Reply With QuoteImpressive first attempt. How easy is stacking using the XT-3, does it have some kind of automated functionality/software over the previous XT-2?
I've been playing around with focus stacking on my X-T3.....the results are promising.....lessons learnt....clean the watch first and try to stay out of the reflections!
Transocean.jpg by Adam Stringer, on Flickr
Transocean-2.jpg by Adam Stringer, on Flickr
Impressive first attempt. How easy is stacking using the XT-3, does it have some kind of automated functionality/software over the previous XT-2?
A high number of f-stop will do the same, manual focus stacking is too much work IMHO.
Although a high f stop (some guides say above f8 depending on the lens and the output size) may lead to blurring due to diffraction and the photo-sight size. However this won't show if pictures are downsized for internet publication - in which case f11 or f16 can be got away with.Originally Posted by Jocke
What do think Jocke?
Martyn
.
I think that depth of field is waaaay beyond simply a high f stop.
Here is a shot I've made in f22 that is only resized, not cropped. IMHO so is the sharpness great all the way.
I know. I was saying going over f8 could lead to possible diffraction effects as high resolution output.
As regards DOF and relation to f stop it is not a simple function, however, for a fixed focal length and distance (and for a given circle of confusion) the DOF is proportionate to the f stop and with macro lenses the DOF is obviously very narrow, hence my comments.
For example: DOF, for 105mm lens at distance of 5ft from object and COC of 0.03mm (that of a D810) at various f stops:
f4 0.15ft
f8 0.31ft
f16 0.62ft
f32 1.25ft
Resizing - is the secret! I imagine that is shot on something with like a 24MP+ sensorHere is a shot I've made in f22 that is only resized, not cropped. IMHO so is the sharpness great all the way.
4933 x 4933 = 24,334,489 pixels
if resized to say 1200x768 as your image is = 921,600 pixels
so any diffraction effects are not seen on such resized-sized image on DOF blurring - shot is excellent btw!
M
Although the X-T3 has got a focus bracket function, I can’t for the life of me get it to work. These ones were done using manual focus and processed in Photoshop.
Here is the original pic, of course it's not so sharp if you blow it up but still all over the pic. Right click to get it in full res.
More to do with the sensor than the lens. It depends what the output size is. If images are appearing on web pages then this is even less of an issue where output resolution - for example I'm viewing this on my MacBook with a display of 2304x1440 = approx 3Mpix (3,317,760)
I still have an old 4Mpix Coolpix camera - this could produce output that would out resolve this modern display.
So a 24MPix is x8 the resolution or 48MPix is x16 of this.
Hence - down-sizing a full size image means any diffraction limits will not show up. Only if you plan to make large prints @ 300dpi this could become an issue - for the D850 I have empirical evidence that limit is f5.6 or practically f8 for anything noticeable.
All the best.
M
Lostgear - nice work with the focus stacking, it isn't easy, but I think you have done a good job.
Jocke - You are right that it is easier to use a smaller aperture, but that will not always do the job. In your image, the watch and the writing on the book are pretty much along the plane of focus, so you are giving yourself an easier target (that may have been deliberate, in which case, that's smart). However in Lostgear's second example, the watch is almost at right angles to the plane of focus, so I don't believe a small aperture would have worked. Returning to your example, you can see the focus dropping off as you look along the stitching of the watch strap.
Also, reducing the resolution prevents us zooming larger to inspect the focus, but doesn't actually change the focus accuracy.
A more elegant solution, but limited by the "trickyness" factor and cost, is a tilt-shift lens, where you can align plane of focus along the subject. Sometimes, when trying to wrangle a plane of focus in a three dimensional space, focus stacking suddenly seems a whole lot simpler.
For optimum results and decent file sizes for repro you should use an f stop that doesn’t make diffraction an issue (I use f8 1/2) together with tilt and swing* otherwise your stack is going to be huge.
