[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] More Stacks [was WTFocus Stacking`]

Subject: Re: [OM] More Stacks [was WTFocus Stacking`]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:02:24 -0700
On 7/17/2022 9:02 AM, DZDub wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 2:04 AM Wayne Harridge <
wayne.harridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All 22 were there when I looked which was about 10 min before I replied.


I had looked when there were only 5, so I'm glad this prompted me to look
again.  The photos are just superb.

Thank You Sir!

I think one of the things about a
focus stack is that it is really successful as a stack when it doesn't call
attention to itself as a stack.

I absolutely agree. My goal is to make it look as though I was somehow able to 
go to f64 to get the great DoF.

These just look like photos that were
worth all the trouble to get them just as they are now without calling
attention to any of the fussy processes.

Not much trouble to take them; press the Fn button for the MySet for FBracketing, focus and shoot. I was using PS for the merging at that time.

A couple I don't understand  in looking at them why they required a stack
rather than just a bit more stop-down,

PS merging could be a pain, and I processed 367 photos from the four days these are from. I can assure you I didn't do a stack if one exposure did the trick!

Already at f8, theory, as represented in the DoF calculators, says 4/3 sensor diffraction softening starts @ f5.6. In practice, with the sensor systems of recent µ4/3, I think it's around f9. I suspect that the difference is down to the loss of detail inherent in Bayer Array demosaicing.

Shoot a static, detailed subject, tripod, remote release, normal and HR. Downsample the HR to sensor size - voila! - lots of finer detail.

In any case, on what I thought was a once in a lifetime trip, I wasn't going beyond f8. A fair number of shots from that trip were heavily cropped, so pixel level detail mattered. As it turned, out, we were in Bhutan again, but different time of year, lots of different subjects.

but that's probably something to do
with why they are a successful stack (see above):


400 mm = very shallow DoF, and it may be deeper than you think.

That's sometimes a side effect of stacking. I suspect that decades of looking at conventional photos has subtly conditioned us: "Everything is in focus, so the subject must be shallow." Right at the top, there's some softness that's probably an artifact of inadequate attention to detail on the part of the user when merging. I could probably do a better job in Helicon, but everyone is entranced with the unfamiliar blue fruits, and tend not to notice.


Here's the first frame, as it came out of LR/ACR default conversion. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Temp&image=_A005218.jpg> Not bad DoF, but not the clarity of the stack. (The insect is from another frame, taken just before this stack. Cheating? Dunno, same flower, moments before. I may have taken the stack just for the insect?)


Here's the first frame, as it came out of LR/ACR default conversion. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Temp&image=_A006176.jpg>

Oops! You didn't think so, but that's a DEEP stack!

By chance, my choice of number of slices, the very deepest flowers are slightly soft. This tends to give an authentic "feel". It can be done intentionally, letting the very deepest part of the subject go a little soft, through choice of slices to use.

Still Stacking Moose

What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz