Was not doing extensive amount in Photoshop except for the landscape image. The flower and frog image just used some Photoshop to do some additional cloning to further clean up the blended image. Once finished with the clone and some sharpening in the case of the frog went back into Lightroom to finish the image.I'm not a photoshop user, so I'll have to try and translate the instructions to DxO PL.
When I began stacking images, Photoshop worked fine. Then I got to an image that Photoshop's stacking process rendered the scene unimaginably incomprehensible; touch ups were out of the question. That was when I decided upon using Helicon Focus. Both Zerene and Helicon work fine but I liked Helicon's 3D Viewer as a fun module, so I went with Helicon. However, I've used the Viewer twice at the most. I've never had to touch up anything in Helicon and I've used the default settings probably all but one time. That one time the need for different settings was obvious based on the information provided in Helicon's tutorial about settings.Allready learned a bit on how to improve stacked imahges using photoshop. Now to determine if I want to get Helicon or Zerene software.
That's a waste in my mind in situations when there is no infinity to "stop" the camera and even in some situations where the lens can focus at infinity. Capturing four to six times more images than is needed will cause the shutter to die sooner than is necessary. Thought that may not be a practical concern, one never knows until the shutter has died whether it should have been a concern. After getting used to the number of captures that are needed in a given situation, my experience is that we can narrow the number of images down to no more than twice as many as are needed.he sets it to 90 images, but the camera only recorded 15
That surprises me and goes against Nikon's recommendations. That doesn't mean his choice is wrong or bad; it just surprises me.He uses a focus step width of 4 for all subjects.
No waste at all. Set to capture 90, takes only 15 (as needed). End of shoot.That's a waste in my mind in situations when there is no infinity to "stop" the camera and even in some situations where the lens can focus at infinity. Capturing four to six times more images than is needed will cause the shutter to die sooner than is necessary.
You apparently didn't drink enough coffee this morning. Notice my qualification that "when there is no infinity to 'stop' the camera and even in situations where the lens can focus at infinity."No waste at all. Set to capture 90, takes only 15 (as needed). End of shoot.