Focus Stacking

Messages
9,905
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
My first attempt at focus stacking using a nice and controlled subject. Five photos stacked using Photoshop, one attempt (ran out of time) and this is what I got. Any advice for improvement will be appreciated and welcome. I also include a single shot at F11 for comparison; I can certainly see the benefits with stacking.

Shot using my Sony A6000 with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4

Cheers


Focus Stack 1.jpg


F11.jpg
 
Thanks, it was a bit of an easy setup but being my first attempt I wanted to make sure I was getting the basics done right. I'm definitely going to explore this more once I get Jan out of the way (busy month for me).
 
Focus stacking is a technique to be used when required, but lately I'm seeing a major upsurge in 'focus stacking' just to simply be shooting 'focus stacking' Its like the new buzzword doing the forums, like HDR and Bokeh.

I mean why shoot at f1.4 and then focus stack?
 
That's totally different to what the OP is doing and what I'm seeing many others doing. As I said 'its a technique to be used when required'

Many of us have been focus stacking for 10 years plus, but the last 3 months it seems to have gained this weird momentum.
 
Focus stacking is a technique to be used when required, but lately I'm seeing a major upsurge in 'focus stacking' just to simply be shooting 'focus stacking' Its like the new buzzword doing the forums, like HDR and Bokeh.

I mean why shoot at f1.4 and then focus stack?

So you can achieve out of focus fall off very quickly in front and behind the subject, but have the whole subject in focus.

@gman this is a nice example :)
 
So you can achieve out of focus fall off very quickly in front and behind the subject, but have the whole subject in focus.

Yeah, but in this example the fall off is so linear and sharp it doesn't look real. You could have got the shot in one by using somewhere between f1.4 and f11. Focal length and the right lens helps to.

Or just add a graduated blur on the foreground in seconds, much easier and quicker.
 
There seems to be more people using focus stacking (fusion) for other than full depth macro photography.
and why not?
It can achieve more than simple maximum depth of field.
It can allow a lens to be used at its optimal aperture for both quality and focus over the entire field.
It can be used to precisely control out of focus areas both in front and behind, to define an object in full focus, using wide apertures.
It can be used to maximise depth of field in landscape and interior photography beyond that available using Aperture control alone. using optimal apertures.
It can be combined with Exposure fusion.

In @gman 's images above he could have had alternate leggo men in focus and out of focus. by using a very wide aperture and only focusing on those men. (i.e. selective focus within a define area.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks, some very nice work there although I've always wondered how it's done with a subject that moves such as an insect's wings?

Paul, it was just a simple setup to start learning the basics to see if it's something I want to delve further into. Why so serious?
I think people do it when the insects are cold and inactive. BTW what equipment are you using?
 
The first image doesn't look natural, the F11 looks better even thought the rear men are slightly OOF.

Third man in on the left, his midsection is OOF as are some strips of the floor running across the frame. The blur surrounding the figure front centre looks like a bad photoshop has been done.

I think more care is needed with your blending technique in photoshop.
 
I think people do it when the insects are cold and inactive. BTW what equipment are you using?

Interesting. I'm using a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. No macro lens, it's never been a previous interest.

Thanks for the comments Craig, I used the fully automated Photoshop process but I did see another method of doing the majority of it manually which I may try.
 
> It can achieve more than simple maximum depth of field.
Not really. There are of course exceptions, using the right equipment and techniques you can generally get everything you need you need in focus.

> It can allow a lens to be used at its optimal aperture for both quality and focus over the entire field.
Unless you are using cheap lenses, you really don't need to worry about this. I shoot everywhere from f1.4 - f64, yes there are differences, but they are so minor its not worth worrying about. I never even think about 'optimal' apertures , I just set what I need. I'm just about to shoot some products that I'll be using about f18 for. Details images I may be on f45ish

> It can be used to precisely control out of focus areas both in front and behind, to define an object in full focus, using wide apertures.
You can control that with focal length and aperture. When you can get things perfect in one shot? Why take several, and then faff around in photoshop? and if you don't get everything absolutely perfect, spot on, rock solid, its going to be even more of a faff. Or more importantly even more time consuming.

> It can be used to maximise depth of field in landscape and interior photography beyond that available using Aperture control alone. using optimal apertures.
Having shot thousands of interiors and landscapes, I've never once used focus stacking, or had a client complain about images being out of focus.

One of the best reasons to use focus stacking is when shooting very small items, which you need to get close to. Then it is difficult to get enough depth of field. The posted link of the insects was a good example, except tricky to stack because the insect is most likely moving. I use it if required when shooting small but deep products. I last used it shooting artists equipment, such as pens, brushes, pencil and shooting an almost tip on shot, with the handle tailing away. Even then in one shot it wasn't bad, actually a nice shot. I only focus stacked to keep both the tip and the clients logo halfway down the handle in shot.
I think I shot them at f32. You need to get lots in focus in the first place, otherwise as an item in a shot like this blurs, it effectively becomes wider.
 
I started a thread a short while ago. https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/solving-a-problem-with-focus-stacking-fusion.687369/ covering the fringing round objects, that I found when focus stacking close ups, with Photoshop.
This does not occur to the same extent when using Fusion Programs Like TuFuse pro which make choices based on "best Pixel" rather than selective masking. Which largely gets over the blurring due to differential size due to magnification of nearer objects. mentioned by @riddell

This is almost certainly why specialist photographers usually choose to use programs designed for the purpose like Helicon. These programs are almost always more versatile and give superior results. In the same way that dedicated Stitiching programs like PTAssembler and PTGui give vastly more options than the equivalent Photoshop action. These programs also use "better Pixel" choices in their Blending stage.

TuFuse pro Has a life time licence,(£28.15) but is intended mainly for use in other than Micro photography.

All these programs seem to be "Mature" with little if any further development being undertaken.
 
> It can achieve more than simple maximum depth of field.
Not really. There are of course exceptions, using the right equipment and techniques you can generally get everything you need you need in focus.

> It can allow a lens to be used at its optimal aperture for both quality and focus over the entire field.
Unless you are using cheap lenses, you really don't need to worry about this. I shoot everywhere from f1.4 - f64, yes there are differences, but they are so minor its not worth worrying about. I never even think about 'optimal' apertures , I just set what I need. I'm just about to shoot some products that I'll be using about f18 for. Details images I may be on f45ish

> It can be used to precisely control out of focus areas both in front and behind, to define an object in full focus, using wide apertures.
You can control that with focal length and aperture. When you can get things perfect in one shot? Why take several, and then faff around in photoshop? and if you don't get everything absolutely perfect, spot on, rock solid, its going to be even more of a faff. Or more importantly even more time consuming.

My experience differs. I use stacking for botanical close-ups and I think it gives me creative options that are not available from a single shot. Two things come immediately to mind, both having to do with the relationship between the subject and the background . One is that it makes it possible, depending on the geometry of the scene, to show the subject with all of the subject in focus, or as much in focus as works well, against a background that is more pleasing than would be the case were an aperture used to get the required depth of field covering the subject with a single shot. The other is that it opens up angles on subjects that are otherwise precluded because they make the first issue mentioned even worse by moving some of the set of items required in focus out of the plane of focus. Stacking gives me a much broader range of options to find a background that (to my eye) works nicely with the subject (and for me, backgrounds are very important).

It is also worth noting that with botanical scenes the subject may not be a single thing, but a number of things separated in space at various distances from one another and from the camera. That can make scenes like this quite difficult to handle.


1417 15 2018_12_24 P1001317 G9+60 PF16f F2.8 1-400 ISO400 -0.3EV B8,4+i LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Or like this one, where the branch was at 45 degrees or more from the plane of focus.


1417 06 2018_12_24 P1001234 G9+60 PF74f F2.8 1-160 ISO800 -0.3EV B19,2 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

In this case the fern was leaning away at a sharp angle to the plane of focus.


1417 21 2018_12_24 P1001367 G9+60 PF27f F2.8 1-80 ISO800 -0.7EV B9,3+i LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

As to the faff, I use a video-based approach for this which makes the capture process extremely easy, fast and reliable, and when necessary I use it hand-held, sometimes with arms stretched out and bent around to get the line I want on subjects in awkward positions. And it works quite well in breezy conditions too, which is just as well as I live in a notoriously breezy location. The processing (not involving Photoshop) is often fast and uncomplicated, for example for scenes like this.


1421 01 2019-01-01 P1001449 G9+60 PF42f F2.8 ISO800 1-200 0EV B9,3+B29,3+B9,3(49f) LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Or this one, where although the processing was easy the capture was tricky because of the extremely awkward positioning of the subject, which required me to work kneeling, at full stretch leaning over the edge of a pond in a position that was impossible to maintain for more than a few seconds.


1417 20 2018_12_24 P1001357 G9+60 PF61f F2.8 1-80 ISO800 -0.7EV B9,3 LR7 1400h +0.6EV LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

It's not all speed and ease. Sometimes the technique won't work for a particular subject in particular conditions. And sometimes the stacking is more difficult and time-consuming (for me) to be bothered with. But I do enjoy using the technique and I like the results I'm getting, results which in many cases I believe I wouldn't otherwise be getting, like these.

1417 10 2018_12_24 P1001258 G9+60 PF97f F2.8 1-160 ISO400 -0.3EV C2 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1417 02 2018_12_24 P1001204 G9+60 PF27f F2.8 1-125 ISO800 -0.3EV B8,3+i LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1421 03 2019-01-01 P1001480 G9+60 PF46f F2.8 ISO800 1-500 0EV B9,3+B9,3(57f) LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, in various contexts I use all the apertures that I have available, including using the much maligned minimum aperture (around f/45 full frame equivalent for most of my kit) most of the time for invertebrates.
 
Last edited:
I started a thread a short while ago. https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/solving-a-problem-with-focus-stacking-fusion.687369/ covering the fringing round objects, that I found when focus stacking close ups, with Photoshop.
This does not occur to the same extent when using Fusion Programs Like TuFuse pro which make choices based on "best Pixel" rather than selective masking. Which largely gets over the blurring due to differential size due to magnification of nearer objects. mentioned by @riddell

This is almost certainly why specialist photographers usually choose to use programs designed for the purpose like Helicon. These programs are almost always more versatile and give superior results. In the same way that dedicated Stitiching programs like PTAssembler and PTGui give vastly more options than the equivalent Photoshop action. These programs also use "better Pixel" choices in their Blending stage.

TuFuse pro Has a life time licence,(£28.15) but is intended mainly for use in other than Micro photography.

All these programs seem to be "Mature" with little if any further development being undertaken.

Thanks for the info, I'll have a look and see if it's a way forward for me.



Great article, interesting also to note about background focus being part of the decision making process.


My experience differs. I use stacking for botanical close-ups and I think it gives me creative options that are not available from a single shot. Two things come immediately to mind, both having to do with the relationship between the subject and the background . One is that it makes it possible, depending on the geometry of the scene, to show the subject with all of the subject in focus, or as much in focus as works well, against a background that is more pleasing than would be the case were an aperture used to get the required depth of field covering the subject with a single shot. The other is that it opens up angles on subjects that are otherwise precluded because they make the first issue mentioned even worse by moving some of the set of items required in focus out of the plane of focus. Stacking gives me a much broader range of options to find a background that (to my eye) works nicely with the subject (and for me, backgrounds are very important).

It is also worth noting that with botanical scenes the subject may not be a single thing, but a number of things separated in space at various distances from one another and from the camera. That can make scenes like this quite difficult to handle.

[snip]...
…[snip]

By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, in various contexts I use all the apertures that I have available, including using the much maligned minimum aperture (around f/45 full frame equivalent for most of my kit) most of the time for invertebrates.

Thanks for this, some amazing photos there, very sharp as well!



I wish there were 36 hours in a day.
 
I use stacking for botanical close-ups and I think it gives me creative options that are not available from a single shot. Two things come immediately to mind, both having to do with the relationship between the subject and the background . One is that it makes it possible, depending on the geometry of the scene, to show the subject with all of the subject in focus, or as much in focus as works well, against a background that is more pleasing than would be the case were an aperture used to get the required depth of field covering the subject with a single shot.

