To stack or not to stack

For flowers etc, for each subject I often capture post focus videos for stacking and also exposure bracketed stills (one shot each from f/2.8 to f/22) for when the stack doesn't work or when I like one or more of the single shots whether or not the stack worked. This is the sort of set I get to choose from when using exposure bracketing.

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. This sort of thing. (First two stacked from G80 4K video, the other two from G9 6K video, all with Olympus 60mm macro. All four hand-held, hands possibly supported by a low wall for the second, the others with hands unsupported, possibly one-handed because of awkward positioning of the subject.)

I have only occasionally used stacking for invertebrates; it doesn't really suit my subject matter (much smaller than most of my botanical subjects, usually on foliage, with the foliage often moving around in a breeze and/or the subject moving around, subjects often only there for a few seconds, often in indifferent light levels). And it doesn't really suit my preference for shooting hand-held. This is one of the few I have done (probably using a tripod, but with hands on the camera). I might try doing more next year. Maybe.

...on what you're end goal is, and what audience you're playing for. If you stay inside of the niche focus stacking community then you're probably gonna stack, cause per pixel image sharpness is the only thing that seems to matter to a lot of them.

If you want to be known outside of the small focus stacking community then you're going to have to create images that look good edge to edge. Someone who's looking for a photo to save to their PC desktop or cell phone as wallpaper doesn't care how sharp an image is, but the light and the composition have to be spot on. I'm currently using this one as my cell phone wallpaper:

Tech Specs: Canon 40D (F13, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (around 3x) + a diffused MT-24EX (both flash heads on the Canon flash mount, E-TTL metering). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. Image taken in 2009 but only recently processed.

Is it razor sharp? Nope but someone on Reddit, a complete stranger, had this to say about it:

"I’ve been staring at this for ten minutes. Best bee photo I’ve ever seen — just pure magic. Thank you so much for sharing this!"

Now I'm not saying that you can't take focus stacked images that look good edge to edge, you most certainly can and I know a few macro shooters who are doing it. But the subject has to be motionless long enough to get all of the frames that you want for a stack. The downside to shooting static scenes, other than anyone can do it, is that it's tough to shoot a static subject and end up with a photo that draws the viewer in and holds their attention. It's also tough to take images that really stand out without resorting to extreme measures, simply because anyone can photograph a motionless subject.

Is focus stacking bad? Nope. But just like using a tripod it can limit what you can photograph and when. For me the technique comes with too many limitations, and introduces other problems (like stack errors), so I have no interest in it. At least not with the subjects and magnifications that I shoot at (1x to 5x).

If you're going to use microscope objectives, don't even think about it without stacking.

I'm not sure why anybody would want a single image of a PAINFULLY thin in focus slice of an insect antenna.

BobORama wrote:

John K wrote:

...on what you're end goal is, and what audience you're playing for. If you stay inside of the niche focus stacking community then you're probably gonna stack, cause per pixel image sharpness is the only thing that seems to matter to a lot of them.

The disdain is palpable. If you believe stacking is a cult to which you don't belong and never want to, that speaks to you, not the technique.

Agree completely. The man is condescending and arrogant beyond all proportion to his published accomplishments.

Alas the "photography jerk" stereotype often discussed at(and seen on) DP has a strong basis in reality.

BobORama wrote:

John K wrote:

...on what you're end goal is, and what audience you're playing for. If you stay inside of the niche focus stacking community then you're probably gonna stack, cause per pixel image sharpness is the only thing that seems to matter to a lot of them.

The disdain is palpable. If you believe stacking is a cult to which you don't belong and never want to, that speaks to you, not the technique.

No disdain at all. The focus stacking community is a niche, and most of the people who focus stack do so to get sharper images and not to get more depth of field. There are scenes and subjects that have to be stacked, either due to the angle or the size of the subject. But not every shot has to be focus stacked, and there's more to a good photo than just the image sharpness.

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 200 with highlight tone priority) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (5x) + a diffused MT-24EX (both flash heads on the Canon flash mount, E-TTL metering with -1 2/3 FEC). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held.

If you want to be known outside of the small focus stacking community then you're going to have to create images that look good edge to edge.

I think you mean the other way around?

No, you have to take images that are well composed and well lit to get noticed. If you can do that and focus stack, then cool. But to ignore composition and light and only concern yourself with absolute image sharpness is a mistake. Funny thing is that the quality of the light you use and even the angle between the light, subject, and sensor can have an impact on the level of detail that you can capture. I've lots count of the number of focus tacked images I've seen where a lot of the detail was lost just because the light wasn't diffused well enough. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Anyways, I use a lot of different techniques. Its good to be able to pull the appropriate bludgeon out of the toolbox as needed. In the end its about respecting your subject enough to capture it in as masterful a way as you can. Knowing more ways to do that makes you a better, more capable conduit through which others can experience your subject.

Which is a long way of saying "Depends"

Agreed.

deanimator wrote:

If you're going to use microscope objectives, don't even think about it without stacking.

I'm not sure why anybody would want a single image of a PAINFULLY thin in focus slice of an insect antenna.

