Stacking Method...Orchid

[Sylvan120]

Since it isn't very friendly outside for macro photography, I figured I would try to improve my stacking skills. I'll preface this by saying that I am a complete novice when it comes to doing large stacks. I am hoping that some of you stacking masters can help improve my process.

We have a new orchid blossom opening so I set up the tripod and shot a large focus bracket using a focus differential of 3 on my OM-1 with my 90mm macro and flash. I ended up using 35 of the images in the sequence to cover a front to back distance of an estimated 8-10mm +/-. The last image below is my final stack. I am using Lightroom and Photoshop to do the editing.

My process is to import the raw files and increase texture and clarity in LR. I then select the images in sequence and export to PS to do the stack. In PS, I select the images and use edit>auto align layers>auto, then edit>auto blend layers>stack images. I do a very slight crop to remove misaligned edge and then export image from PS back to LR for final tweaking. I was disappointed with the final output file from PS since there were many blurred areas without detail in the white and yellow parts of the flower which I then had to very carefully manually fill in with editing in LR to get an acceptable final image.

So, since I am a self-taught novice in this aspect of photo editing, I am wondering if my process is correct and I have no clue. Are blurred out areas to be expected from stacking so many images with such fine low contrast detail as with the yellow and white parts of this flower? Do the blurred areas mean my focus differential was too large and I should reduce it to 1 or 2? Does other software perform stacking better than PS? Are the steps in my process lacking or wrong? Any help from experienced stackers would be appreciated.

 

[Lester Lefkowitz]

If this is your first stacking rodeo, you done very well, kid!

How you used Photoshop to make the stack is correct, and your sequence from Lightroom is fine.. While I don't see any Photoshop problems with your images, my tests have indicated that at times it creates problem artifact compared with bespoke programs like Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker. Also, Photoshop gets terribly slow when the number of slices get large. Helicon and Zerene have far superior retouching tools (if retouching is ever needed) compared to Photoshop, and Helicon is blazingly fast, while some prefer the retouching tools in Zerene; both available free for 30-day trials. On the other hand, if Photoshop works for you, keep using it.

Some parts of the flower do not have much natural detail/texture (the white central part of the flower); not your fault.

Particular noticeable in the second photo, focus brackets were started a bit too far into the flower (foreground is soft) , and stopped too soon (could use a little more detail toward the rear). But these are pixel-peeper comments. Others may find these perfectly satisfactory.

Using f/16 probably introduced some diffraction softening. The good thing about focus stacking, it's possible to use the lens sharpest aperture (like f/8), and avoid diffraction softening, and not use small diffraction-prone apertures for more depth-of-field. Diffraction from f/16 on a Micro4/3 camera will be noticeable when pixel peeping, although modern sharpening algorithms can do wonders. If you do use larger apertures in the future, because of shallower DOF, you may have to use shorter bracket steps, but I am not familiar with the Olympus auto-bracket settings.

The bracket steps you used for these photos seem fine; I see no artifacts that indicate any "gaps" in DOF.

The last (high magnification) image looks somewhat too "crisp," as though the LR Texture and Clarity settings were too strong. Also, the lighting is too much directly straight in. Somewhat/partially side lit would have brought out more texture in the yellow and white areas.

Hope this helps. And keep at it, you're off to a great start.

Lester Lefkowitz, author of The Manual of Close-Up and Macro Photography, Volumes I & II

www.MacroPhotographer.net

 

[macrouser]

It looks like you are off to a good start. I like the cymbidium orchid.

 

[ASR45]

Detail all good well done.

 

[jim mij]

Since it isn't very friendly outside for macro photography, I figured I would try to improve my stacking skills. I'll preface this by saying that I am a complete novice when it comes to doing large stacks. I am hoping that some of you stacking masters can help improve my process.

We have a new orchid blossom opening so I set up the tripod and shot a large focus bracket using a focus differential of 3 on my OM-1 with my 90mm macro and flash. I ended up using 35 of the images in the sequence to cover a front to back distance of an estimated 8-10mm +/-. The last image below is my final stack. I am using Lightroom and Photoshop to do the editing.

My process is to import the raw files and increase texture and clarity in LR. I then select the images in sequence and export to PS to do the stack. In PS, I select the images and use edit>auto align layers>auto, then edit>auto blend layers>stack images. I do a very slight crop to remove misaligned edge and then export image from PS back to LR for final tweaking. I was disappointed with the final output file from PS since there were many blurred areas without detail in the white and yellow parts of the flower which I then had to very carefully manually fill in with editing in LR to get an acceptable final image.