It is also worth noting that with botanical scenes the subject may not be a single thing, but a number of things separated in space at various distances from one another and from the camera. That can make scenes like this quite difficult to handle.

It's not all speed and ease. Sometimes the technique won't work for a particular subject in particular conditions. And sometimes the stacking is more difficult and time-consuming (for me) to be bothered with.

Now this is a perfect example of why you sometimes need to use focus stacking in specialist applications.
 
In this case the fern was leaning away at a sharp angle to the plane of focus.


1417 21 2018_12_24 P1001367 G9+60 PF27f F2.8 1-80 ISO800 -0.7EV B9,3+i LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

As to the faff, I use a video-based approach for this which makes the capture process extremely easy, fast and reliable, and when necessary I use it hand-held, sometimes with arms stretched out and bent around to get the line I want on subjects in awkward positions. And it works quite well in breezy conditions too, which is just as well as I live in a notoriously breezy location. The processing (not involving Photoshop) is often fast and uncomplicated, for example for scenes like this.

How do you do this?
Do you change focus during rapid fire?
Or back off the camera as you rapid fire?
Or something else?
I take it that you then Stack the images in-register before focus fusing them.?
 
How do you do this?
Do you change focus during rapid fire?
Or back off the camera as you rapid fire?
Or something else?
I take it that you then Stack the images in-register before focus fusing them.?

Something else. :)

I use Panasonic's Post Focus function. This uses 4K or 6K video. The camera finds the nearest thing it can focus on, and the furthest, and captures a video as it racks the focus from the nearest to the furthest. This function is marketed as letting you choose where the centre of focus is placed in an image after you have captured it - you can point at an area of the image and the camera extracts a frame from the video that is focused where you point. However, you don't have to use this aspect of it. The important thing is that it leaves an MP4 video behind which you can download and work on.

The air does not have to be completely still for this to work. I live in a notoriously breezy location and most of the stacks I have done were captured in a breeze. I try to time the capture to gaps when the breeze has died down a bit, but the gaps are typically short and very often end while the capture is in progress, so I typically capture a number of "takes" to try to get one that will stack ok. The breezier it is the more takes I do.

You don't have to hold the camera completely still. I have done a number of these hand-held, and I do not have steady hands. I worked mainly hand-held with the G80 but now with the G9 I'm using a (rather flexible) tripod most of the time, but using it hands-on, like you use a monopod. I find this gives me the fine control I want for framing the scene while reducing the effects of hand-shake and also keeping the framing the same from take to take - very important once I have found an angle that works.

You don't have to make any preparations like deciding where to place the focus or how many frames to capture or what the spacing should be from frame to frame. This makes it very much a point and shoot operation. And at 30 frames per second it is relatively fast in operation, which is good for working in breezy conditions. In comparison, with focus stacking you have to decide about initial focus placement, spacing between shots and how many frames to capture, and it operates more than six times slower, which is not so good for working hand-held and/or in a breeze.

With Post Focus you do have to decide some combination of aperture, ISO and shutter speed using one of the ordinary modes (aperture priority, shutter priority, program, manual). The only restriction is that the shutter speed must be at least 1/30 sec. If for example in aperture priority mode it goes below that then it will be fixed at 1/30 sec and the video will be under-exposed.

The 4K videos produce 8 mpix frames and I used that with a G80 and 1/2.3" FZ330. Now with the G9 I use 6K, producing 18 mpix frames, which is very close to the full 20 mpix sensor dimensions. You can only extract JPEGs from the videos, so unlike with focus bracketing you can't use raw. I haven't found this to be a problem and in fact the G9 has a Cinelike D profile which is very flat. I use that and coupled with minimising the JPEG noise reduction and sharpening it gives me some extra flexibility in post processing. The G9 is also very configurable and I have it set up so it is easy and quick to set the white balance from a grey card and I do this (when I remember) for each scene.