*not shift. People often say “use a shift lens” when it’s tilt and swing that are going to be of more use for shooting watches.
That's too much of a faff for me, but I must admit the results can be stunning. Somebody posted a pic of an aircraft in a hangar last week that was stunning. The DOF just drew my eye in such that I was studying every detail. Have fun learning and I look forward to seeing more of your work
What I mean is that you get really close focus stacking with a high number f-stop. Not quite in focus over the whole picture but so good that I do not think it is worth the job to merge 15 pictures or the like.
These pics are very nice. Having made exactly one attempt at focus stacking, I don't think it's that much of a faff. Certainly not much more than setting up the shot in the first instance. The process of merging the individual shots into a single composite image in Photoshop CS is very straightforward. It's a technique that I will be with along with working out how to light the subject properly.
I've an X-T3 and your post prompted me to give the automated focus bracketing a go. Obviously not great aesthetically but I can see how it can work. Will be playing around with lighting/composition over the next few weeks. (For anyone with an X-T2 think this will also work after software update.)
I looked on youtube for the quickest and easiest way to do this for my watch photo's, i really didnt want to spend lots of time tweeking pictures. With this i can get reasonable results in less than 10 minutes.
I use a nikon D7100 with a 40mm macro lens, so not exactly high end. Remote takes the pictures, just lock in focus point A and B then it will send the stack to Helicon focus to choose one of three rendering methods. You can alter settings but i usually leave them as default.
The example shown is just my carriage clock wheel that i wanted to email to the wheel cutter for a 'guesstimate' as it needs a new pinion. Its from a 16 image stack, on the first image, only the very tip of the pivot is focussed.
I hope this is of help to someone
Craig
Had that problem myself while playing with my camera and watches last night. I ended up wearing a black beanie hat to avoid my hair showing up in the reflections. My wife came down to see me wearing the hat and also waving a white umbrella around. I think she is beginning to worry.
Tapatapatapatapatalk
I tried out Jocke’s suggestion that a small aperture would negate the need for focus stacking. I have to say I agree based on one experiment this morning. I used a Lumix GH-3 with the 45-200 zoom lens and a single 10mm macro extension ring. Exposure 1.6s at f22. A little enhancement and cropping but only on my iPhone. I think the depth of field is absolutely fine (even if the picture is very ordinary).
Last edited by alfat33; 18th January 2019 at 11:31.
You can see around the 450 mark on the bezel where the software can’t make a perfect job of the bezel edge and the out of focus strap area to the right of it*. Don’t think I have ever done a watch stack that is 100% perfect using Helicon focus (better than zyrene or PS) and doesn’t need any further work. Gradual transitions in focus are easily dealt with, it’s big jumps in focus and edges that are tricky.
*or it may be something else?! The pic is quite small so hard to judge.
Thanks for taking a look, I’m trying to learn how to take good macro shots so the feedback is welcome.
I’m not sure if I understood you correctly but just to be clear my photo doesn’t have any focus stacking. It’s a single shot using a small aperture. The processing on the iPhone was just to crop it and adjust contrast etc. Of course it is a jpeg so the camera has already processed it as well which does confuse things a bit.
Below is the original photo as transferred from the GH-3. When I do it again I’ll add another extension tube to frame it more tightly.
It was just an experiment as I’ve been thinking about getting a camera or software with focus stacking for watch shots, but I think instead I’ll concentrate on this more traditional method. I’m sure I can get a better file off the GH-3 as well, not quite sure why the resolution is so low.
Ah well there you go I was fooled, I guess the fabric strap had me thinking it was soft and fuzzy due to the software having trouble to isolate a sharp edge against a soft area.
If you gain that much depth of field at f22 and do not view very big then you don’t need to stack
Diffraction is not so apparent at smaller display sizes.
Had a quick go. Not a perfect try - but interesting technique - combined 40 shots in Helio (trial) taken @ f2.8
Martyn
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 20th January 2019 at 21:06.
Posting Permissions