Absolutely, which is why I said in my OP that for the subjects and magnifications that I shoot focus stacking isn't necessary. But there are a lot of scenes and subjects where you're going to have to focus stack unless all you want is an abstract image.

The problem that I see in the macro discipline is people stacking EVERYTHING, and doing so at the expense of composition and lighting (light quality so poor it's actually robbing them of detail). I know several macro photographers who, if they just used the rule of thirds, could be on the cover of just about any major magazine...

Luisifer wrote:

THAT is the quiestion.

Thanks for starting this thread

I think there's another question: "If I shoot macro do I have to focus stack?". The answer to that question, at least for me, is "no". There are some scenes and subjects that really have to be stacked, either because of the angle between the subject and the sensor or because the subject is really small. But there are a lot of scenes and subjects where focus stacking just isn't necessary, and learning how to create "magic angles" that make the most out of what little depth exists at high magnification and high Fstops usually results in some good compositions.

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (over 3x) + a diffused MT-26EX-RT with a Kaiser adjustable flash shoe on the "A" head (the fill for this shot), E-TTL metering, -1/3 FEC,). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. I'm holding on to the Lavender stem with my left hand, and resting the lens on that same hand to keep the scene steady.

...especially since I get  a lot of detail in my single frames, and I make poster size prints from them. It's almost as if you're saying that you have to stack to do all of the things in that first poll option, and it's just not true...

John K wrote:

BobORama wrote:

John K wrote:

...on what you're end goal is, and what audience you're playing for. If you stay inside of the niche focus stacking community then you're probably gonna stack, cause per pixel image sharpness is the only thing that seems to matter to a lot of them.

The disdain is palpable. If you believe stacking is a cult to which you don't belong and never want to, that speaks to you, not the technique.

No disdain at all. The focus stacking community is a niche, and most of the people who focus stack do so to get sharper images and not to get more depth of field.

These days, photography with anything besides a cell phone is a "niche"

Hell, from what I've seen, reading printed books is a niche.

John K wrote:

deanimator wrote:

If you're going to use microscope objectives, don't even think about it without stacking.

I'm not sure why anybody would want a single image of a PAINFULLY thin in focus slice of an insect antenna.

Absolutely, which is why I said in my OP that for the subjects and magnifications that I shoot focus stacking isn't necessary. But there are a lot of scenes and subjects where you're going to have to focus stack unless all you want is an abstract image.

The problem that I see in the macro discipline is people stacking EVERYTHING, and doing so at the expense of composition and lighting (light quality so poor it's actually robbing them of detail). I know several macro photographers who, if they just used the rule of thirds, could be on the cover of just about any major magazine...

Most of what I do is macro, and most of that is in the studio.  A good portion of that is with microscope objectives, or conventional lenses at greater than 1:1.

deanimator wrote:

John K wrote:

BobORama wrote:

John K wrote:

...on what you're end goal is, and what audience you're playing for. If you stay inside of the niche focus stacking community then you're probably gonna stack, cause per pixel image sharpness is the only thing that seems to matter to a lot of them.

The disdain is palpable. If you believe stacking is a cult to which you don't belong and never want to, that speaks to you, not the technique.

No disdain at all. The focus stacking community is a niche, and most of the people who focus stack do so to get sharper images and not to get more depth of field.

These days, photography with anything besides a cell phone is a "niche"

Hell, from what I've seen, reading printed books is a niche.

No arguments there! I plan to get into "macro video" using an iPhone cause I can shoot well below 1x, fill the frame with the subject. and take advantage of the depth at low mag.

deanimator wrote:

John K wrote:

deanimator wrote:

If you're going to use microscope objectives, don't even think about it without stacking.

I'm not sure why anybody would want a single image of a PAINFULLY thin in focus slice of an insect antenna.

Absolutely, which is why I said in my OP that for the subjects and magnifications that I shoot focus stacking isn't necessary. But there are a lot of scenes and subjects where you're going to have to focus stack unless all you want is an abstract image.

The problem that I see in the macro discipline is people stacking EVERYTHING, and doing so at the expense of composition and lighting (light quality so poor it's actually robbing them of detail). I know several macro photographers who, if they just used the rule of thirds, could be on the cover of just about any major magazine...

Most of what I do is macro, and most of that is in the studio. A good portion of that is with microscope objectives, or conventional lenses at greater than 1:1.

That's a really good point: Using a microscope objective is another must stack situation cause you're dealing with a fixed aperture lens.

Luisifer wrote:

John K wrote:

I plan to get into "macro video" using an iPhone cause I can shoot well below 1x, fill the frame with the subject. and take advantage of the depth at low mag.

Magic. Higher density of the pixels mean advantage in highly effective recording of diffraction.

I'm not sure, gotta get some experience with it. I won't be shooting actual macro, cause the sensor is so small it's gonna be easy to fill the frame with the subject at very low magnification. Probably won't be shooting greater that 1/3 life size, so diffraction won't be that big of a deal. The bigger problem is going to be  light quality.

FWIW: I see a lot of people arguing technical details, like the circle of confusion. But they don't understand how those details apply to actually taking photos, or video, because they have little or no experience. If they did then they'd realize that a lot of the things they make a big deal out of don't really make much of a difference...

