G80 close-up focus bracket stacks - Inside a paperweight

gardenersassistant said:

strawbale said:

gardenersassistant said:

This was an experiment I have been meaning to do for a while. The subject is a glass paperweight that is one of my wife's favourite possessions. I have tried to photograph it before, using single shots, but was not really happy with the results. To my delight, my wife was rather pleased this time round.

I used an Olympus 60mm macro on a tripod-mounted G80 to capture sets of focus bracket images, the closest set being almost 1:1. I set the camera to capture 200 images for each bracket set at f/2.8, with an increment of +3, with the focus running from close to far. I used manual focus and set the focus to a bit nearer than anything I wanted to focus on. I let the capture run until it had obviously passed the furthest thing I wanted in focus, or for the full 200 shots. I shot JPEG as the G80 buffer only holds 45 or so raw files and exceeding that would have slowed the capture process down too much for my taste.

I loaded each bracket set into Helicon Focus and removed the images that were in front of and beyond what I was interested in. I used the stacking method and number of images shown below for each scene. I exported the stacked images as JPEG and did various global and local adjustments to them in Lightroom.

168 images, Depth Map method



54 images, Pyramid method



42 images, Depth Map method



87 images, Depth Map method



99 images, Pyramid method



90 images, Pyramid method



--
Nick
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
GardenersAssistant Photography Videos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmBgEwRDfiQMYTPORSzDxvw
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-dslr-primes-a-journey-of-exploration.531050/

Click to expand...

Beautiful photos! These and your other focus bracketing series make me save up for a G80 (or EM5ii)!

Click to expand...

Thanks. But please do bear in mind you are seeing the few successes I have had. I'm actually doing hardly any bracketing and stacking because of the problems I have had getting nice (to my eye) results. And the ones that do work can need lots of time and effort to make them look ok.

I wouldn't want you to spend lots of money and be disappointed. If you have other reasons for wanting a G80 or EM5ii then fine, but I wouldn't use bracketing/stacking as the main reason for getting a new camera.

--
Nick
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
GardenersAssistant Photography Videos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmBgEwRDfiQMYTPORSzDxvw
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-dslr-primes-a-journey-of-exploration.531050/

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

gardenersassistant said:

Petar Veliki said:

I shot on 2, i think 3 is maybe too far. On G80 and Em1 are both on increment 2.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Could you point out the problems you are seeing that using 2 rather than 3 might solve?

Click to expand...

If too close, 3 might be too far away.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

While with 2 on Oly and Pana, actually get this number as others adopted, so never a problem.

Petar Veliki said:

Petar Veliki said:

A method brings you fine background, without dots, B is somewhere in the middle, more sharp but doted background, while C gave you much more sharp than A and B, but noisy too. So in that case i combine all three in photo stack. I choose which part will present, what need to be in focus is on B and C, back is combo of A and some B.

Click to expand...

What surprised me about these is that I didn't feel the need to combine versions.

Another combination I use sometimes is one of the parameterised methods, A or B, using two version with different parameter values. That is for dealing with halos.

Click to expand...

If mixing idle setting 4-8 you can get halos, especially on A and B.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

When you will have a situation when just some part should be in focus, A and B are very welcome since A+B combo is making background and C+B for the object in focus.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

You should see in full size, to see nice background (no dots) :

Link1

Link2

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant's collections on Flickr

The safest and most inclusive global community of photography enthusiasts. The best place for inspiration, connection, and sharing!

www.flickr.com

strawbale said:

strawbale said:

I'm still using a 1/1.7" compact (Nikon P7800) and happy with it (and it's sharp 28-200 zoom lens), but would like to get more into macro photography in the future. Budget, size and weight wise, I'm looking at mFT.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant's collections on Flickr

The safest and most inclusive global community of photography enthusiasts. The best place for inspiration, connection, and sharing!

www.flickr.com

gardenersassistant said:

strawbale said:

gardenersassistant said:

I'm still using a 1/1.7" compact (Nikon P7800) and happy with it (and it's sharp 28-200 zoom lens), but would like to get more into macro photography in the future. Budget, size and weight wise, I'm looking at mFT.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I use a camera with a smaller than 1/1.7" sensor (1/2.3") much of the time for my macros of insects etc - a Panasonic FZ330 and before that an FZ200 and before that a Canon SX10 and a Canon S3, all with close-up lenses. I also use mFT - G3, G5 and now G80, with close-up lenses and also an Olympus 60mm macro. I have also used an APS-C dSLR, Canon 70D, quite a lot with both close-up lenses and Sigma 105 macro lens.

I haven't been able to convince myself that either (a) mFT or APS-C gives me overall better results for most of what I do than the bridge cameras or (b) that a macro lens gives me overall better results for most of what I do than close-up lenses on mFT or APS-C.

