Canon call it focus bracketing and it shifts the focus between each shot. It is set in camera. Nothing to do with HDR.
Surely moving the camera forward a fraction each time will also change the magnification each time?
and please use their services
Focus stacking and software
- Thread starter Photo_Slug
- Start date
Canon call it focus bracketing and it shifts the focus between each shot. It is set in camera. Nothing to do with HDR.
Surely moving the camera forward a fraction each time will also change the magnification each time?
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You were questioning why Canon provide the facility if it's not accurate and I used HDR as another feature that doesn't neccessarily give an accurate result.
Moving the camera forwards does change the magnification but you when you stack you only use that part of the image that is in focus.....the part where the magnification is constant.
Last edited:
Will have to think about that one, don't fully understand the principle behind it at the moment.
When I first started to focus stack I googled it and experimented with the method I saw to be described the most although I did see the focus rail method. At the time I didn't find any full explanations of what actually happens. Do you have a link to any? Thanks for the info.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Most stacking software has an "align" facility which takes this into account.
The clever bit is not bracketing the images, but lies in the software that combines them, whether it's "in camera" or an external program.
Yeah I know what the software does and that there is a lot involved in aligning, selecting the various in focus bits, combining & blending then together but without all the focus bracketed images (whether obtained by altering focus or moving camera) the software is useless. Most of the stacked images have required 8-16 images to cover the full object depth (10-20mm).
I'm ok with that but what I don't understand is how fixing the focus and moving the camera is better than fixing the camera & adjusting the focus which is what I have been doing with good results for the past 2 years.
It was said the in camera bracketing feature of the Canon was like in camera HDR, worked but not good results. In my opinion they are not the same as with in camera FS only the multiple images are taken at different focus settings and the RAW images have to be stacked out of the camera. With HDR the taking of the images is the same whether in or out of camera post processed. We all know that in camera PP can not match PP done in good external software as in camera PP is a 'one size fits all' bunch of settings thought up by some technician thousands of mile away guessing what your photo might be.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm no macro expert, and I'm only just starting to dabble in this area, but the following is my opinion, based on fairly limited experience.
I would guess that the "Fix focus and move the camera" method may allow better control than the "Alter the Focus" method.
I would assume that most people who use the "move the camera" method would be using some kind of focussing rack with a calibrated scale, so that you can read off the amount of movement and keep each step the same, whereas lens focussing is not always very precise.. I agree that in theory the image size is going to change with each step, but I presume that in practice this is so small that the stacking software can cope with it.
I'm familiar with the focus bracketing available with some Olympus bodies but I didn't know Canon had the feature too. Which models of Canon offer focus bracketing?
I find the focus steps in the Oly system are a bit vague to set up and it's not easy to find the ideal step size for a given focal length. I also find that, because the Bracket starts from the front and steps towards the back, the very front of the subject doesn't always seem as sharp as the back parts - for me anyway.
I just got a focussing rack and it will be interesting to compare the results, and also how to judge how easy each method is in practice.
I've not used the feature yet other than to try it once to check it worked with the lens. It is on the EOS 90D.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah thanks, that explains it, I don't have that model.
I have the 80D, 5D Mk4 and 6D II and I wondered if it was a feature I'd missed.
I have been googling the rail vs focus ring a lot the last couple of days. As I said when I first started FS a couple of years age most of the info talked about adjust focus on a static camera and that is what I did with good to excellent results. I had been meaning to read up/try a focus rail but never did as I had other things to spent my money on.
@Canon Bob said "This method will induce some distortion when using almost all modern macro lenses as the magnification will change as a function of the distance from the plane of sharp focus to the sensor plane" when I mentioned adjusting focus as an alternative to using a focus rail hence why all the above googling.
Most of my googling turned up focus ring method as the most common method. a couple mentioned it was better than focus rail but gave no explanation as to why. Tweaking my search term then pulled up a couple sites where the photographer had done tests in which they proved to themselves focus ring adjusting was best. One included a link to a site where more info was available.
I can only speak as I find but I have found no evidence that suggests focus rail is better, in fact quite the opposite in that it is worse. I will stick with focus ring adjustment and experiment with a focus rail but for anyone who is interested I include the link below. Make your own mind up after reading it.
http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/troubleshooting/ringversusrail
@Canon Bob said "This method will induce some distortion when using almost all modern macro lenses as the magnification will change as a function of the distance from the plane of sharp focus to the sensor plane" when I mentioned adjusting focus as an alternative to using a focus rail hence why all the above googling.
Most of my googling turned up focus ring method as the most common method. a couple mentioned it was better than focus rail but gave no explanation as to why. Tweaking my search term then pulled up a couple sites where the photographer had done tests in which they proved to themselves focus ring adjusting was best. One included a link to a site where more info was available.
I can only speak as I find but I have found no evidence that suggests focus rail is better, in fact quite the opposite in that it is worse. I will stick with focus ring adjustment and experiment with a focus rail but for anyone who is interested I include the link below. Make your own mind up after reading it.
http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/troubleshooting/ringversusrail
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you for that - most interesting.
However, I can't help thinking that it's a matter of chosing the subject to suit the argument..
There is another stacking program called "Picolay" and they have a tutorial in which they show a focussing rack as being the preferred method of generating the bracketed images.
I'm not experienced enough to pass judgement on one method over the other, but I took a look at some focus bracketing tutorials on YouTube, and there seem to be more that advocate a focussing rack than recommend lens focussing.
I have enough equipment to be able to carry out my own evaluation, so if I can find enough time in the next couple of days I'll conduct some tests of my own.
If the lens focussing method works for you then it's best to stick with it.
I did think that using a rail, the amount of movement precisely defines the depth of field you will be getting which could be helpful.
However, I can't help thinking that it's a matter of chosing the subject to suit the argument..
There is another stacking program called "Picolay" and they have a tutorial in which they show a focussing rack as being the preferred method of generating the bracketed images.
I'm not experienced enough to pass judgement on one method over the other, but I took a look at some focus bracketing tutorials on YouTube, and there seem to be more that advocate a focussing rack than recommend lens focussing.
I have enough equipment to be able to carry out my own evaluation, so if I can find enough time in the next couple of days I'll conduct some tests of my own.
If the lens focussing method works for you then it's best to stick with it.
I did think that using a rail, the amount of movement precisely defines the depth of field you will be getting which could be helpful.
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If people are satisfied with the results then that's all that matters. My comments weren't intended to be 'an opinion' but simply pointing out the facts based on how a lens works.
Removing the focusing rail from the setup will, in some cases, remove a possible cause of instability and the end result may well be more pleasing.
- Messages
- 5,787
- Name
- Storm Trooper
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just downloaded Affinity as I've wanted to try stacking, chose a simple one to start.
4 shots stacked
now to start experimenting.
4 shots stacked
now to start experimenting.
Which method did you use 1: fix camera & alter focus. 2: fix focus & move camera.
As for editing did you edit 1st then stack 2nd or stack 1st & edit 2nd?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,787
- Name
- Storm Trooper
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As I'm just starting I altered the focus and edited after merging, I do have a focus rail so I will try moving the camera to compare methods
I Would be interested to hear/see the results.
- Messages
- 5,787
- Name
- Storm Trooper
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll need to try a different subject as affinity had issues with the top and bottom edges when merged using both methods so a little cropping was needed. Not a perfect test as I had moved the watch between shooting but about 20 images each.
Focus adjust
Moved body on rail
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Moving Camera vs Moving Focus.
Isn't it nice to have some time at home that you can devote to photography?
I spent some time this afternoon attempting a comparison between refocussing vs camera movement to produce a stack of images for "Focus Blending" or "Focus Stacking" or whatever your preferred software calls it.
These were taken with my PEN-F m4/3 camera fitted with the Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro lens set at f6.3.
The first image was created using the Olympus automatic "Focus Bracketing" facility built-in to the camera, and comprises 18 images.
The second example was taken in exactly the same way, but the lens was locked into manual focus and I moved the whole assembly on my focussing rail.
There is about 40mm from the front of the LH figure to the back of the RH character, and I was allowing steps of 1mm, so the blended image was created from 40 separate exposures. Probably a bit excessive and I could have probably got away with fewer.
The foul ups:
I set the initial focus point for both sets of images on the left "hand" of the LH figure. The figures "camera" lens was actually a couple of mm further forward that this, so the front of the "camera" is not in focus.
For the second set I didn't align the camera quite as well, and as I moved in the head of the RH figure got tight against the upper edge. I thought this would be a good test of the alignment function of the stacking software, and it coped very well.