As to the stacking, I have a quick look at the takes for a scene using Panasonics PhotoFun Studio PC application, which makes it very quick and easy. It is also the only way I have found to get at the Exif information for the video. I then drag the chosen video into Helicon Focus, which automatically extracts the frames and aligns them. I then use Helicon Focus to do the stacking and retouching. From this I produce a TIFF file that I import into Lightroom for finishing and exporting to JPEG.

I made a video Stacking close ups with Panasonic post focus and Helicon Focus when I was starting out with this a couple of years ago and another one, Focus stacking some issues and remedies, three months later when I had learnt a bit more about it. I've learnt more since then and am using different equipment, and Helicon Focus has been updated too, so perhaps I should make a new video. (btw any references to Helicon Filter in those videos should be to Helicon Focus.)


.
 
Last edited:
Something else. :)

I use Panasonic's Post Focus function. This uses 4K or 6K video. The camera finds the nearest thing it can focus on, and the furthest, and captures a video as it racks the focus from the nearest to the furthest. This function is marketed as letting you choose where the centre of focus is placed in an image after you have captured it - you can point at an area of the image and the camera extracts a frame from the video that is focused where you point. However, you don't have to use this aspect of it. The important thing is that it leaves an MP4 video behind which you can download and work on.

The air does not have to be completely still for this to work. I live in a notoriously breezy location and most of the stacks I have done were captured in a breeze. I try to time the capture to gaps when the breeze has died down a bit, but the gaps are typically short and very often end while the capture is in progress, so I typically capture a number of "takes" to try to get one that will stack ok. The breezier it is the more takes I do.

You don't have to hold the camera completely still. I have done a number of these hand-held, and I do not have steady hands. I worked mainly hand-held with the G80 but now with the G9 I'm using a (rather flexible) tripod most of the time, but using it hands-on, like you use a monopod. I find this gives me the fine control I want for framing the scene while reducing the effects of hand-shake and also keeping the framing the same from take to take - very important once I have found an angle that works.

You don't have to make any preparations like deciding where to place the focus or how many frames to capture or what the spacing should be from frame to frame. This makes it very much a point and shoot operation. And at 30 frames per second it is relatively fast in operation, which is good for working in breezy conditions. In comparison, with focus stacking you have to decide about initial focus placement, spacing between shots and how many frames to capture, and it operates more than six times slower, which is not so good for working hand-held and/or in a breeze.

With Post Focus you do have to decide some combination of aperture, ISO and shutter speed using one of the ordinary modes (aperture priority, shutter priority, program, manual). The only restriction is that the shutter speed must be at least 1/30 sec. If for example in aperture priority mode it goes below that then it will be fixed at 1/30 sec and the video will be under-exposed.

The 4K videos produce 8 mpix frames and I used that with a G80 and 1/2.3" FZ330. Now with the G9 I use 6K, producing 18 mpix frames, which is very close to the full 20 mpix sensor dimensions. You can only extract JPEGs from the videos, so unlike with focus bracketing you can't use raw. I haven't found this to be a problem and in fact the G9 has a Cinelike D profile which is very flat. I use that and coupled with minimising the JPEG noise reduction and sharpening it gives me some extra flexibility in post processing. The G9 is also very configurable and I have it set up so it is easy and quick to set the white balance from a grey card and I do this (when I remember) for each scene.

As to the stacking, I have a quick look at the takes for a scene using Panasonics PhotoFun Studio PC application, which makes it very quick and easy. It is also the only way I have found to get at the Exif information for the video. I then drag the chosen video into Helicon Focus, which automatically extracts the frames and aligns them. I then use Helicon Focus to do the stacking and retouching. From this I produce a TIFF file that I import into Lightroom for finishing and exporting to JPEG.

I made a video Stacking close ups with Panasonic post focus and Helicon Focus when I was starting out with this a couple of years ago and another one, Focus stacking some issues and remedies, three months later when I had learnt a bit more about it. I've learnt more since then and am using different equipment, and Helicon Focus has been updated too, so perhaps I should make a new video. (btw any references to Helicon Filter in those videos should be to Helicon Focus.)


