Focus stacking RP, R6, R5

I get the gist of the focus stacking tool and how to combine them in post for macro. What I haven’t found is a good explanation of when to use 1 vs 2.... vs 10 for the spacing / # of shots.



If shooting at f2.8 from 18 inches away using an 85 mm, I have a razor thin 0.2” depth of field. If I take 20 shots in a total depth range of two inches, the whole subject should be pretty sharp. But from 1 - 10, what gets me the focus increment I want? I know 1 is less and 10 is more. But I have no idea if 1 is too little. It 5 is good enough.



Is there any math for this or is it trial and error?

I've used the focus stacking option in the R5 quite a few times and the Focus Increment was something I really needed to look into as well. From what I've red directly, and things inferred by Canon;

-The camera calculates the approximate DoF using the focal length of the lens, aperture setting, and distance approximation of the AF system

-The Focus Increment allows you to work within the cameras assumed DoF from a thin margin (1) to a wide margin (10)

-You can use the Focus Increment to strike a balance between the amount of shots needed and detail expected. As an example, if you a deep DoF required, but are hand-holding then choose a wider increment for a fewer number of shots. If you're shooting s static subject on a tripod, you can go with a larger number of shots and a smaller (thinner) increment for a more extreme level of detail.

So far, outside of my own personal testing (which is obviously not recorded anywhere) this blog shows the differences best;



Here are a couple shots I've done with it. I've always using it hand-held, so I try to get the fewest number of shots possible, and usually have the Focus Increment set to 5 or 6, and the number of shots is then based on my subject and aperture setting. I usually try to keep it around 25-30 shots, but have gone as high as 65 hand-held.

I use the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens just about all the shots I stack


100mm f/8 1/60th ISO 2500 (65 shots)




100mm f/5.6 1/100th ISO 1600 (35 shots)




100mm f/5.6 1/100th ISO 2500 (35 shots)




100mm f/5.6 1/80th ISO 1600 (20 shots)

This one was shot with the RF 100-500L lens...I just wanted to see if it would work at 500mm.


500mm f/7.1 1/125th ISO 5000 (20 shots)

This one is an example of not getting enough shots. The DoF is incomplete and I needed to take more shots but didn't have the chance.


100mm f/5.6 1/100th ISO 3200 (35 shots)





--
My Flickr page; https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaylt4/

JayLT4 said:

I've used the focus stacking option in the R5 quite a few times and the Focus Increment was something I really needed to look into as well. From what I've red directly, and things inferred by Canon;

-The camera calculates the approximate DoF using the focal length of the lens, aperture setting, and distance approximation of the AF system

-The Focus Increment allows you to work within the cameras assumed DoF from a thin margin (1) to a wide margin (10)

-You can use the Focus Increment to strike a balance between the amount of shots needed and detail expected. As an example, if you a deep DoF required, but are hand-holding then choose a wider increment for a fewer number of shots. If you're shooting s static subject on a tripod, you can go with a larger number of shots and a smaller (thinner) increment for a more extreme level of detail.

So far, outside of my own personal testing (which is obviously not recorded anywhere) this blog shows the differences best;

https://neukamp.de/en/focus-stacking-with-the-canon-eos-r5-settings/

Here are a couple shots I've done with it. I've always using it hand-held, so I try to get the fewest number of shots possible, and usually have the Focus Increment set to 5 or 6, and the number of shots is then based on my subject and aperture setting. I usually try to keep it around 25-30 shots, but have gone as high as 65 hand-held.

I use the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens just about all the shots I stack


100mm f/5.6 1/80th ISO 1600 (20 shots)

--
My Flickr page; https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaylt4/

Click to expand...

Thanks for this info. So using this shot. Assuming you’re 5 ft away (just guessing), you’ve got about a 3” DOF. 3” x 20 shots gets you about 5 ft deep. I assume there’s overlap then? The amount of overlap depending on that 1-10 setting? Do you take more than 20 and only use the ones that are beneficial?



Maybe 10 is the full DOF per shot whereas 5 or 6 gets about half overlap? Just spitballing

Really cool shot by the way. Do you stack in Adobe or use Canons software? Probably Adobe. Tried one in DPP4 and had a lot of artifacts.

JustUs7 said:

JayLT4 said:

I've used the focus stacking option in the R5 quite a few times and the Focus Increment was something I really needed to look into as well. From what I've red directly, and things inferred by Canon;

-The camera calculates the approximate DoF using the focal length of the lens, aperture setting, and distance approximation of the AF system

-The Focus Increment allows you to work within the cameras assumed DoF from a thin margin (1) to a wide margin (10)

-You can use the Focus Increment to strike a balance between the amount of shots needed and detail expected. As an example, if you a deep DoF required, but are hand-holding then choose a wider increment for a fewer number of shots. If you're shooting s static subject on a tripod, you can go with a larger number of shots and a smaller (thinner) increment for a more extreme level of detail.

So far, outside of my own personal testing (which is obviously not recorded anywhere) this blog shows the differences best;

https://neukamp.de/en/focus-stacking-with-the-canon-eos-r5-settings/

Here are a couple shots I've done with it. I've always using it hand-held, so I try to get the fewest number of shots possible, and usually have the Focus Increment set to 5 or 6, and the number of shots is then based on my subject and aperture setting. I usually try to keep it around 25-30 shots, but have gone as high as 65 hand-held.

I use the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens just about all the shots I stack


100mm f/5.6 1/80th ISO 1600 (20 shots)

Click to expand...

Thanks for this info. So using this shot. Assuming you’re 5 ft away (just guessing), you’ve got about a 3” DOF. 3” x 20 shots gets you about 5 ft deep. I assume there’s overlap then? The amount of overlap depending on that 1-10 setting? Do you take more than 20 and only use the ones that are beneficial?

Maybe 10 is the full DOF per shot whereas 5 or 6 gets about half overlap? Just spitballing

Really cool shot by the way. Do you stack in Adobe or use Canons software? Probably Adobe. Tried one in DPP4 and had a lot of artifacts.

Click to expand...

I was about 3 feet away on that one, give or take. I would tend to agree that a setting of 10 would be close to the maximum calculated DoF by the camera, and 5-6 should be about half that, which provides better results because of the sharp overlap in the shots.


I take as few shots as possible, but usually a bit more then I need to make sure I get the DoF I want. I'll focus on the closest possible part of the subject (or before it if possible) and try to get the last shot focused past where I want/need. I always review the first 2-3 shots and the last 2-3 shots of the string.


I use Helicon Focus for the stacking and Lightroom for the editing/cropping

--
My Flickr page; https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaylt4/

Tried one. Rolling electronic shutter on the RP under LED light even with anti-flicker enabled. Horrible.

Okay. Just for giggles I stacked them in DPP4. Seems to have smoothed out any rolling shutter. Not perfect but still.



Affinity Photo is using some juice (crashed a couple times), but already I can tell it’s going to be so much better. Need to upgrade this 2013 with 8 gib of RAM.

JustUs7 said:

Maybe 10 is the full DOF per shot whereas 5 or 6 gets about half overlap? Just spitballing

Click to expand...

You know, that would make a ton of sense. Essentially each step being approximately 10% of the calculated depth of field. Which means that a setting of 1 would likely be overkill in almost all situations.

Those snake photos make me anxious to bring the R6 to the zoo when it opens back up!

Gave up on the Affinity. Doesn’t have lens corrections or Canon colors. Would need to do a batch conversion to JPEG’s or TIFF’s to retain that info, then stack in Affinity. Affinity is far more correctable but DPP4 made way less mistakes out of the gate and produced a cleaner image. The negative is if there are errors in the layers, you can’t fix those in DPP4.

Hey guys-

Thanks so much for starting this thread up & continuing the discussion on the focus stacking on R5, etc.

JayLT4, I had been struggling slightly with the R5 focus stacking technique, but after reading your description & instruction things definitely came into focus (so to speak ;-) ).

Over the weekend I was able to get a few 20 stack captures of some mushrooms which I'm feeling really good about. These were at the 5 increment setting which seems to have worked well overall... however, I couldn't help but feel doubling the capture amount and lowering the increment might even work better.

Regardless, it's fun to play around with, and even more fun to see what you've ultimately captured on the other side of the stack.

Thanks again!

For those of you that use Helicon Focus, is the limited free version enough, or is there a package you would recommend?

@Harmon3,

Did you use DPP4 for the fungi? Handheld or tripod?
Just curious. Great shot.

The RP defaults to 4 on the 1-10 - so after this thread And the blog link, I’ve been comfortable just leaving it there.

@JustUs7

Handheld on the fungi shot, and I used Lightroom to edit & Photoshop to stack. One thing I notice is how much PS struggles with the sides of the images in the stacking so for whatever reason I’ve been having to crop some to clean that up... a little more than I would like so maybe more practice is needed.

Agreed on the increment setting...I’m going to hover around 4 - 5 this weekend and see what I come up with.

Good luck, and keep us posted.

A couple more ornaments with the RF 85mm f2




RF 85mm f2 wide open. About 25 images at an increment of 4




RF 85mm f2 wide open about 27 images at an increment of 4

And one I did with the 35mm f1.8




RF 35mm f/1.8 wide open. 40 shots at an increment of 4. About 7 inches from the end of the lens? Just to compare distortion/angle of view with the 85mm

Harmon3 said:

@JustUs7

Handheld on the fungi shot, and I used Lightroom to edit & Photoshop to stack. One thing I notice is how much PS struggles with the sides of the images in the stacking so for whatever reason I’ve been having to crop some to clean that up... a little more than I would like so maybe more practice is needed.

Agreed on the increment setting...I’m going to hover around 4 - 5 this weekend and see what I come up with.
Good luck, and keep us posted.

Click to expand...

i noticed same thing with canon RP and rf 35mm 1.8, i have to crop the sides but i think thats due to focus breathing. Not sure how to reduce that

@JustUs7

That last ornament stack is looking awesome - great job!

@Leblobe

Thanks for the heads up. I think you're exactly right on this. I'm going to work towards figuring a way to reduce it, but in the meantime going to also make sure to give myself some extra breathing room on these macro shots. Surely there is a way...

Just figured out that you can do layer by layer adjustments in DPP4! Under Tools, use the Depth Compositing Editing Tool. It allows you to brush in layer adjustments from your source images when you don’t like the choices it made in the original composition. If there’s a small out of focus area, you can find the source image that has that area in focus, then adjust the brush size and brush in the well focused section. Then, a little clean up with the cloning brush in the regular editing and it turns out pretty good.

Useful for when it has a difficult time differentiating between focus planes or if background blur bleeds into other areas.






Affinity Photos stacking effort just for comparison.