Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: DanPBrown on March 05, 2009, 08:39:03 pm
-
I received a few requests to describe my technique of focus blending by some members here. I finally got a blog on my site and I decided that my first post would be to answer the question.
http://www.danbrownphotography.com/blog/ (http://www.danbrownphotography.com/blog/)
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
-
After all of that work--272 images, not to mention the work of blending--I hope that you are able to make a nice big print, have it nicely framed, and then find many more than one buyer.
Ciao,
Doug
-
wow
I wasn't aware it took so much work! All the more reason to enjoy it =)
{]
-
The final result is uber-super-magnifique (I had to change my ratings system).
Thanks a zillion for sharing the process the love you put into making this picture is clearly seen in the final result.
Luigi
-
The final result is uber-super-magnifique (I had to change my ratings system).
Thanks a zillion for sharing the process the love you put into making this picture is clearly seen in the final result.
Luigi
You mention having to re-scale each focus "slice" and it sounds like that took a lot of time. What if you mounted the camera on a focus rail, focused on the nearest point, took the first image, then moved the camera slightly closer for subsequent "slices?" Would this simplify the task?
Peter
-
A shame we can only view this very nice shot online as printed the size you intend, it will probably be amazing.
Size matters!
I had thought about using a similar technique on a very different subject. You've raised the bar!
And made me realise how incredibly difficult my 'simple' idea is.
-
You mention having to re-scale each focus "slice" and it sounds like that took a lot of time.
That sound like lens 'breathing' when focal length changes slighty as you focus at different distances. You may be better off getting some lenses designed for filming as 'breathing' is a problem in filming when pulling focus, so it is eradicated. It may be expensivce, but compared to the amount of time spent on the shot, it may well be worth it if it can save a lot of work.
-
After all of that work--272 images, not to mention the work of blending--I hope that you are able to make a nice big print, have it nicely framed, and then find many more than one buyer.
Ciao,
Doug
Yeah I would like to have more buyers too Here is how it looks framed. I probably won't sell many this size at $800.
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com
(http://www.danbrownphotography.com/galleries/albums/userpics/_ANB2053.jpg)
-
You mention having to re-scale each focus "slice" and it sounds like that took a lot of time. What if you mounted the camera on a focus rail, focused on the nearest point, took the first image, then moved the camera slightly closer for subsequent "slices?" Would this simplify the task?
Peter
Yes and no. The images would still have to rescaled but as you proceed into the image the photos need to be downsized instead of upsized.
There are a couple of advantages though. First the exposure stays more consistent since the effective aperture doesn't change like it would when focusing the lens. Second, if you move the camera the same amount for each exposure you may be able to estimate the amount of scaling for each image accurately.
I didn't use a focus rail for this photo mainly due to the parallax shift that would have interfered with the panoramic stitch aspect.
You are correct that the rescaling takes up a lot of the time, maybe as much as 35%.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
-
That sound like lens 'breathing' when focal length changes slighty as you focus at different distances. You may be better off getting some lenses designed for filming as 'breathing' is a problem in filming when pulling focus, so it is eradicated. It may be expensivce, but compared to the amount of time spent on the shot, it may well be worth it if it can save a lot of work.
Yes, when using the lens to focus, not the focus rail method. Do you know of any macro video lenses that could be adapted to a Canon mount and would not breathe?
Dan
-
The results of the focus blend technique are stunning. I wonder if a long focal length macro such as the Canon 180/3.5 would cause less lens breathing than a lens with a shorter focal length? I suppose it depends on the ratio of lens travel as you focus at different parts of the flower relative to the distance between lens and flower?
-
The results of the focus blend technique are stunning. I wonder if a long focal length macro such as the Canon 180/3.5 would cause less lens breathing than a lens with a shorter focal length? I suppose it depends on the ratio of lens travel as you focus at different parts of the flower relative to the distance between lens and flower?
I think you are correct, a longer focal length would be less breathing, all else equal. BTW, I used the 180mm macro for this shot.
Dan
http://danbrownphotography.com/ (http://danbrownphotography.com/)
-
stunning results and thanks for the tutorial.
I think I will try some simple/basic images to figure how it might work together, like maybe three to five images.
Larry
-
Back again to this thread to say again I really enjoy this work.
Question: Why not use Helicon Focus or CombineZM instead of doing the blending by hand? I think HeliconFocus takes care of the lens breathing the specs say something about "anamorphic lens breathing algorithm". Not sure about CZM but maybe someone can chime in.
Luigi
-
Back again to this thread to say again I really enjoy this work.
Question: Why not use Helicon Focus or CombineZM instead of doing the blending by hand? I think HeliconFocus takes care of the lens breathing the specs say something about "anamorphic lens breathing algorithm". Not sure about CZM but maybe someone can chime in.
Luigi
I've used Helicon Focus, I was not impressed with the results. I tried it again just a week ago on a snowflake photo, I thought maybe it would work ok on a flat subject but I was disappointed again.