.
Thanks very interesting.
Pity it can't be done on Fuji X:(
 
My experience differs. I use stacking for botanical close-ups and I think it gives me creative options that are not available from a single shot. Two things come immediately to mind, both having to do with the relationship between the subject and the background . One is that it makes it possible, depending on the geometry of the scene, to show the subject with all of the subject in focus, or as much in focus as works well, against a background that is more pleasing than would be the case were an aperture used to get the required depth of field covering the subject with a single shot. The other is that it opens up angles on subjects that are otherwise precluded because they make the first issue mentioned even worse by moving some of the set of items required in focus out of the plane of focus. Stacking gives me a much broader range of options to find a background that (to my eye) works nicely with the subject (and for me, backgrounds are very important).

It is also worth noting that with botanical scenes the subject may not be a single thing, but a number of things separated in space at various distances from one another and from the camera. That can make scenes like this quite difficult to handle.


1417 15 2018_12_24 P1001317 G9+60 PF16f F2.8 1-400 ISO400 -0.3EV B8,4+i LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Or like this one, where the branch was at 45 degrees or more from the plane of focus.


1417 06 2018_12_24 P1001234 G9+60 PF74f F2.8 1-160 ISO800 -0.3EV B19,2 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

In this case the fern was leaning away at a sharp angle to the plane of focus.


1417 21 2018_12_24 P1001367 G9+60 PF27f F2.8 1-80 ISO800 -0.7EV B9,3+i LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

As to the faff, I use a video-based approach for this which makes the capture process extremely easy, fast and reliable, and when necessary I use it hand-held, sometimes with arms stretched out and bent around to get the line I want on subjects in awkward positions. And it works quite well in breezy conditions too, which is just as well as I live in a notoriously breezy location. The processing (not involving Photoshop) is often fast and uncomplicated, for example for scenes like this.


1421 01 2019-01-01 P1001449 G9+60 PF42f F2.8 ISO800 1-200 0EV B9,3+B29,3+B9,3(49f) LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Or this one, where although the processing was easy the capture was tricky because of the extremely awkward positioning of the subject, which required me to work kneeling, at full stretch leaning over the edge of a pond in a position that was impossible to maintain for more than a few seconds.


1417 20 2018_12_24 P1001357 G9+60 PF61f F2.8 1-80 ISO800 -0.7EV B9,3 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

It's not all speed and ease. Sometimes the technique won't work for a particular subject in particular conditions. And sometimes the stacking is more difficult and time-consuming (for me) to be bothered with. But I do enjoy using the technique and I like the results I'm getting, results which in many cases I believe I wouldn't otherwise be getting, like these.

1417 10 2018_12_24 P1001258 G9+60 PF97f F2.8 1-160 ISO400 -0.3EV C2 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1417 02 2018_12_24 P1001204 G9+60 PF27f F2.8 1-125 ISO800 -0.3EV B8,3+i LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1421 03 2019-01-01 P1001480 G9+60 PF46f F2.8 ISO800 1-500 0EV B9,3+B9,3(57f) LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, in various contexts I use all the apertures that I have available, including using the much maligned minimum aperture (around f/45 full frame equivalent for most of my kit) most of the time for invertebrates.
Some really nice photos there, GardenersHelper. I especially like the branch and the Hebe, also the Tutsan berries although that one looks slightly dark to me.
 
Thanks. I think you are right about the Tutsan. It is very helpful to get specific feedback like that. Here is a version with just over half a stop of lightness added.


1417 20 2018_12_24 P1001357 G9+60 PF61f F2.8 1-80 ISO800 -0.7EV B9,3 LR7 1400h +0.6EV LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
I think they are great, it is not even something that is that attractive in real life (a compliment to you as obviously harder to photograph something not that attractive and make it look good).
I can't even get snowdrops look good, perhaps I should try early in the morning
 
I think they are great, it is not even something that is that attractive in real life (a compliment to you as obviously harder to photograph something not that attractive and make it look good).
I can't even get snowdrops look good, perhaps I should try early in the morning

Thanks David. Early morning isn't something I have done for years; getting lazy. I've been thinking recently that perhaps I should try again.
 
Back
Top