After all, it deals with what's happening on the image side of the lens, not the lens itself. What's significant about this is that image space has nothing to do with the lens itself. This diagram helps illustrate the importance of "image space." As Kasson says, " If we concern ourselves with what happens on the sensor, or image side of the lens, we talk about image space and depth of focus." Focus bracketing systems like Nikon's and Fuji's work in image space. Dedicated equipment such as focusing rails can help, but that adds another layer of complexity – and cost. It is challenging to adjust focus the optimal amount over and over.
When working with high-magnification lenses up close, the depth of field is razor-thin. On the other hand, the process is tedious at best and extremely difficult at worst. Not only does focus stacking extend the depth of field of images, but the technique also allows photographers to use their lenses at optimal apertures rather than stopping way down to increase the depth of field. There's no doubt that focus stacking has helped photographers capture brilliant images. For modern cameras with focus bracketing systems, how do they work, and are they as good as doing the focus bracketing yourself? Over at Lensrentals, photographer and all-around digital photography expert Jim Kasson answers these questions and more. Some cameras can even combine and stack images in-camera. Recently, cameras have begun incorporating focus bracketing modes to capture the requisite images for a focus stack automatically.
However, this approach has required photographers to adjust focus and capture consecutive shots manually. For years, photographers have used specialized software, like Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker. My experience is that they will hold their breath for a period of time (assuming they are calm) and then occasionally take a big breath of air.Focus stacking, combining images shot at different focus distances to create a composite image with greater depth of field, isn't new. The vast majority of my photography is of pit vipers. Assuming the light did not change drastically and the frog did not change position from one sequence to the next, would this be a recommended strategy?Ģ.
Suppose I swapped out all the exhale shots from the sequence for an inhale shot from one of the other sequences, in an attempt to have a stack of all inhale shots. For each focus point, there’s a reasonable chance that I’ll have at least one photo where the the frog is inhaling. Suppose I run a sequence of focus shifts on the frog, then I do it again, one or more times. You get straight to the point, include all the necessary information, and somehow manage to answer nearly all the questions I had coming into each video.ġ. Great workshop, Steve! You have a gift for teaching. So, are these pre-adjustments even necessary then? To me it seems like you are doing the same steps twice at the additional costs of being able to edit a stacked Helicon raw file (which presumably is more powerful than editing an already processed TIFF) !! ?
ZERENE STACKER VS. HELICON FOCUS MANUAL
You say they are minimal, but in the field you are also shooting manual to make sure lightning doesn’t drastically change. I guess I am confused quite a bit by the necessity for the pre-processing adjustments. Or is it even necessary to first make these adjustments? If Helicon uses raws and also preserves the output file as raw, would it not be more powerful to do these adjustments on the final stacked raw file (and potentially save an editing step)? But would it make sense to export as DNGs instead of TIFFs and then use Helicon, which can deal with raw files? I guess, if you always are adjusting the files in lightroom first, using the raw files is kind of obsolete, because these are necessarily just that “raw”. I am tempted to go with Helicon, because of that. I know that Zerene Stacker does not accept raw files, but Helicon does. Is there a reason, why you are always exporting as TIFFs ?
0 kommentar(er)
