Share Show your focus-stacked images

Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,999
Location
UK
Your lighting certainly shows the color, shape and detail. How long did it take you to get all of them to stand up? :ROFLMAO:
I took me a while to accept that Helicon does a superior job to that of Photoshop - it has also taken me a while to formulate a lighting strategy, given the constraints of not having a dedicated area in which I can leave the stands etc. but I think that I am getting there. The 50p piece was the most un-cooperative of the three. The Royal Mint is not far from where I live and I might visit their shop in the near future to pick up a couple of "minty" pieces, although older coins have a little more character.

WOW, impressive result. Well done!
Thank you Richard.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
15,414
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
15 photos made using the Z6 in-camera system at step size 3. Stacked in Helicon Focus using the default setting. No touch up needed.

Notice that not all of the scene is in focus. That's exactly what I wanted and was happily surprised that only the area I wanted in focus is indeed the only area that is in focus.

About Thom Hogan's Z6/Z7 ebook: This is my first focus-stacked photo made using the focus bracketing built into my Z6. It's a darned good thing I had made a few focus-bracketed series using the CamRanger Mini. Otherwise, I wouldn't have known to set the lens to auto focus or to set the first focal distance I want in focus. That's because Thom Hogan's how-to ebook about using the Z6 and Z7 doesn't mention those very important details.

EDIT: The EXIF data displayed at the bottom of the photo doesn't provide that each exposure was 1/2 second.


Mike 2020-02-24--025-S.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
15,414
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
Thom Hogan's how-to ebook about using the Z6 and Z7 doesn't mention those very important details.
You probably remember the setting that ensures the exposure of the image that is first captured is used in all captures. Hogan also should have explained that there is always the alternative of setting the desired exposure in manual mode. I do that because it guarantees my control of the exposure.

Having said that, I really appreciate you recommending his ebook to me. I spent hours pouring through it with my camera in hand before attempting a serious photo with it. This is the only serious mistake or omission I noticed.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
25,327
Location
Moscow, Idaho
the alternative of setting the desired exposure in manual mode. I do that because it guarantees my control of the exposure.
I typically shot in manual mode, and I don't believe I've ever changed to any of the auto modes (though I of use auto ISO) when I stack. Recently I've been using highlight spot as my metering method and I like the control I get in manual mode.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,999
Location
UK
I have a question related to Focus Stacking and i am unsure where to post it.

Since entering the Focus Stacking arena my storage requirements have jumped up at an alarming rate. I now need to get a new 4tb drive to keep up (I also have backup drives).

My question to those who are also focus stacking is: after processing the images to your satisfaction do you keep the original nef files or rely on the output dng file for future use? I am using Helicon NEF In/ DNG Out and will not change that. Deleting the nef files would alleviate the storage problem but i hate destroying nef files. My only way forward is to keep getting more and bigger drives (storage is cheap - or so they say).

Do you keep or destroy nef files that you will "possibly" never use again??

DG
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
15,414
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
I have a question related to Focus Stacking and i am unsure where to post it.
This seems as good as any place to discuss it and related topics.

I'm keeping the original NEFs that were used in the stack but deleting the NEFs that were not used. Keep in mind that I'm a newbie at focus stacking so my thinking might change. Another issue is that storage space currently is not a concern for me.

On a related note, I'm familiar with using TIFF files and unfamiliar with using DNG files, so my output for now is to TIFFs. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? The one characterisitc I've noticed is that after handing off the TIFF to Photoshop and then saving to PSD, it takes forever to save compared to processing a NEF in Photoshop and then saving to PSD. I don't know if that's because of the TIFF format, because it's a stacked file, or both.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,999
Location
UK
You cannot output to dng unless you input as nef.

When you process the dng in ACR you are processing the RAW data and have more control over the stacked image. For instance you can see the actual colour temperature and adjust it. If you take the tiff into acr you can, of course, warm it up or cool it down, but you do not see the original colour temp.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
15,414
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
Post-processing the DNG in the photo immediately above was far easier than the TIFF. I already upgraded from Helicon Focus Lite to Pro to get that capability. I'll also get the 3D module, which is fun, and other capabilities I likely won't use.

If I had purchased the Pro license in the first place I would have saved a whopping $10. Please don't tell my wife. :ROFLMAO:
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
22,163
Location
SW Virginia
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #115
My question to those who are also focus stacking is: after processing the images to your satisfaction do you keep the original nef files or rely on the output dng file for future use?
My focus stacking is mainly just for fun and I really don't think I would ever revisit a project, so now I'm just saving the stacked tiff and converted jpeg.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,999
Location
UK
I have found, with Helicon, that it either disregards the oof images beginning and end or that they don't figure in the end result. Therefore i do not spend time worrying about them and, as long as I have adequately covered the area i want, i add everything to the stack.

Dng = 54mb
Tiff = 140mb
Nef = 45mb (multiplied by number of exposures in stack).

DG
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
15,414
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
I have found, with Helicon, that it either disregards the oof images beginning and end or that they don't figure in the end result. Therefore i do not spend time worrying about them and, as long as I have adequately covered the area i want, i add everything to the stack.
That would make sense especially if you decide to delete all the NEFs included in the stack. If I continue keeping all the NEFs included in the stack, I would want to delete those not included.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
15,414
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
Dave and Jim have got me thinking: I rarely return to images later to post-process them. Even if I do return to a stacked photo, I would return to the DNG, not the original NEFs. That would make a strong case for deleting all the NEFs.

Even if I had photographed a scene that is particularly conducive to various depths of field, I could stack them that way to create multiple output DNG files, each with a different depth of field. Even then I also would not need the NEFs.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,999
Location
UK
You could probably save a dng of each of the three methods for the same penalty as one tiff with the added convenience of dng over tiff.

Have you noticed how much quicker methods A and C are compared to B??
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom