Focus Stacking

Oh wow, Overread, I'd forgotten. When I was first getting into stacking I used CombineZP - because it was free.

Then someone pointed me to Zerene Stacker. I used a 30-day trial of ZS. Though I no longer have them. I shared several comparison stacks of the same pix using ZP and then, ZS.

I bought ZS (the personal edition, $89, not the $289 Pro edition) because, to me and others, it's resultant stacks were clearly better than ZP's. In fact, I no longer have ZP on my computer. Sometimes not much better and but other times, ZS was the winner, hands down.

Admittedly, I have not used ZP in years and it is probably better now than then. Certainly, for those just starting out, ZP is a great tool to learn with.

Here's a link to a thread comparing Helicon and CombineZP. But for me, ZS is still the better stacking program. The link also addresses Zerene Stacker

http://photocamel.com/forum/macro-close-up-photography/70847-combinezp-helicon-focus.html

Hack
 
Last edited:
Stacking is definitely fun. I use CombineZP and it works wonderfully for me. The image below was a recent stack of mine using 5 images. I tried to use about 10 images to get the antenna in focus too, but he started moving before the end of the stack.

p532787751-4.jpg
 
Hack - Your images look to be framed really well together (no movement). Did you use a tripod or rail? Mine above were done on the floor scooting the camera along, but man, a tripod rail (which is on it's way) would make it much easier to do.

Oh and your original post in this thread is a great way to show people what stacking really does. I think a lot of people don't completely understand it and they should after seeing your post. I plan to try a 50-60 image stack next weekend.
 
Very nice Nate, but how far down did your stacking go? I mean, why isn't the tips of it antennae and its hind legs in focus, too. If I had done it, I would have started snapping pix at the tip of the antennae and snapped all the way to the far end. Now, that would be a great stack.

Hack
 
Last edited:
NateS could you show us a single focus shot of the bee? I cant see any effects of stacking with what I see now. And the bee looks dead.
 
Hack - Your images look to be framed really well together (no movement). Did you use a tripod or rail? Mine above were done on the floor scooting the camera along, but man, a tripod rail (which is on it's way) would make it much easier to do.

I tried to use my tripod and tripod rail, but it didn't move the camera far along enough to get the entire thing.

So, then I simply put the camera on its tripod and used the manual focus ring to work my way down the subject.

I only use the rail when the object is real tiny and I don't want to make gross movements of the tripod. The rail may work on something small like an insect, but when you actually move the camera along with the rail, you're going to get changes in camera angle that I think will mess up you stacking attempt.

I have much better luck when I leave the camera on the tripod and just use the focus ring the "walk" down the length of the subject.

Hack
 
Last edited:
Very nice Nate, but how far down did your stacking go? I mean, why isn't its hind legs in focus, too. If I had done it, I would have started at the tip of the antennae and snapped pix all the way tot he back.

Hack

Because this was shot at 3:1 magnification at 252mm and the bee was maybe 4-5mm. It would have taken in the neighborhood of 20-25 images to get all of that in focus..maybe more. The bee started moving after about 10 seconds of shooting (brought in from the cold) so you would have never been able to get that much in focus on this. My stack was merely to get the entire face and eyes in focus. Honestly...I wouldn't have wanted the back legs in focus....it would add nothing to this image and the DOF I achieved gives it more depth. I think one of the keys with stacking is knowing when not to stack. I would have liked the antenna to be in focus but he was moving them all over the place.
 
NateS could you show us a single focus shot of the bee? I cant see any effects of stacking with what I see now. And the bee looks dead.

Yup..give me a minute to upload one. You'd be surprised at how thin the DOF is at 3:1 magnification. I've seen images at 10:1 where 60 images were used just to get full focus on an insects eyeball. The bee was very much alive.
 
Another thing to remember is that the higher you go in magnification the larger you want your aperture to be to prevent diffraction. There is a science/math behind it that I don't completely understand, but if diffraction starts at f/16 at 1:1 then it will start at f/11 at 2:1 f/8 at 3:1, etc....those aren't the exact numbers, but the principal behind it. Above my head a bit, but it's true...if I shoot at f/13 at 3:1, the diffraction is horrible, but shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 at 3:1 and stacking 2-3 images gets much, much higher quality images.

Here's a single image as requested. Eyes in focus, but face is way out of focus. These were shot at f5.6 I believe (might have been f/8 though).
p279964429-4.jpg


I probably could have shot at f/13 and gotten away with 1...maybe 2 photos, but they wouldn't have been nearly as sharp. Also, this single image doesn't really even get ALL of the eye in sharp focus, but mainly the hair sections of the eye...the next closest (to me) shot got the front of the eye more in focus.
 
...and I don't mean to take away from Hack's images at all....I'm merely trying to supplement with my experiences. Hack's examples show a much, much better view of what stacking does. I stack primarily to overcome the crappy DOF of shooting with an 180mm macro lens. Stacking is my area of focus (no pun intended) for improvement in 2011 though.
 
Nate, I appreciate your contribution to my thread, that is one awesome shot you showed us. And I can see the difference in the two images.

I remember (35+ years ago), in college, we did research using fruit flies. We put them under (not to kill them) and made counts of eye color, wing shape, etc for genetic studies. I'm trying to remember, I think we used a small amount of ether in a cotton ball. I'm gonna trap me some bees this summer and use that the put them under, while I take the pics for stacking. I was thinking if you did something similar to make your insect stay still.

Hack
 
Nate, I appreciate your contribution to my thread, that is one awesome shot you showed us. And I can see the difference in the two images.

I remember (35+ years ago), in college, we did research using fruit flies. We put them under (not to kill them) and made counts of eye color, wing shape, etc for genetic studies. I'm trying to remember, I think we used a small amount of ether in a cotton ball. I'm gonna trap me some bees this summer and use that the put them under, while I take the pics for stacking. I was thinking if you did something similar to make your insect stay still.

Hack

I was told this by someone else recently as well. I do think it is something I will try this coming year, though I don't know how easy ether is to come by these days. I am also going to try and do some avid baiting this year with a honey mixture....that seems to be another approach that gets them to hold nearly still for awhile for stacking.....I also plan to force myself up early when it's still cool out to get some when they are still sleeping. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top