To stack or not to stack

gardenersassistant wrote:

mawyatt2002 wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

I use stacks not for the detail you can see if you zoom in, because I produce images for viewing "as is" without zooming in on them. I use stacking because I like the look of the images I can produce using it.

Nick,

Interesting comment. Can you elaborate more on the "look" stacking gives? Is this the in focus areas or the out of focus areas, bohea so to speak?

Best,

Both the in focus areas and the out of focus areas.

One of the reasons I use aperture bracketing (for non-stacked images) is that it gives me a set of images from which I can choose the one(s) which have the balance between the amount of the subject that is in focus and the rendition of the background that best pleases my eye.

I need to experiment more in this area. We sometimes forget that we want an image that is pleasing overall.

....

Sometimes I can find a single-capture image of a scene that gives a combination of in focus and out of focus areas, and a transition between them, that pleases my eye. Sometimes I can't.

......

Stacked images can have a different look from single-capture images, with a rather sudden transition between the in focus and out of focus areas.

I have experimenting with hand held stacked images. I generally find that Photoshop does a better job of stacking than does Helicon, as PS better accounts for my shake perpendicular to the focus plane.

.....

I've written at some length about using a combination of single-capture images and stacks for botanical subjects. You might want to have a look at this post here at dpreview, which is quite short, and mainly images.

I had forgotten about this post. This is an excellent comparison.

....