I have heard that the latest version Photoshop has a focus blending feature. I have also heard that Helicon works better than Photoshop, oh well.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
-
I've used Helicon Focus, I was not impressed with the results. I tried it again just a week ago on a snowflake photo, I thought maybe it would work ok on a flat subject but I was disappointed again.
I have heard that the latest version Photoshop has a focus blending feature. I have also heard that Helicon works better than Photoshop, oh well.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
First, let me say this image is beautiful both from a composition and exposure standpoint. The focus stacking is just a bonus
To save you some experimenting: Photoshop's focus blending is worthless for closeups and macros unless you're only doing very small images to display on the web. It is not able to reliable select the best focus parts of each image.
Helicon Focus, CombineZP, Microsoft ICE, PTAssembler/Tufuse can all align images for a focus stack. For manual blending, I like Microsoft ICE since it will output the images as layers in Photoshop format. This makes it relatively easy (but tedious) to blend. I have a 600 image focus stacked pano (mosaic) of an Amarylis that I'm waiting for the software to get better before finishing. It's 35 frames and was taking about 8 hours to manually blend each frame. Just 7 weeks working full time could finish it I'm impressed that you were able to complete your project.
The forums at http://www.photomacrography.net (http://www.photomacrography.net) have quite a few people who are very knowlegeable about focus stacking. You may want to show your snowflake image there to get suggestions on how to tweak the settings in Helicon Focus.
p.s. Try using ICE to create a Deep Zoom of the image so we can all enjoy it full size.
-
I received a few requests to describe my technique of focus blending by some members here. I finally got a blog on my site and I decided that my first post would be to answer the question.
http://www.danbrownphotography.com/blog/ (http://www.danbrownphotography.com/blog/)
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
I don't do much focus blending so this may be a stupid question: why not just just throw all the frames into helicon focus and let the software deal with it?
-
See previous posts, he already answered that.
I don't do much focus blending so this may be a stupid question: why not just just throw all the frames into helicon focus and let the software deal with it?
-
I've used Helicon Focus, I was not impressed with the results. I tried it again just a week ago on a snowflake photo, I thought maybe it would work ok on a flat subject but I was disappointed again.
I have heard that the latest version Photoshop has a focus blending feature. I have also heard that Helicon works better than Photoshop, oh well.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
What was wrong with the output from helicon?
I've only used it for landscapes and not macro but have been constantly impressed with the results
-
Yes, when using the lens to focus, not the focus rail method. Do you know of any macro video lenses that could be adapted to a Canon mount and would not breathe?
Dan
I'm afraid not. best ask at a hire place for filming 35mm film. Video lenses won't be any good as they are designed for smaller chips and even 35mm film is not as big as a 35mm stills frame as the film moves vertically through the camera.
Another advantage to using movie lenses is that they have T-stops not F-stops. A T-stop is the real aperture, F-Stop is the theorectical aperture, not always much difference, but might be for you from something you said about exposure changes when focusing.
-
I hope you realise that according to certain LL posters, that what you did isn't actually photography and your print is therefore not a photograph.
Apparently 'Photography' only happens when you push the shutter, everything else is not photography!??!
-
I hope you realise that according to certain LL posters, that what you did isn't actually photography and your print is therefore not a photograph.
Apparently 'Photography' only happens when you push the shutter, everything else is not photography!??!
I've run across such attitudes before. I may write a bit in my blog about "discrimination" in the art community soon.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
-
Here's a focus stacked panorama/mosiac of a pansy I did in 2006 with 383 images. I have a 1/4 size print at 16x20 hanging in my office. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/etfrench/10789_p.jpg)
This image actually went together very easily compared to the amarylis attempt.
More details at http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic....highlight=pansy (http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=3936&highlight=pansy)
-
Dan, that is a beautiful piece and the framing was just right for it except as a framer I would have made the purple inner mat a tad bit smaller... just barely an accent.
At $800, I would have no problem with that price and you might be surprised that you could get more for it. If is was my busy season here, i might go ahead and buy it myself!! Right now, I am just hanging on till my season starts.
Where are you located?
-
Dan, that is a beautiful piece and the framing was just right for it except as a framer I would have made the purple inner mat a tad bit smaller... just barely an accent.
At $800, I would have no problem with that price and you might be surprised that you could get more for it. If is was my busy season here, i might go ahead and buy it myself!! Right now, I am just hanging on till my season starts.
Where are you located?
I'm located in southern NH, next to Nashua. It was a struggle for me to decide on the mat color for this piece. I get a lot of positive feedback from people at my shows about the framing. The inner mat has a 3/8" reveal. It also has AR glass.
Do you own a retail business? I went through Ellsworth last August on my to and from Acadia.
Dan
-
Here's a focus stacked panorama/mosiac of a pansy I did in 2006 with 383 images. I have a 1/4 size print at 16x20 hanging in my office. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/etfrench/10789_p.jpg)
This image actually went together very easily compared to the amarylis attempt.
More details at http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic....highlight=pansy (http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=3936&highlight=pansy)
Nice piece Elf. What did you use for equipment for that shot?