John K wrote:

Luisifer wrote:

John K wrote:

I plan to get into "macro video" using an iPhone cause I can shoot well below 1x, fill the frame with the subject. and take advantage of the depth at low mag.

Magic. Higher density of the pixels mean advantage in highly effective recording of diffraction.

I'm not sure, gotta get some experience with it. I won't be shooting actual macro, cause the sensor is so small it's gonna be easy to fill the frame with the subject at very low magnification. Probably won't be shooting greater that 1/3 life size, so diffraction won't be that big of a deal.

I read here that the iPhone XS has a 4:3 sensor which is 5.6mm x 4.2mm. This is similar to the 6.17mm x 4.55mm (1/2.3") sensors in cameras that I have used for close-ups for some years. I am wondering in what way using an iPhone will provide you with capabilities that are fundamentally different from other cameras with similar sized sensors.

The reason I ask is that with a subject of a particular size filling (the same proportion of) the frame, when using equivalent (for example minimum) apertures I get images that look very similar in terms of depth of field and details with cameras with 1/2.3", MFT and APS-C sensors. So it isn't obvious to me what the particular benefit of an iPhone would be.

At 1:3 a subject around 17mm long will fill the frame of an iPhone in landscape orientation. So would that be around the minimum size of subject you envisage photographing or videoing with your iPhone? (Better I suppose to say would that be the minimum size of scene you envisage ...)

The bigger problem is going to be light quality.

FWIW: I see a lot of people arguing technical details, like the circle of confusion. But they don't understand how those details apply to actually taking photos, or video, because they have little or no experience. If they did then they'd realize that a lot of the things they make a big deal out of don't really make much of a difference...

gardenersassistant wrote:

I read here that the iPhone XS has a 4:3 sensor which is 5.6mm x 4.2mm. This is similar to the 6.17mm x 4.55mm (1/2.3") sensors in cameras that I have used for close-ups for some years. I am wondering in what way using an iPhone will provide you with capabilities that are fundamentally different from other cameras with similar sized sensors.

The reason I ask is that with a subject of a particular size filling (the same proportion of) the frame, when using equivalent (for example minimum) apertures I get images that look very similar in terms of depth of field and details with cameras with 1/2.3", MFT and APS-C sensors. So it isn't obvious to me what the particular benefit of an iPhone would be.

At 1:3 a subject around 17mm long will fill the frame of an iPhone in landscape orientation. So would that be around the minimum size of subject you envisage photographing or videoing with your iPhone? (Better I suppose to say would that be the minimum size of scene you envisage ...)

All good questions. I'm coming from APS-C size sensors that are a lot larger than what you'd find in a cellphone. The 1/3 life size magnification that I mentioned was just a guess -again I gotta get some experience shooting with a really small sensor.

Depth of field is purely a combination of magnification and aperture -the sensor size doesn't make any difference. If I can fill the frame on my iPhone 11 Pro Max at well below 1/3 life size then the depth of field is gong to be HUGE compared top what I'm use to. This is what I can do at 1x now with an 80D @ F11 and 1x:

John K wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

I read here that the iPhone XS has a 4:3 sensor which is 5.6mm x 4.2mm. This is similar to the 6.17mm x 4.55mm (1/2.3") sensors in cameras that I have used for close-ups for some years. I am wondering in what way using an iPhone will provide you with capabilities that are fundamentally different from other cameras with similar sized sensors.

The reason I ask is that with a subject of a particular size filling (the same proportion of) the frame, when using equivalent (for example minimum) apertures I get images that look very similar in terms of depth of field and details with cameras with 1/2.3", MFT and APS-C sensors. So it isn't obvious to me what the particular benefit of an iPhone would be.

At 1:3 a subject around 17mm long will fill the frame of an iPhone in landscape orientation. So would that be around the minimum size of subject you envisage photographing or videoing with your iPhone? (Better I suppose to say would that be the minimum size of scene you envisage ...)

All good questions. I'm coming from APS-C size sensors that are a lot larger than what you'd find in a cellphone. The 1/3 life size magnification that I mentioned was just a guess -again I gotta get some experience shooting with a really small sensor.

Depth of field is purely a combination of magnification and aperture -the sensor size doesn't make any difference. If I can fill the frame on my iPhone 11 Pro Max at well below 1/3 life size then the depth of field is gong to be HUGE compared top what I'm use to. This is what I can do at 1x now with an 80D @ F11 and 1x:

Here are some comparisons between a 70D and an FZ200, which has a sensor roughly the same size as an iPhone. The pairs are not precisely like for like, but close enough I think to demonstrate the similarity of the DOF. Bear in mind that the aspect ratios are different.

The 70D used a 55-250 STM and a Raynox 150. The FZ200 used a Raynox 150.

All are uncropped and used minimum aperture (so maximum DOF). Minimum aperture is f/22 to f/32 depending on focal length for the 55-250 STM, and f/8 for the FZ200.

There was no extra DOF from the smaller sensor.

70D, f/29

FZ200, f/8

70D, f/29

FZ200, f/8

70D, f/29

FZ200, f/8

70D, f/32

FZ200, f/8