2013)

Cool. Sometimes it is difficult to select the focus points.

1 upvote
Gerry Winterbourne
By Gerry Winterbourne (Apr 12, 2013)

Is focus stacking natural? Our eyes saccade (skip about) over a view concentrating on tiny bits each time. Our brains constantly merge the most recent bits into a coherent picture that is sharply focused both across the view and from near to far.

Focus stacking replicates a part of this process so, yes, it's completely natural. Indeed, it's more natural than freezing just one instant. It's just a lot slower than nature ...

7 upvotes
fabioh2o
By fabioh2o (Apr 12, 2013)

Hi to all,

considering the article really interesting and useful, i am wondering how is possible to shot multiple pictures without the the subject is moving too much. I know all issues related to alignment because doing astro photography i am using a lot of dedicated tools for it but in this case the subject is really fuzzy.

Any help to understand ?

thanks in advance
Fabio

0 upvotes
pdcm
By pdcm (Apr 12, 2013)

Whoops! An error: the 4 example images are the same.

0 upvotes
StyleZ7
By StyleZ7 (Apr 12, 2013)

Dude, you should use stronger glasses ;)

2 upvotes
StyleZ7
By StyleZ7 (Apr 12, 2013)

Welcome back Erez, i was waiting so long for this :)

2 upvotes
Total comments: 127
12