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
-
First, let me say this image is beautiful both from a composition and exposure standpoint. The focus stacking is just a bonus
To save you some experimenting: Photoshop's focus blending is worthless for closeups and macros unless you're only doing very small images to display on the web. It is not able to reliable select the best focus parts of each image.
Helicon Focus, CombineZP, Microsoft ICE, PTAssembler/Tufuse can all align images for a focus stack. For manual blending, I like Microsoft ICE since it will output the images as layers in Photoshop format. This makes it relatively easy (but tedious) to blend. I have a 600 image focus stacked pano (mosaic) of an Amarylis that I'm waiting for the software to get better before finishing. It's 35 frames and was taking about 8 hours to manually blend each frame. Just 7 weeks working full time could finish it I'm impressed that you were able to complete your project.
The forums at http://www.photomacrography.net (http://www.photomacrography.net) have quite a few people who are very knowlegeable about focus stacking. You may want to show your snowflake image there to get suggestions on how to tweak the settings in Helicon Focus.
p.s. Try using ICE to create a Deep Zoom of the image so we can all enjoy it full size.
Thanks for the info.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
-
Beautiful!
-
What did you use for equipment for that shot?
Dan
Olympus e330 with 35mm macro, natural light. I was quite fortunate there was no breeze that day.
-
how are you getting such a large combined file size, i dont understand that. if you are composing one image not moving the camera, shooting multiple shots at different points of focus, and combining the sharp area in each image into one, arent you at the same original res as one shot?
is there any panorama shifting/stitching going on here, cuz thats the only way for more res. but combine that with focus blending and thats insanely complicated.
also, what is the difference between art and fine art?
-
how are you getting such a large combined file size, i dont understand that. if you are composing one image not moving the camera, shooting multiple shots at different points of focus, and combining the sharp area in each image into one, arent you at the same original res as one shot?
is there any panorama shifting/stitching going on here, cuz thats the only way for more res. but combine that with focus blending and thats insanely complicated.
also, what is the difference between art and fine art?
Yes it was stitched as well as focus blended. I used a 1dsmk2 so it didn't take as long to stitch to 61 megapixels.
Art fine Art? Is that from the last post on my blog? I don't know the answer, I do think it would be different for everyone.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
-
I'm located in southern NH, next to Nashua. It was a struggle for me to decide on the mat color for this piece. I get a lot of positive feedback from people at my shows about the framing. The inner mat has a 3/8" reveal. It also has AR glass.
Do you own a retail business? I went through Ellsworth last August on my to and from Acadia.
Dan
When I lived in Wilton, Carl at the color shop had both a great eye and selection of mats and frames. It has been 8 years so I don't know if he is still there but he always did my wife's art justice. A great resource worth checking out. BTW your images are spectacular and got me interested in focus stacking!
Thanks!
Marc
My first attempt tonight with helicon focus
[attachment=12590:Moss2.jpg]
-
I think you are correct, a longer focal length would be less breathing, all else equal. BTW, I used the 180mm macro for this shot.
Dan
http://danbrownphotography.com/ (http://danbrownphotography.com/)
I'm not so sure it has much to do with focal length, but rather lens design. Internal-focusing lenses seem to breath a lot more, they change their focal length when you focus closer down from infinity. So a macro lens that uses extension rather than IF should be good for this use.
-
I have one comment "WOW",,
Derry
-
When I lived in Wilton, Carl at the color shop had both a great eye and selection of mats and frames. It has been 8 years so I don't know if he is still there but he always did my wife's art justice. A great resource worth checking out. BTW your images are spectacular and got me interested in focus stacking!
Thanks!
Marc
My first attempt tonight with helicon focus
[attachment=12590:Moss2.jpg]
Can we see a 100% crop of the moss Marc?
Dan
-
Sure, I'm glad you asked because it has artifacts and is fuzzy so if you don't mind passing along how to correct the problem, I'd appreciate it, again my first attempt. Perhaps too complex an object for stacking?
Marc
[attachment=12605:Moss2crop.jpg]
and one of the original frames
[attachment=12606:IMG_1972_DxO_raw.jpg]
-
Dan
Second try, heavy tripod, f18, iso 400, 14 images vs 7
Marc
[attachment=12608:Moss3.jpg]
[attachment=12609:Moss3crop.jpg]
-
Dan
Second try, heavy tripod, f18, iso 400, 14 images vs 7
Marc
[attachment=12608:Moss3.jpg]
[attachment=12609:Moss3crop.jpg]
Helicon likes a small aperture, the downside is softness due to diffraction.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com (http://www.danbrownphotography.com)
-
I find Helicon Focus works well for photographing still life--it's a reasonably painless way to achieve a large depth of field without having to incur the resolution loss associated with using small apertures, although it's necessary to carefully examine the composite image for artifacts. Magnified live view capability in the camera really helps with accurately focusing each frame. For anyone that may be interested, I've posted an article on the subject at http://home.earthlink.net/~mikelevyonline/...hotography.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~mikelevyonline/Still_Life_Photography.html) .
[attachment=12667:Photographica.jpg]