I know this sounds heretical, and to many people it seems obviously and self-evidently wrong. However, it is a complicated story (and I have chosen my words very carefully - please note especially the "for most of what I do" part of it). I have written up my journey of kit, technique and processing options and experiments over more than three years in the tediously long and unreadably detailed series of posts linked at the bottom of my sig below. I'm not suggesting that you wade through that. Here is something rather more straightforward you might like to consider.

Here are nine examples, one each from a Canon SX10 bridge camera, an FZ200 bridge camera, a G3, G5 and G80 mFT, and two each from an FZ330 bridge camera and a Canon 70D dSLR. You may find it instructive to work out which images came from the small sensor, mFT and dSLR cameras, and also which ones used close-up lenses and which used macro lenses. (There is, quite literally, more to this than meets the eye, so if you are interested we might later want to discuss some other considerations, for example subject matter, usability and post processing. These all play quite heavily into my considerations about what kit to use.)

#1



#2



#3



#4



#5



#6



#7



#8



#9



--
Nick
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
GardenersAssistant Photography Videos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmBgEwRDfiQMYTPORSzDxvw
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-dslr-primes-a-journey-of-exploration.531050/

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

strawbale wrote:

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

No idea which one is from which camera/sensor.

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

I like #3, #5, and #7 the most. Some (#1, #4, #9) c/would maybe be improved with focus stacking?

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

Before buying the P7800 I thought about the FZ200. Because I wanted the best quality allround compact for a small budget (I paid 279 euro) with sufficient zoom, I opted for the P7800 in the end. Now, after almost 2 years, I'd like to continue taking landscape/nature photos, but add macro/close-up to it, without buying multiple cameras. The P7800 has a fantastic lens, so the 1/1.7" sensor is OK-ish for my nature/landscape photos most of the time, but I wouldn't want to go any smaller for that.

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

I'll definitely read up on this, including the links in your signature, as I'm not in any hurry to buy something yet.

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

Petar Veliki said:

gardenersassistant said:

Petar Veliki said:

I shot on 2, i think 3 is maybe too far. On G80 and Em1 are both on increment 2.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Could you point out the problems you are seeing that using 2 rather than 3 might solve?

Click to expand...

If too close, 3 might be too far away.

Click to expand...

So no specific problems you have noticed in this case with 3?

gardenersassistant said:

While with 2 on Oly and Pana, actually get this number as others adopted, so never a problem.

gardenersassistant said:

gardenersassistant said:

A method brings you fine background, without dots, B is somewhere in the middle, more sharp but doted background, while C gave you much more sharp than A and B, but noisy too. So in that case i combine all three in photo stack. I choose which part will present, what need to be in focus is on B and C, back is combo of A and some B.

Click to expand...

What surprised me about these is that I didn't feel the need to combine versions.

Another combination I use sometimes is one of the parameterised methods, A or B, using two version with different parameter values. That is for dealing with halos.

Click to expand...

If mixing idle setting 4-8 you can get halos, especially on A and B.

Click to expand...

It was a while ago now (I don't do much stacking), but for halos, with for example B, I seem to recall using one with a low value for Radius (with the halos) and another with a high enough radius to not have the halos, and using the first as the base version and brushing in from the other one over the halos.

gardenersassistant said:

When you will have a situation when just some part should be in focus, A and B are very welcome since A+B combo is making background and C+B for the object in focus.

Click to expand...

In what way do you combine A+B and C+B. Are you layering and masking in Photoshop or similar, or do you do some/all of it in Helicon?

gardenersassistant said:

You should see in full size, to see nice background (no dots) :

Link1

Link2

Click to expand...

They look very good. As regards halos, they are rather simpler than the ones I have had most problems with which had more complicated geometry. This is an example that I talked through in this video starting at 21:55.



--
Nick
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
GardenersAssistant Photography Videos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmBgEwRDfiQMYTPORSzDxvw
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-dslr-primes-a-journey-of-exploration.531050/

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

strawbale said:

No idea which one is from which camera/sensor.

Click to expand...

Given where I'm coming from, that doesn't surprise me.

gardenersassistant said:

I like #3, #5, and #7 the most. Some (#1, #4, #9) c/would maybe be improved with focus stacking?

Click to expand...

#4 and #9 definitely not as the subjects were in motion - not bits of them moving, like antennae moving, which you can sometimes deal with in a stack, but walking around (rushing, in the case of the ant).

#1 might have stayed still long enough for a stack, I don't remember - I do have images of it in different positions, so it obviously was moving from time to time.

The problem I find is that once I commit to a stack (at sweet spot aperture, otherwise stacking doesn't make sense), I may not be able to complete the captures in the time available, so as well as missing the stack I may miss getting a usable small aperture single shot. (All these examples are minimum aperture shots, equivalent to around f/45 on full frame, f/22 on mFT.)

I suppose the thing to do would be to take single shots first and then try a stack, changing aperture/ISO/shutter speed/flash setting as appropriate which in itself can take a little while to get right.

Another complication is that I find a different lens suitable for stacks. I find the Olympus 60mm macro on the G80 best for sweet spot aperture focus bracketing or 4K photo sets, but close-up lenses on a 45-175 zoom lens best for single shots. In practice that could mean carrying a separate camera for stacks, along with the two that I already carry, one for flash-based single shot macros and one for natural light close-ups. I find two cameras ok, but even though I carry a bag around I find three much more inconvenient to handle.

gardenersassistant said:

Before buying the P7800 I thought about the FZ200. Because I wanted the best quality allround compact for a small budget (I paid 279 euro) with sufficient zoom, I opted for the P7800 in the end. Now, after almost 2 years, I'd like to continue taking landscape/nature photos, but add macro/close-up to it, without buying multiple cameras. The P7800 has a fantastic lens, so the 1/1.7" sensor is OK-ish for my nature/landscape photos most of the time, but I wouldn't want to go any smaller for that.

Click to expand...

I have found that I prefer what I can get from my G80 for botanical and landscape subjects. Before I got the G80 my preference for these was my 70D, but I've found I prefer my G80 for these subjects.

gardenersassistant said:

I'll definitely read up on this, including the links in your signature, as I'm not in any hurry to buy something yet.

Click to expand...

Yes, best to read around a variety of sources and opinions and match to your own particular needs, preferences etc.

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

strawbale said:

Thank you, again, for your elaborate response.

Click to expand...

I'd expect a 80-20 use for landscape/nature vs macro/close-up (flowers, with or without insects), so a G80/EM5ii + 60mm & 12-60 / 14-140 + 1 fast prime may be the way to go for me, in the future.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

I would take care using f/2.8 on 60mm and 3 seperation.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

I think you shouldnt do much editing of stuff when you combine all three.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

I save A,B, C into Tif file. In PS i do Load files into stack. Now you combine A+B and B+C, no matter what is first. On A+B i solve background and halos, i put A bellow B and erase B part with Soft Round, Opacity some 70-80 % (so just background while subject will be solved on B+C). When A+B is done join them and open (Indicate) C layer. Now erase where subject isnt so clear, edges etc on joined (A+B) layer. So A+B layer is above and C is bellow. So on C you never erase. So its about erasing bad part and joining them.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

Sometimes even C part cant solve some details, there you go manual, on PS. Helicon can do that.

Click to expand...

windmillgolfer said:

Unusual, very interesting and excellent set, Nick.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

I would take care using f/2.8 on 60mm and 3 seperation. I think you shouldnt do much editing of stuff when you combine all three.

I save A,B, C into Tif file. In PS i do Load files into stack. Now you combine A+B and B+C, no matter what is first. On A+B i solve background and halos, i put A bellow B and erase B part with Soft Round, Opacity some 70-80 % (so just background while subject will be solved on B+C). When A+B is done join them and open (Indicate) C layer. Now erase where subject isnt so clear, edges etc on joined (A+B) layer. So A+B layer is above and C is bellow. So on C you never erase. So its about erasing bad part and joining them.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

Sometimes even C part cant solve some details, there you go manual, on PS. Helicon can do that.

Click to expand...

Petar Veliki said:

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mile_risto/

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant's collections on Flickr

The safest and most inclusive global community of photography enthusiasts. The best place for inspiration, connection, and sharing!

www.flickr.com

gardenersassistant said:

strawbale said:

gardenersassistant said:

Thank you, again, for your elaborate response.

Click to expand...

I'd expect a 80-20 use for landscape/nature vs macro/close-up (flowers, with or without insects), so a G80/EM5ii + 60mm & 12-60 / 14-140 + 1 fast prime may be the way to go for me, in the future.

Click to expand...

Looks good to me.

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

To be able to deal with focus stacking, among other things, I'll need to upgrade my 10-yr old computer as well. What do you use/recommend as a minimum for comfortably using Helicon, for instance?

Click to expand...

• 4 core processor or higher
• 4 Gb RAM or higher
• Resolution 1920 x 1080 or more

• 2 GHz processor
• 1 Gb RAM
• Resolution 1280 x 1024

gardenersassistant said:

strawbale said:

To be able to deal with focus stacking, among other things, I'll need to upgrade my 10-yr old computer as well. What do you use/recommend as a minimum for comfortably using Helicon, for instance?

Click to expand...

I'm not experienced enough to give a really solid answer to that question I'm afraid. Here is what the Helicon Help says in terms of hardware:

The recommended system configuration is:

• 4 core processor or higher
• 4 Gb RAM or higher
• Resolution 1920 x 1080 or more

Minimum system requirements are:

• 2 GHz processor
• 1 Gb RAM
• Resolution 1280 x 1024

I am running it on a Windows 7 PC with a four core Intel i5, 16GB memory and a 4 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 graphics card. I am content with the performance (I am running a 2560 x 1440 screen). Some operations are inevitably going to take a long time - like processing large stacks, or running DXO PRIME noise processing, but apart from that sort of operation I find the system sufficiently responsive that I'm rarely aware of delays that I feel are getting in my way.

The graphics card is fairly powerful but by no means top of the line these days (I got it to help with the games that I play. It was the fastest passively cooled card that I could buy at the time). I haven't been able to find out if the graphics card makes any difference for Helicon focus. Their hardware recommendations don't mention it and there is no option for turning it on/off, so perhaps Helicon Focus doesn't use the graphics card.

The graphics processor (whether part of the CPU or a separate card) may make a difference depending on what other software you will be using. Lightroom for example does (optionally) make use of a graphics card.

My experience is that one thing that can make a big difference to performance in various applications is the amount of memory, which is why I have 16GB.

If you are going to upgrade your system and you are into photography one thing you might want to consider is getting a calibrated screen. This might be factory calibrated, like the Dell UP2716D (may not be the current model) that I am using, or using an external calibrator like I did with my previous screen, an Asus PB278Q, using an X-rite Color Munki Display calibrator. I found I could see more detail and more subtle colour gradations when I started using a calibrated screen.

You might want to ask the question in the PC Talk or Mac Talk forum as appropriate.

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

strawbale said:

Thank you!

Click to expand...

Looks like I sould upgrade from my dual core, 4GB RAM, 256MB videocard, laptop to something more powerful + a good screen

Click to expand...

strawbale said:

I looks like you shot most (all?) of your stacks at f/2.8 - ever tried it at f/4 or f/5.6 or is theat more difficult to dealt with for/in the stacking sofware?

Reason I'm asking is that the 60mm macro is not at its best at f/2.8:

http://www.photozone.de/m43/781-oly6028?start=1

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

Petar Veliki said:

I would take care using f/2.8 on 60mm and 3 seperation.

Click to expand...

I haven't noticed any problems, but I can see the logic of it so I will pay close attention to that - or just use 2 anyway. (Actually, I'm not sure wide open at f/2.8 is the best aperture to use anyway. Slightly smaller might actually be better I suppose.)

gardenersassistant said:

I think you shouldnt do much editing of stuff when you combine all three.

Click to expand...

I don't really understand this. Could you explain a bit what you had in mind here.

gardenersassistant said:

I save A,B, C into Tif file. In PS i do Load files into stack. Now you combine A+B and B+C, no matter what is first. On A+B i solve background and halos, i put A bellow B and erase B part with Soft Round, Opacity some 70-80 % (so just background while subject will be solved on B+C). When A+B is done join them and open (Indicate) C layer. Now erase where subject isnt so clear, edges etc on joined (A+B) layer. So A+B layer is above and C is bellow. So on C you never erase. So its about erasing bad part and joining them.

Click to expand...

That is very helpful, thank you. I don't know if I can do that with the old version of PS that I have. I'll give it a go.

Do you always use the same parameters for A?

Do you always use the same parameters for B?

Do you use the same parameters for A and B?

gardenersassistant said:

Sometimes even C part cant solve some details, there you go manual, on PS. Helicon can do that.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you would have to decide what needed doing before going to PS. I can see the logic of using layers for all this. You could also do any cloning in PS. What you couldn't do once you had gone to PS would be to paint from an individual image onto the stack - unless you loaded the individual image into another layer and masked most of it. I can see that getting pretty complicated. Do you ever paint from individual images like Helicon (and Zerene) let you do?

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

strawbale said:

I looks like you shot most (all?) of your stacks at f/2.8 - ever tried it at f/4 or f/5.6 or is theat more difficult to dealt with for/in the stacking sofware?

Reason I'm asking is that the 60mm macro is not at its best at f/2.8:

http://www.photozone.de/m43/781-oly6028?start=1

Click to expand...

Thanks. I didn't realise that. I hardly ever use the 60mm macro and hadn't researched its characteristics (at least, not recently enough to remember it - my memory is very poor!). I had a vague thought in the back of my mind that mFT lenses tended to be sharp nearly wide open.

I'll use f/5.6 for similar things in the future (not that I do much of this). It may well be advantageous for the stacking as I could use less shots, although from Petar Veliki's comments it may be better to use just as many shots and give the software more data to work on.

Click to expand...