Both sets of images were shot raw, developed in On1 and stacked as jpegs in Affinity Photo. The images are the full frame, not cropped, just resized.
Changing lens focus:
Focussing rail:
For reference this is how much depth of field I had from a single image:
Personally I cannot see any difference in the result between the two techniques, although I did feel more in control with the rack focus method. I would happy to use either method in the future.
What I was particularly interested in was how Affinity handled the slight change in image size caused by the rack focus method. The answer being "very well."
Isn't it nice to have some time at home that you can devote to photography?
I spent some time this afternoon attempting a comparison between refocussing vs camera movement to produce a stack of images for "Focus Blending" or "Focus Stacking" or whatever your preferred software calls it.
These were taken with my PEN-F m4/3 camera fitted with the Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro lens set at f6.3.
The first image was created using the Olympus automatic "Focus Bracketing" facility built-in to the camera, and comprises 18 images.
The second example was taken in exactly the same way, but the lens was locked into manual focus and I moved the whole assembly on my focussing rail.
There is about 40mm from the front of the LH figure to the back of the RH character, and I was allowing steps of 1mm, so the blended image was created from 40 separate exposures. Probably a bit excessive and I could have probably got away with fewer.
The foul ups:
I set the initial focus point for both sets of images on the left "hand" of the LH figure. The figures "camera" lens was actually a couple of mm further forward that this, so the front of the "camera" is not in focus.
For the second set I didn't align the camera quite as well, and as I moved in the head of the RH figure got tight against the upper edge. I thought this would be a good test of the alignment function of the stacking software, and it coped very well.
Both sets of images were shot raw, developed in On1 and stacked as jpegs in Affinity Photo. The images are the full frame, not cropped, just resized.
Changing lens focus:
Focussing rail:
For reference this is how much depth of field I had from a single image:
Personally I cannot see any difference in the result between the two techniques, although I did feel more in control with the rack focus method. I would happy to use either method in the future.
What I was particularly interested in was how Affinity handled the slight change in image size caused by the rack focus method. The answer being "very well."
OP
- Messages
- 24
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was wondering about the size issues caused by the moving the camera when using a rack? Glad to hear there’s not much difference between the two techniques. The images show that. I think I’ll stick with using the focus ring.
And you claim to have been busy when really you just been playing with lego, lol.
Thank you very much for that, I really appreciate the time you spent. Thank You. Would it be cheeky for me to ask if you could upload the first & last of each set (superimposed in their own image file) so I could see the difference is size caused by lens breathing in one and rial movement in the other?
May the software does cope with the change in sizes hence why it doesn't seem to matter so if you do the comparison then don't merge, just lower the OPACITY of the top layer so the bottom one shows through.
I have a Nodal rail on order I could use as a slider but not sure when it will arrive.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is not "playing with Lego" it's serious scientific research! (Pause for laughter...)
If nothing else, it is answering my questions about how the Stacking software handles differing image sizes.
As requested, I've compiled a couple of Start and Finish images for each technique so that you can judge the relative change in image size.
I still think the software (Affinity in this case) does a remarkable job in accommodating the changes in image size.
However, my thoughts on this are - It may be oversimplifying things just to have the first and last images from the stack, since the software may deal with the differences in different ways.
The other thing is that, with either method, the change in size is going to be different at different subject distances.
In the examples I posted, the working distance between the lens and the subject is relatively large - around 220mm with the 60mm lens that I was using (over 300 mm if you measure to the focal plane.) See test setup pic at the end.
Obviously the greater the working distance, the less apparent the change in magnification will be, with either method although the "focus adjust" will always produce less of a change than the "move the camera" method.
I don't usually shoot with m4/3, I prefer full frame, so I may have a go at some more tests using a different camera and lens to see how they compare.
I notice a good crop of dandelions on my lawn (first signs of spring?) so if I allow some of these to develop seed heads, thay are often a good macro subject, so I may experiment with one of those.
Samples, (I've done my best to show the change by ghosting the difference between the two.)
It's quite apparent that the Focus rack method produces a much larger change in relative image size at this working distance.
First and last images - Vary Focus method:
First and last images - Manual focus rack
Test setup to show working distance.
If nothing else, it is answering my questions about how the Stacking software handles differing image sizes.
As requested, I've compiled a couple of Start and Finish images for each technique so that you can judge the relative change in image size.
I still think the software (Affinity in this case) does a remarkable job in accommodating the changes in image size.
However, my thoughts on this are - It may be oversimplifying things just to have the first and last images from the stack, since the software may deal with the differences in different ways.
The other thing is that, with either method, the change in size is going to be different at different subject distances.
In the examples I posted, the working distance between the lens and the subject is relatively large - around 220mm with the 60mm lens that I was using (over 300 mm if you measure to the focal plane.) See test setup pic at the end.
Obviously the greater the working distance, the less apparent the change in magnification will be, with either method although the "focus adjust" will always produce less of a change than the "move the camera" method.
I don't usually shoot with m4/3, I prefer full frame, so I may have a go at some more tests using a different camera and lens to see how they compare.
I notice a good crop of dandelions on my lawn (first signs of spring?) so if I allow some of these to develop seed heads, thay are often a good macro subject, so I may experiment with one of those.
Samples, (I've done my best to show the change by ghosting the difference between the two.)
It's quite apparent that the Focus rack method produces a much larger change in relative image size at this working distance.
First and last images - Vary Focus method:
First and last images - Manual focus rack
Test setup to show working distance.
Last edited:
Brilliant test & write up. Just shows you what actually goes in to writing the software involved in carrying out focus stacking and that is just one part of the total package. It's not just a case of line up the image as resize & line up and that's before selecting the best focused areas to use etc. Your test has proved even more that Affinity is worth the £24 and just how good PS, LR, ON1 etc. are.
All my focus stacking has been done using a Canon 600D, 28-80mm zoom, 10x closeup lens mounted on a modified (arca swiss tilt head, weight increased base for additional stability) drill press taken from above. I need to improve the lighting set up for when I need to focus stack on larger items like your giant lego men (lol) Most of mine are less then 15 mm high hence the 10x closeup.
I really appreciate the work you put in to this.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for the kind words.
While I'm at home it's not too much of a hardship to play around with this stuff, and I'd really like to do more macro work in the future so it's good to experiment.
I have Canon APS-C and Full Frame cameras with suitable macro lenses for each, so I think I will experiment with each of those.
I think this thread is becoming more "Macro" than "Post processing and Image Editing" but the area we are discussing is sort of "half and half" between the two areas.
While I'm at home it's not too much of a hardship to play around with this stuff, and I'd really like to do more macro work in the future so it's good to experiment.
I have Canon APS-C and Full Frame cameras with suitable macro lenses for each, so I think I will experiment with each of those.
I think this thread is becoming more "Macro" than "Post processing and Image Editing" but the area we are discussing is sort of "half and half" between the two areas.
In my view focus stacking is more for macro & close up and hyperfocus for landscape etc. at greater distance so I don't think we are really 'off topic' discussing the pros & cons of the different ways of obtaining images to focus stack. My Nodal rail & right angle slider has arrived so I can do some tests of my own on both nodal (entry) point and focus rail shots, I never gave it a thought that I could move the subject rather than the camera.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
On the contrary.
I have seen, and used, focus stacking on Landscapes, where you want to have both foreground, mid and background all in focus.
Admittedly for a landscape you only need two or three images for the stack, as opposed to the sometimes dozens of shots required for a macro composite.
Which focussing rail did you get?
Must admit I have not given focus stacking much thought in landscapes but then most of the time I haven't needed front to back focus but that may (will?) change now I'm going out to take photos as against taking photos while I'm out. Will have to see.
As for a focus rail, I didn't get one, as such, I got an Arca Swiss 200mm nodal rail which by its nature can also be used as a manual measured slider rail. I also got an Arca Swiss right angle rail so I can use in conjunction with the nodal rail to take better portrait orientated panoramas. It is long enough in both directions to be useful for mounting some of my other gear.
- Messages
- 1,130
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As we have digressed into process. I was trialing the software mainly for the odd landscape where it can be simpler Or quicker to take two or three images than trying to get hyperfocal distance right. I also dabble with macro and finding I need to stack images. I’d not considered that using a focus rail or moving the camera would mean not refocusing. Do you Manual focus at the Front of the object and then incrementally move closer? Do you pick set distances for each move or do you do it by sight adjusting distance moved as each part becomes in focus? Interesting to see the difference in the overlays and that moving the camera produces a much larger ghost than changing focus but the software handles it
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My previous experience has also been taking two or three landscape images for improved depth of field, so this is the first time I've tried stacking in a close-up situation.