I often see folks mention that approach of editing raws and then stacking, but I’ve never seen a comparison with stacking first then editing the stacked image. I suppose it’d be better but would it be noticeable ?, I suppose it depends on the sensor / brand / NR, etc. these days I just stack jpgs.

So, since I am a self-taught novice in this aspect of photo editing, I am wondering if my process is correct and I have no clue. Are blurred out areas to be expected from stacking so many images with such fine low contrast detail as with the yellow and white parts of this flower? Do the blurred areas mean my focus differential was too large and I should reduce it to 1 or 2? Does other software perform stacking better than PS? Are the steps in my process lacking or wrong? Any help from experienced stackers would

Jim

 

[grsnovi]

I've done a bit of stacking and have to say that I love the above image!

I've got macro lenses for my APS-C, mFT and FF bodies. I also have a focus rail. I've been most happy with images that I have manually focused. I've tried using the auto-stacking in my mFT bodies and while OK, they just don't compare.

I think my next steps will be to:

1. Get Lester's book(s).
2. Get a dedicated stacker like Helicon or Zerene.

--
Gary

Gary Smith

Explore Gary Smith’s 169 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Sylvan120]

If this is your first stacking rodeo, you done very well, kid!

How you used Photoshop to make the stack is correct, and your sequence from Lightroom is fine.. While I don't see any Photoshop problems with your images, my tests have indicated that at times it creates problem artifact compared with bespoke programs like Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker. Also, Photoshop gets terribly slow when the number of slices get large. Helicon and Zerene have far superior retouching tools (if retouching is ever needed) compared to Photoshop, and Helicon is blazingly fast, while some prefer the retouching tools in Zerene; both available free for 30-day trials. On the other hand, if Photoshop works for you, keep using it.

Some parts of the flower do not have much natural detail/texture (the white central part of the flower); not your fault.

Particular noticeable in the second photo, focus brackets were started a bit too far into the flower (foreground is soft) , and stopped too soon (could use a little more detail toward the rear). But these are pixel-peeper comments. Others may find these perfectly satisfactory.

Using f/16 probably introduced some diffraction softening. The good thing about focus stacking, it's possible to use the lens sharpest aperture (like f/8), and avoid diffraction softening, and not use small diffraction-prone apertures for more depth-of-field. Diffraction from f/16 on a Micro4/3 camera will be noticeable when pixel peeping, although modern sharpening algorithms can do wonders. If you do use larger apertures in the future, because of shallower DOF, you may have to use shorter bracket steps, but I am not familiar with the Olympus auto-bracket settings.

The bracket steps you used for these photos seem fine; I see no artifacts that indicate any "gaps" in DOF.

The last (high magnification) image looks somewhat too "crisp," as though the LR Texture and Clarity settings were too strong. Also, the lighting is too much directly straight in. Somewhat/partially side lit would have brought out more texture in the yellow and white areas.

Hope this helps. And keep at it, you're off to a great start.

Lester Lefkowitz, author of The Manual of Close-Up and Macro Photography, Volumes I & II

www.MacroPhotographer.net

Thanks for your tips and encouragement! Yes, I should probably try a more open aperture to maximize sharpness. I have been in the habit of using f16 to maximize depth of field for single shot macro. I'll try more moderate texture and clarity in the future too.

The output file I got from PS after my stacking process had a lot of blurred out spots which I manually filled in with tedious editing in LR to make the final macro image at the bottom of my post. I guess I was wondering if that is just sometimes what you get with the various software used for stacking or maybe another program would perform better in that aspect? Maybe it just depends on the type of detail in the image one is stacking.

Well, experimentation will continue when time allows to figure this out.

 

[Lester Lefkowitz]

If this is your first stacking rodeo, you done very well, kid!

How you used Photoshop to make the stack is correct, and your sequence from Lightroom is fine.. While I don't see any Photoshop problems with your images, my tests have indicated that at times it creates problem artifact compared with bespoke programs like Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker. Also, Photoshop gets terribly slow when the number of slices get large. Helicon and Zerene have far superior retouching tools (if retouching is ever needed) compared to Photoshop, and Helicon is blazingly fast, while some prefer the retouching tools in Zerene; both available free for 30-day trials. On the other hand, if Photoshop works for you, keep using it.

Some parts of the flower do not have much natural detail/texture (the white central part of the flower); not your fault.

Particular noticeable in the second photo, focus brackets were started a bit too far into the flower (foreground is soft) , and stopped too soon (could use a little more detail toward the rear). But these are pixel-peeper comments. Others may find these perfectly satisfactory.

