Helicon FB Tube macro shots

I have recently been trying out a Helicon FB Tube that I bought some time ago. For taking images for stacking when using a microscope or extension bellows, we use Cognisys Stackshot equipment. I bought the tube because it is more convenient to use ‘in the field’ than our Stackshot. The tube can be preset to give a focusing increment between shots that suits the particular lens being used. This distance should be small enough to ensure that the whole subject is in focus when the images are stacked, but not so small that the number of images is unnecessarily large. I did a few experiments with angled, printed paper to check the step length was about right. Once set up, the tube allows a burst of shots to be taken when the shutter is set to that mode. The way I use the tube is to focus on the nearest part of the subject that I want in focus and then fire the shutter until the furthest part of the subject is in focus. More information at: https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-fb-tube/

When photographing simple, stationary subjects such as lichen on tree bark, the tube worked fine but the true test for me was whether I could use it to take sharp-all-over insects on photo trips. First I tried photographing butterflies at an angle (rather than parallel to the wings). I was satisfied with a couple of shots but the butterflies had a tendency to move their wings while I was taking the stacks, making stacking impossible.

On my latest trip to test the Helicon FB Tube, I visited a place where I expected to see many mating pairs of damselflies at this time of year. There were very few about, however, and there was a fairly strong breeze which made macro photography difficult. I know, excuses, excuses. Although I only ended up with a few shots, the tube worked well enough for me to experiment further in the future. My normal method of making the most of the limited depth of field at macro distances is to try to get the subject parallel to the sensor in both horizontal and vertical planes. Choosing such a viewpoint without disturbing the subject can be difficult, especially when trying to position a tripod. I hope that the extra depth of field provided by stacking will permit a wider range of positions from which to photograph macro subjects such as damselflies. In addition, of course, the tube should make it possible to cover the whole depth of subjects when a single shot could not.

All images taken with a Canon EOS 1D Mk4 and EF 180mm macro lens. 1/640 sec at f8.


Single shot




Stack of 23 images




Single shot


Stack of 8 images

Thanks for sharing this! I'll be very interested in what else you can do with the tube and your general feelings about it as you continue to use it. I have bookmarked the page as well. Something like this might just convince me to try focus stacking again. I assume that you are using Helicon software for the stacking process. Have you found that you are getting better stacking results (i.e., less OOF artifacts) when using their hardware?

stevendillonphoto said:

Thanks for sharing this! I'll be very interested in what else you can do with the tube and your general feelings about it as you continue to use it. I have bookmarked the page as well. Something like this might just convince me to try focus stacking again. I assume that you are using Helicon software for the stacking process. Have you found that you are getting better stacking results (i.e., less OOF artifacts) when using their hardware?

Click to expand...

Hi Steven,

We use Zerene Stacker rather than Helicon software to stack our images. I would say that the various methods we use to take the images – manual focus steps, Stackshot or Helicon FB Tube – all end with the same results.

In my opinion, many macro shots could be improved by the extra depth of field given by stacking, and the process is almost essential with most shots having magnification beyond 1:1. We always use it for bellows and microscope photography. As to the difficulties of getting stacked images without unpleasant artefacts, it can take time and practice with stacking software. We end up discarding some images because it is not worth the effort required. We always start with RAW images which we edit and convert to 16 bit TIFFS in Capture One. Next we stack these in Zerene and save the results as JPGs. Whether the effort taken to learn and use stacking software is worthwhile depends on how much you value the final images.

I will post an update about the tube when I have taken more images.

Chris

Chris 345 said:

stevendillonphoto said:

Thanks for sharing this! I'll be very interested in what else you can do with the tube and your general feelings about it as you continue to use it. I have bookmarked the page as well. Something like this might just convince me to try focus stacking again. I assume that you are using Helicon software for the stacking process. Have you found that you are getting better stacking results (i.e., less OOF artifacts) when using their hardware?

Click to expand...

Hi Steven,

We use Zerene Stacker rather than Helicon software to stack our images. I would say that the various methods we use to take the images – manual focus steps, Stackshot or Helicon FB Tube – all end with the same results.

In my opinion, many macro shots could be improved by the extra depth of field given by stacking, and the process is almost essential with most shots having magnification beyond 1:1. We always use it for bellows and microscope photography. As to the difficulties of getting stacked images without unpleasant artefacts, it can take time and practice with stacking software. We end up discarding some images because it is not worth the effort required. We always start with RAW images which we edit and convert to 16 bit TIFFS in Capture One. Next we stack these in Zerene and save the results as JPGs. Whether the effort taken to learn and use stacking software is worthwhile depends on how much you value the final images.

I will post an update about the tube when I have taken more images.

Chris

Click to expand...

Hey Chris,

I have that tube as well, but haven't gotten around to using it. I think that stacking is useful when shooting at angles that put the depth of field at a disadvantage, but to say that it's almost essential above 1x isn't true...

Feeding Sawfly at 4x and F11:





Plenty of depth, plenty of detail, one frame. In your own images you're shooting from angles that are difficult to pull off in a single frame just due to the angle between the sensor and the subject.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

Chris 345 said:

stevendillonphoto said:

Thanks for sharing this! I'll be very interested in what else you can do with the tube and your general feelings about it as you continue to use it. I have bookmarked the page as well. Something like this might just convince me to try focus stacking again. I assume that you are using Helicon software for the stacking process. Have you found that you are getting better stacking results (i.e., less OOF artifacts) when using their hardware?

Click to expand...

Hi Steven,

We use Zerene Stacker rather than Helicon software to stack our images. I would say that the various methods we use to take the images – manual focus steps, Stackshot or Helicon FB Tube – all end with the same results.

Click to expand...

Argh, I was hoping that using hardware would somehow help the software. :-(

Chris 345 said:

In my opinion, many macro shots could be improved by the extra depth of field given by stacking, and the process is almost essential with most shots having magnification beyond 1:1. We always use it for bellows and microscope photography. As to the difficulties of getting stacked images without unpleasant artefacts, it can take time and practice with stacking software. We end up discarding some images because it is not

Click to expand...

That is exactly my experience, and the fact that I had to throw some out (that would have been really cool if they would have worked), really put me off. I fixed some using the software, but when it started taking 2 hours to fix a single image, I began questioning the value of doing that. I guess I'll keep hoping that the software will continue to improve and all/any area that is in focus will be favored over areas that aren't.

Chris 345 said:

worth the effort required. We always start with RAW images which we edit and convert to 16 bit TIFFS in Capture One. Next we stack these in Zerene and save the results as JPGs. Whether the effort taken to learn and use stacking software is worthwhile

Click to expand...

Do you use sRGB JPEGs or are you saving them with a bigger color space? I only convert to JPEG for the web and for my POD site. If I could use ProPhoto for everything, I would because I want all those colors (even if there isn't a color profile that can print them yet).

Chris 345 said:

depends on how much you value the final images

Click to expand...

Chris 345 said:

I will post an update about the tube when I have taken more images.

Click to expand...

Excellent, looking forward to hearing more about it.

Chris 345 said:

Chris

Click to expand...