Because I was interested in exploring macro shooting, I also recently bought a cheap focussing rail, and I was interested in trying that out.
TBH I find moving the camera on the focus rail to be more predictable and controllable than altering the focus of the lens. The movement of the focus ring on the lens is very small and I was not sure how much I had altered the focus for a given lens adjustment. Using the focus rail, you have a calibrated scale, so it was quite easy to move the camera by the same amount each time.
My method was to maually focus at the nearest point and then move closer in 1mm steps. The distance was invented just to see what the result would be like, but I guessed the plane of focus would be about 1mm. There are ways to calculate depth of field for a given focal length and aperture, but I prefer the practical (guesswork) approach! I could probably got away with fewer images but it's easy enough to shoot away. Because you can measure the physical distance from the front to back of the group it's quite simple to work out how many steps you need to cover the depth of focus. With the Olympus you can set a focus aid to assist with manual focussing, but I only used that to set the initial focus point.
I have since repeated my test using my Canon 80D (APS-C) with the Canon 60mm EF-S macro lens, but the results are so similar that it would be a waste of bandwidth to put them on here.
Today I was going to repeat the test with a Canon 6D (FF) with the Canon 100mm f2.8 IS macro lens, but I don't expect the results to be significantly different, other than reduced depth of field.
The closer you are, the greater the image size will change using the rail method (and probably the "alter focus" method too, but that will depend on the lens to some extent), and so far the software has coped with the differing image sizes, but I guess there must be a point where this fails.
Have we really digressed, In Photo Slug's original comment of "I’m about to learn and implement focus stacking for some product photography. I use photoshop elements at the moment but the version I have doesn’t do focus stacking. Helicon looks to be quite cost effective but is it any good? What you all use for processing your focus stacking ? Also any tips help etc will be very gratefully received." not only does he want guidance of which software to use but some tips on how to do it which I take to mean both software & the practical aspect of obtaining the images.
The effort @Brian G has put in to demonstrating the pros & cons of both focus adjustment and focus rail methods and how well software deals with the cons should be of great help to Photo Slug and others. It certainly has given me a greater understanding of the whole process.
In responce to your questions "Do you Manual focus at the Front of the object and then incrementally move closer? Do you pick set distances for each move or do you do it by sight adjusting distance moved as each part becomes in focus?" With focus adjustment you fix the camera so it doesn't move and alter focus, take a shot & repeat till you have a number of images that between them has every part of the subject in perfect focus. With a focus rail you set manual focus on the closest part of the subject and take a shot. Without altering the focus you move the camera forward slightly and shoot. You repeat this process till you have till you have images with every part of the subject in focus as you did with the adjust focus method.
It it usually better to use the camera in manual mode so there are no changes in shutter speed, aperture or iso but I believe the software can cope, by blending, some differences..
I have never though of trying focus stacking with landscapes but I can see that the only practical method would be focus adjustment. I can imagine that there is a camera to subject distance limit for the 'fix focus & move camera method'. I might give it a go when we all get our 'get out of jail free' cards.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hello again.
Today's exercise has been a similar series of shots taken with my Canon 6D II full frame camera fitted with the 100mm f2.8L IS macro lens.
This sequence was taken using the "refocus the lens" technique at f5.6. The lens to subject distance was about 300mm, and the subject to the focal plane about 460mm.
I was expecting to have shallower depth of field with the FF camera, but this stack comprises only six images, possibly because I was slightly further from the subject.
One thing that was useful is that in "Live View" you can see a magnified image view, which makes manual focussing much easier, so I was able to critically focus each step.
I have also included the "ghost view" showing the difference between the first and last images, which, despite being slightly closer to the subject, seems to be less than the example taken with the Olympus camera.
Images processed in On1 RAW 2020 and all stacking done using Affinity Photo.
6 image bracketed sequence taken using the manual focus adjustment method:
Difference in image size between first and last images:
I've reached my boredom threshold with these, and I doubt I will try a "move the camera" sequence using the focussing rail, since I know it's going to work.
Today's exercise has been a similar series of shots taken with my Canon 6D II full frame camera fitted with the 100mm f2.8L IS macro lens.
This sequence was taken using the "refocus the lens" technique at f5.6. The lens to subject distance was about 300mm, and the subject to the focal plane about 460mm.
