Image Stacking for Macro Shots

[Bryan]

I've been playing with image stacking recently to try to get an extended depth of field in close ups. I've tried Photoshop's Align Layers, followed by the Blend layers command, but with indifferent success. The Align bit works fine, but the Blend operation tends to leave ghastly out of focus chunks, and clearly cannot handle complex combinations of sharpness and unsharpness. This caused me to waste a load of time manually editing and then combining layers to try to achieve the best overall sharpness. The result is a lot better than the automated process, and I have managed to keep the subject sharp overall, but there are still chunks of background that are way too blurred.

 

| have couple of questions, (1) has anyone got a feel for the QC tolerance level for this kind of thing and (2) are there better techniques/software out there that I should be using?

[John Richmond]

I've used the (free) Combine ZM software and it works reasonably well.  You do get the problems with outliers you've experienced with the Photoshop Alignment but the biggest problem is that it can't handle RAW.  There's a lot of trial and error with stacking but you can certainly get good results - even with live subjects.  Here's one of mine.

 

 

Helicon focus is supposed to be better and a lot of insect stackers use it.  I tried it but, without Photoshop to deal with the alignment problems, haven't used it since.

[Callie]

was also playing around with this recently, as something I would want to do infrequently - tried Zerene http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker- you can get a free 30 day trial. I came to the conclusion that Photoshop would do what I want. It is much slower than Zerene, but I found that providing there is good overlap of the in-focus areas on each image it generally does a really good job.

[Bryan]

I think that a lot depends upon the nature of the image. If there is a fairly simple shape it works well, but I've been taking shots of plant seedlings in a tray, where the plant heads are dead sharp, but the compost beneath is not. Stacking several shots across the scene should cover all bases, but PS tends to pick the layers with the sharpest leaves, leaving the compost beneath unsharp, despite the fact that it will be sharp on one or more layers. If all of the background was unsharp, I could live with that, but I am getting zones of sharpness adjacent to zones that are very unsharp, which looks pretty poor.

 

I guess that I am asking too much here of an automated system?

 

Maybe the skill lies with the choice of images to stack in the first instance, or possibly the focal length of the lens and the aperture?  I'm currently using a 35 mm lens with macro capability at f11 on a 1.5x crop camera. I have thought of using a short telephoto with an extension tube.

[Davey Towers]

I agree with Callie, I've used Zerene stacker and it does exactly what it says on the tin. It's also a plug in for Lightroom so you just export your images together from LR to ZS and it does it for you. However, if you upload to Alamy would you have to declare the image as digitally altered??

[Bryan]

I agree with Callie, I've used Zerene stacker and it does exactly what it says on the tin. It's also a plug in for Lightroom so you just export your images together from LR to ZS and it does it for you. However, if you upload to Alamy would you have to declare the image as digitally altered??

 

Not sure that I would be declaring the image as digitally altered as all you are doing is compensating for the technical limitations of the equipment, rather than changing the content of the scene.

 

It probably wouldn't hurt to say in the description that the photo was produced by image stacking, as that would tell the buyer to expect sharpness across the frame.

[Alexandre Fagundes]

Deffinitelly not altered, is just a technique to increase DOF

[Callie]

I think that a lot depends upon the nature of the image. If there is a fairly simple shape it works well, but I've been taking shots of plant seedlings in a tray, where the plant heads are dead sharp, but the compost beneath is not. Stacking several shots across the scene should cover all bases, but PS tends to pick the layers with the sharpest leaves, leaving the compost beneath unsharp, despite the fact that it will be sharp on one or more layers. If all of the background was unsharp, I could live with that, but I am getting zones of sharpness adjacent to zones that are very unsharp, which looks pretty poor.

 

I guess that I am asking too much here of an automated system?

 

Maybe the skill lies with the choice of images to stack in the first instance, or possibly the focal length of the lens and the aperture?  I'm currently using a 35 mm lens with macro capability at f11 on a 1.5x crop camera. I have thought of using a short telephoto with an extension tube.

This was one of the tests I did FW4H6C and processed with photoshop. I did at first have the problems you mentioned but then shot with more images / greater overlap of in-focus areas and then found a massive improvement. If you are going to do a lot of this I really would recommend giving Zerene a go, it does take some learning but then it will speed up your workflow no end. I didn't bother because I wasn't intending to use it much - note their pricing has a higher band if you intend to sell images made with the product, to me not worth it for the very few I might do.

[Bill Brooks]

I have been adjusting in Bridge and then stacking in Photoshop. Sometimes it is better to use a lot of exposures and F5.6 so the background is not sharp enough to compete with the subject.

 

This guy was alive, but it was a cool day so he was slow.

 

[CM photo]

In my opinion, Helicon Focus gives the best results and the Pro version has a very effective retouching tool.  Certain types of image are just about impossible to stack well, in my experience and the trick is to figure out which are likely to work, i.e. those with continuous surfaces rather than images where elements of the image cross each other, and not to waste time trying to stack subjects that are unlikely to give good results. FJ1PCT and BP69YJ are examples of a subject where stacking worked well.  

 

I always mark my images "focus-stacked image", either in the caption or the keywords (or both).  Although they may not be digitally altered in the true sense of the words, the stacking may leave small areas of artifacts that make them look as though they have been altered.

 

Chris

 

 

[MDM]

Focus stacking belongs to a class of digital techniques (ofhers being HDR and panorama merges) where 2 or more images are merged wthout altering the content of the scene. As noted above, artifacts may occur but the scene is not fundamentally altered and they do not class as digitally altered but would be impossible to produce in a darkroom.

[Betty LaRue]

How do you take the shots? Tripod, of course. Manual? Then just carefully advance the focus on different planes?

[Bill Brooks]

Tripod, choose F opening to give proper background, focus on closest point, series of shots as you focus towards the last point you want sharp. Pray that subject does not move.

[John Richmond]

This must be the ultimate in stacking technique.  http://microsculpture.net/  I think I'll give up now.

[Bill Brooks]

This must be the ultimate in stacking technique.  http://microsculpture.net/  I think I'll give up now.

 

 

Don’t give up, specialize in subject matter and technique.

 

This points up one of the big changes in stock photography over the years. Before digital you could make a good living by being a generalist. Walk around and do a good job of photographing anything that interested you.

 

Today most people new to photography are generalists, so there is too much competition in order for a generalist to make a living at stock.

 

To make your photographs stand out above the crowd you have to become STATE OF THE ART in specialization. The insect guy is STATE OF THE ART in insect technique, which gives him a reputation, and then ACCESS to the best subject matter.

 

This STATE OF THE ART shooting could be applied to any subject matter, birds, surf, marine mammals, architecture, famous people, flowers, war, art, aerial, and the list goes on.

 

Here is a guy who specializes in surf. He specializes and gets better and better at surf photography. He does not do general stuff.

 

https://clarklittlephotography.com/pages/videos

[Betty LaRue]

Tripod, choose F opening to give proper background, focus on closest point, series of shots as you focus towards the last point you want sharp. Pray that subject does not move.

Thanks, Bill.

[John Richmond]

 

This must be the ultimate in stacking technique. http://microsculpture.net/ I think I'll give up now.

 

Don’t give up, specialize in subject matter and technique.

 

This points up one of the big changes in stock photography over the years. Before digital you could make a good living by being a generalist. Walk around and do a good job of photographing anything that interested you.

 

Today most people new to photography are generalists, so there is too much competition in order for a generalist to make a living at stock.

 

To make your photographs stand out above the crowd you have to become STATE OF THE ART in specialization. The insect guy is STATE OF THE ART in insect technique, which gives him a reputation, and then ACCESS to the best subject matter.

 

This STATE OF THE ART shooting could be applied to any subject matter, birds, surf, marine mammals, architecture, famous people, flowers, war, art, aerial, and the list goes on.

 

Here is a guy who specializes in surf. He specializes and gets better and better at surf photography. He does not do general stuff.

 

https://clarklittlephotography.com/pages/videos

Couldn't agree more. Specialisation - in my case garden plants and macro nature - with occasional forays into other areas seems to be the way to go. Whether, at a fairly advanced age, I'll ever reach state of the art is another matter - but the day you give up trying is the day you die; mentally, if not physically.

[MDM]

 

 Whether, at a fairly advanced age, I'll ever reach state of the art is another matter - but the day you give up trying is the day you die; mentally, if not physically.

 

 

Inspirational and profoundly simple - thanks John. This applies no matter what age you are I think

 

[Davey Towers]

This one I had to focus stack as the screws were too long for the DOF! So five shots taken focussing on the nearest screw head first then moving towards the back.

 

 

Regards, Davey