Focus stacking

[Chairman Bill]

I want to be able to focus stack some of my landscape images. Any advice on software that might be useful? I'm shooting with a Nikon Z7 and currently processing with Capture One Pro 12 on a Mac.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I use Zerene Stacker, but it could be that Helicon Focus works better in some cases.

My personal experience with stacking outdoors is not so great. I get a lot of artifacts on edges, like the trunk of a tree. Shooting macro with a focusing rail works well, but needs a lot of exposures.

Best regards
Erik

I want to be able to focus stack some of my landscape images. Any advice on software that might be useful? I'm shooting with a Nikon Z7 and currently processing with Capture One Pro 12 on a Mac.

[elliot_n]

Any advice on software that might be useful?

Start with Photoshop.

[kers]

I would start with well developed tif files 16 bit.
all three the software mentioned may do the job. i use helicon focus - it works for me.

But first find out the steps you need to make a perfect sharp image.
As Erik mentioned you could have some problems around eges of objects close and much further away.
In that case use a small lenopening ( F11 or F16)  and try the c option of helicon focus.
I combine the b and c version in photohop.
b   best quality but fuzzy edges + the edges of the c variant.
succes

PK

[rdonson]

I second PS.  It works for me.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I want to be able to focus stack some of my landscape images. Any advice on software that might be useful? I'm shooting with a Nikon Z7 and currently processing with Capture One Pro 12 on a Mac.

Photoshop can do it, provided you do not need too many slices because then the operation becomes very slow. Stacking quality is lower (not as sharp) than from the dedicated FocusStacking champions, i.e. Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker.

Affinity Photo also does a decent job, and offers good editing capabilities. But if you're going to do this a lot, Helicon and Zerene are going to make your life a lot easier, and they produce higher quality results.

Cheers,
Bart

[elliot_n]

Photoshop can do it, provided you do not need to many slices because then thing becomes very slow.

For a simple landscape stack — say between 2 and 10 images — Photoshop is plenty fast enough.

Stacking quality is lower (not as sharp) than from the dedicated FocusStacking champions, i.e. Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker.

In my tests between Photoshop and Helicon Focus, I found the opposite to be the case. Helicon introduces artefacts, whereas Photoshop leaves the original images as they are and simply creates very basic masks. Whilst these masks sometimes need to be manually edited, the end result, for me, is cleaner.

For the OP, it's probably best if you shoot some stacks, run them through both Photoshop and Helicon or Zerene (trial versions), layer the final results in Photoshop, and toggle between them at 100% to choose your favourite. I was ready to pony up for Helicon, but in my tests I preferred Photoshop's results.

Focus-stacking is a complicated business because many images can't be stacked because they are missing data. Helicon will attempt to smooth over these gaps, whereas Photoshop will leave them glaringly obvious. In the field, I prefer to limit stacking attempts to scenarios that will stack simply — e.g a gently receding landscape. Photographing a distant mountain through the silhouette of a nearby blackthorn bush is never going to work.

[bjanes]

Photoshop can do it, provided you do not need to many slices because then thing becomes very slow. Stacking quality is lower (not as sharp) than from the dedicated FocusStacking champions, i.e. Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker.

Cheers,
Bart

+1.

I stacked twenty 45.7 MP Nikon D850 images using a moderately fast windows machine using Photohop and Helicon Focus. Run times were 155 and 21 seconds respectively. If you have 100 images to stack, forget Photoshop. It loads all the images into layers, whereas Helicon can use an unlimited number of layers.

Regards,

Bill

[David Good]

Affinity Photo also does a decent job, and offers good editing capabilities. But if you're going to do this a lot, Helicon and Zerene are going to make your life a lot easier, and they produce higher quality results.

Yes, Affinity Photo's focus stacking utility works remarkably well and the individual layers are editable. However, if I were shooting many high image count stacks I would consider one of the recommended dedicated programs.

Dave

Edit: And since this thread is useless without pitchers here's my attempt with AP blending 6 frames (if I recall correctly).

[Chairman Bill]

Thanks all. I don't expect to use more than three or four frames at a time and the price of PS is prohibitive, so maybe Helicon is the way to go.

[Eric Brody]

Relatively few people have significant experience with both Zerene and Helicon. Both have a decent learning curve. I use Zerene because Michael Erlewine (sp), who is a stacking expert uses it but I'm sure Helicon would likely do as well. I agree with those who suggest starting with Photoshop. In the field and sometimes even in the studio, there will be artifacts that need editing. Zerene edits reasonably well and I've done work in both the field and the studio. It's really the only way to use your lenses at optimum apertures, eg f/5.6 to 8, and get front to back sharpness. However, recently I've embraced the blur, letting parts of the image be unsharp (horrors :-)). It's not always necessary to have everything clinically sharp. Sometimes it actually looks artificial. Read Michael's articles, he posts here, try the demos. You'll have fun.

[BAB]

so this is one of my favorite things to do and the only way to shot mid or long telephoto landscapes. I have frequently shot and stacked 6- 9 H6D file using Serene stacker. Even (my first experience this spring) in very windy conditions. I also shot pano stacked and pano, bracketed, stacked images they work just fine.






Here is one of the files




6 images run thru Phocus and then Stacked in Zerene stacker (I could have spent some time of this getting rid of the ghosting but I don't love love the image)
shot 3/21/19 7:07 am
Joshua Tree
1/10sec at f/ 10 ISO 64
11600x8700
Hasselblad HC 210mm

[elliot_n]

Thanks all. I don't expect to use more than three or four frames at a time and the price of PS is prohibitive, so maybe Helicon is the way to go.

A simpler technique to focus-bracketing is aperture-bracketing.

Shoot your landscape at optimum aperture (say between f8 and f11), and then shoot further frames at f11, f16, and f22.

Layer these frames in Photoshop (or similar) and paint in the supplementary frames where the optimal frame loses focus (normally in the bottom corners of a landscape shot).

Unlike focus-bracketing, where the focal length changes slightly as you adjust focus, aperture-bracketed images will register without any resizing.

[BAB]

So I posed your methodology to Rik Littlefield from Zerene Stacker here is his reply
The result of aperture bracketing alone will be an image that has the overall DOF of the smallest aperture, plus improved sharpness for areas that are near the single plane of best focus.[/font][/size]But the aperture stack won't be as sharp in some places as a focus stack at optimum aperture, and the aperture stack cannot have more DOF than the smallest aperture.So, in terms of cost and final image quality, aperture stacking is kind of "in the middle" between single shot and focus stacked.  If that tradeoff fits your needs, it's a great method.For macro work, a few people combine focus stacking and aperture stacking by shooting the main part of a focus stack at optimum aperture and then adding one or more frames that are stopped down and/or focused farther back.  Done carefully, this can significantly improve the overall appearance of OOF background regions that would be too blurred without the additional frames at smaller apertures.

[elliot_n]

Nothing I disagree with there.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So I posed your methodology to Rik Littlefield from Zerene Stacker here is his reply
The result of aperture bracketing alone will be an image that has the overall DOF of the smallest aperture, plus improved sharpness for areas that are near the single plane of best focus.[/font][/size]But the aperture stack won't be as sharp in some places as a focus stack at optimum aperture, and the aperture stack cannot have more DOF than the smallest aperture.So, in terms of cost and final image quality, aperture stacking is kind of "in the middle" between single shot and focus stacked.  If that tradeoff fits your needs, it's a great method.For macro work, a few people combine focus stacking and aperture stacking by shooting the main part of a focus stack at optimum aperture and then adding one or more frames that are stopped down and/or focused farther back.  Done carefully, this can significantly improve the overall appearance of OOF background regions that would be too blurred without the additional frames at smaller apertures.

Yes, that sums it up very well. As can be expected from Rik.

Cheers,
Bart