Using f/16 probably introduced some diffraction softening. The good thing about focus stacking, it's possible to use the lens sharpest aperture (like f/8), and avoid diffraction softening, and not use small diffraction-prone apertures for more depth-of-field. Diffraction from f/16 on a Micro4/3 camera will be noticeable when pixel peeping, although modern sharpening algorithms can do wonders. If you do use larger apertures in the future, because of shallower DOF, you may have to use shorter bracket steps, but I am not familiar with the Olympus auto-bracket settings.

The bracket steps you used for these photos seem fine; I see no artifacts that indicate any "gaps" in DOF.

The last (high magnification) image looks somewhat too "crisp," as though the LR Texture and Clarity settings were too strong. Also, the lighting is too much directly straight in. Somewhat/partially side lit would have brought out more texture in the yellow and white areas.

Hope this helps. And keep at it, you're off to a great start.

Lester Lefkowitz, author of The Manual of Close-Up and Macro Photography, Volumes I & II

www.MacroPhotographer.net

Thanks for your tips and encouragement! Yes, I should probably try a more open aperture to maximize sharpness. I have been in the habit of using f16 to maximize depth of field for single shot macro. I'll try more moderate texture and clarity in the future too.

The output file I got from PS after my stacking process had a lot of blurred out spots which I manually filled in with tedious editing in LR to make the final macro image at the bottom of my post. I guess I was wondering if that is just sometimes what you get with the various software used for stacking or maybe another program would perform better in that aspect? Maybe it just depends on the type of detail in the image one is stacking.

Without seeing the original stacked image, it's difficult to analyze. "Blurred out spots" could be caused by focus bracket steps that were too large, or by ghosting that occurs when foreground objects obscure the object parts behind them when the foreground goes out of focus. It may or may not be Photoshop's fault. You might take advantage of Helocon and Zerene free trials and see how their results compare to what you are getting in Photoshop.

Lester Lefkowitz

Well, experimentation will continue when time allows to figure this out.

 

[Lester Lefkowitz]

I've done a bit of stacking and have to say that I love the above image!

I've got macro lenses for my APS-C, mFT and FF bodies. I also have a focus rail. I've been most happy with images that I have manually focused. I've tried using the auto-stacking in my mFT bodies and while OK, they just don't compare.

I think my next steps will be to:

1. Get Lester's book(s).
2. Get a dedicated stacker like Helicon or Zerene.

First, Lester says those are the two best ideas you've ever had.

Second, I agree, I think a focusing rails provides the best, most controllable way to do focus brackets. Yet, many people have produced great images using in-camera focus bracketing, so it's hard to argue with success. And out in the field, auto focus bracketing sure is speedy.

Lester Lefkowitz www.MacroPhotographer.net

 

[Saabster]

Since it isn't very friendly outside for macro photography, I figured I would try to improve my stacking skills. I'll preface this by saying that I am a complete novice when it comes to doing large stacks. I am hoping that some of you stacking masters can help improve my process.

We have a new orchid blossom opening so I set up the tripod and shot a large focus bracket using a focus differential of 3 on my OM-1 with my 90mm macro and flash. I ended up using 35 of the images in the sequence to cover a front to back distance of an estimated 8-10mm +/-. The last image below is my final stack. I am using Lightroom and Photoshop to do the editing.

My process is to import the raw files and increase texture and clarity in LR. I then select the images in sequence and export to PS to do the stack. In PS, I select the images and use edit>auto align layers>auto, then edit>auto blend layers>stack images. I do a very slight crop to remove misaligned edge and then export image from PS back to LR for final tweaking. I was disappointed with the final output file from PS since there were many blurred areas without detail in the white and yellow parts of the flower which I then had to very carefully manually fill in with editing in LR to get an acceptable final image.

So, since I am a self-taught novice in this aspect of photo editing, I am wondering if my process is correct and I have no clue. Are blurred out areas to be expected from stacking so many images with such fine low contrast detail as with the yellow and white parts of this flower? Do the blurred areas mean my focus differential was too large and I should reduce it to 1 or 2? Does other software perform stacking better than PS? Are the steps in my process lacking or wrong? Any help from experienced stackers would be appreciated.

I'd say you're on the right path. I love the last image.



For me Photoshop is the worst way to focus stack images. There are much better options out there.



Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker are the two big ones. Zerene needs either TIFF or JPG files and won't handle RAW files.



Take a look at Affinity Photo. It is a Photoshop alternative that has a focus stacking module and an astrophotography stacking module. You can do it all in one program. They like Helicon and Zerene have timed trials and the cost of Affinity is less than a Photoshop subscription.