I was expecting to have shallower depth of field with the FF camera, but this stack comprises only six images, possibly because I was slightly further from the subject.
One thing that was useful is that in "Live View" you can see a magnified image view, which makes manual focussing much easier, so I was able to critically focus each step.
I have also included the "ghost view" showing the difference between the first and last images, which, despite being slightly closer to the subject, seems to be less than the example taken with the Olympus camera.
Images processed in On1 RAW 2020 and all stacking done using Affinity Photo.
6 image bracketed sequence taken using the manual focus adjustment method:
Difference in image size between first and last images:
I've reached my boredom threshold with these, and I doubt I will try a "move the camera" sequence using the focussing rail, since I know it's going to work.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,787
- Name
- Storm Trooper
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thought Id try something a little bigger, Air Arms S400 Classic. 6 shots stacked.
'You'll have someone's eye out with that!". Nice shot.
Playing with lego again, lol. Yeah, I always use live view as with the 10x lens any movement could be visible and the mirror being locked up reduces that risk. Yeah the extra distance from the camera is likely to have increased DOF.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... It's not always a doddle to get a final stacked JPG when handheld. It is only a doddle when real-world factors like movement of the target minibeast or a wind don't interfere.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The biggest problem I find with Olympus focus bracketing is the very vague "step size" menu. On the Pen F I can have up to 999 steps(!) with a step size of 1 to 10,
I realise the effective step distance will vary according to the lens focal length and subject distance, but it can be very time consuming firing off dozens of test shots in order to arrive at a suitable step size for a given lens and subject.
I guess that auto stepping, with a sensible number of steps, is OK for hand-held but I think I prefer the rack focus method for fixed subjects when you can use a tripod.
Having viewed a number of Macro Technique videos on YouTube, it appears the majority of 'experts' also seem to favour a focus rack.
Last edited:
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... You can have up to 999 steps on the M1X too but I can't imagine so many would be needed. The Differential (distance between steps) on the 1-10 scale depends on what you are photographing and therefore how many different slices of focus you want to cut.
Tripod + rack depends on what's practical for what you are shooting of course. By developing handheld focus stacking in-camera, wildlife photographers like me are much better catered for.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I find setting the lens focus step size difficult but maybe I need more experience.
If you knew your subject was , say 10mm long and your depth of field was 1 mm it's fairly obvious to say you need 10 steps to cover the front to the back, but because there isn't a distance specified for the step size, just 1 (narrow) to 10 (wide) then you need to experiment to find the best the step size.
With the focus rack, if you know the DOF is 1mm, then you can move the rack in 1 mm steps and you know you have covered the 10 mm subject.
Obviously anything involving a tripod implies a static subject.
I found one "tutorial" on YouTube (lost the link) where the guy set a fixed manual focus and rocked back and forwards whilst shooting with high speed drive. He implied that, with a bit of practice, you could get a good enough sequence hand held that you could then focus stack. Seemed a bit "hit and miss" to me and I'm sure you'd get lots of images that wouldn't stack. Must give it a try sometime.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... As I understand it, the front to back Differential scale is to do with overlap. The lens aperture you set will provide the DoF basis for this calculation by the camera.
Rocking back and forth to achieve increased DoF or simply nail where you want sharp focus is old school and can be unreliable. Some photographers manage it though.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for that.
I think I have seen the video before, but even he says you need to experiment to find out the step size to suit what you are doing, which echoes my point that it can be very time consuming experimenting with step sizes to find out the best one for your situation. The lens control might be automatic, but there is still quite a bit of work required from the operator.
I feel that, for a static subject, the focus rack method allows better control since you can precisely define.the step distance.
I think I have seen the video before, but even he says you need to experiment to find out the step size to suit what you are doing, which echoes my point that it can be very time consuming experimenting with step sizes to find out the best one for your situation. The lens control might be automatic, but there is still quite a bit of work required from the operator.
I feel that, for a static subject, the focus rack method allows better control since you can precisely define.the step distance.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... Absolutely - A focus rack method on tripod is always going to allow better control and more reliable results.
I am amazed that focus stacking is possible when handheld at all. Now that I have found a workaround in post-processing to easily stack a series of shots which failed to combine in-camera, I feel encouraged to continue selecting the feature when needed, which with macro minibeasts is quite often.