Four shot stack of a good looking and colorful caterpillar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

I'm lost here Brian and agree with what Dan has said.

With your question you need to clearly clarify if you are referring to using the camera in manual or AF focusing mode.

I also suspect there is some ambiguity to the terms you are using, it is not clear if your reference to 'focus' means the focal plane (e.g. the subject to sensor distance changing) or the 'apparent' sharpness of an area?

---

Dan, Grahame, I fear i must go and get a little more tech savvy. I am unable to properly explain because I don't properly understand.

I will continue to stack because it does 'nice stuff' (not exactly tech talk) to my photos. I'll get back to this when I have done some more learning. Thanks to one and all for the help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

Perhaps more time reading posts with an aim to constructive participation and less haste in trying to be clever would save such mistakes.

---

And an easy way to answer him was to say he just mixed the 2 images. It didn't change the reason of his post.

Brian is just playing with his new equipment, shooting on the tripod with his remote control. And expanded that playing to the stacking software. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't give give it a dimension it doesn't have.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

And an easy way to answer him was to say he just mixed the 2 images. It didn't change the reason of his post.

---

I'll respond to posts directed to me as I feel fitting George.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

Brian is just playing with his new equipment, shooting on the tripod with his remote control. And expanded that playing to the stacking software.

---

I'm aware of that and aware that Brian has been using the Fiji stacking program well before his new gear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

Just don't give give it a dimension it doesn't have.

---

And what dimension is that George?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

Dan, Grahame, I fear i must go and get a little more tech savvy. I am unable to properly explain because I don't properly understand.

I will continue to stack because it does 'nice stuff' (not exactly tech talk) to my photos. I'll get back to this when I have done some more learning. Thanks to one and all for the help.

---

Brian,

If I may, I think you are making this harder than it needs to be. You really don't need to deal with the technical stuff. If your goal is to use stacking to increase depth of field in macro work, then the bottom line is very simple: you need to take several photos with different planes of focus. You need enough of them so that across all of the photos, the entire range you want in focus is in focus in at least one of them. And you need to change the focus yourself. Ignore lighting for this purpose; lighting has nothing to do with it, and it will not create the differences in focus that you need. You can change the focus on numerous ways, but you almost never can do it with autofocus. Generally, you do it by changing the focus using the lens barrel, with the camera set to manual focus, or by moving the camera.

These changes of focus will generally be large enough that they will be readily apparent when you look at the images on the computer. You won't have people arguing about whether the focal plane is the same or not.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

Actually John I stack in Fiji and I have no idea of the engine they use

---

I have not used Fiji, but I know it offers several things that you can do with a stack. I was asking if you actually used the focus-stacking procedure or one of the other options.

Your offerings do encourge me to try out Fuji.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

I don't see any difference. Open a picture by clicking on it and go through the images with the cursor, they're all the same.

George

---

Such is Forum life, eh, Brian?

George has a point and FastStone Viewer seems to agree (only slight differences in the histograms):

http://kronometric.org/phot/post/CiC/temp/compCats.jpg

This reminds me of the 'Spot the difference' comps in the papers:D

What we have also got in the images apart from lighting/exposure difference is some very obvious movement, the most significant the brown leaf at sampler point 1.

There is also other movement that may be subject or camera. Movement at a 3.2 sec exposure, blur, apparent sharpness?


No 1
http://i65.tinypic.com/211ji9i.jpg

No 2
http://i67.tinypic.com/vfwpwh.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnRostron

I have not used Fiji, but I know it offers several things that you can do with a stack. I was asking if you actually used the focus-stacking procedure or one of the other options.

Your offerings do encourge me to try out Fuji.

John

---

Fiji was developed for and by academics. It is my goto stacker. I also dabble with their 3D and their filters which includes a rather nice unsharpen mask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

Brian,

If I may, I think you are making this harder than it needs to be. You really don't need to deal with the technical stuff. If your goal is to use stacking to increase depth of field in macro work, then the bottom line is very simple: you need to take several photos with different planes of focus. You need enough of them so that across all of the photos, the entire range you want in focus is in focus in at least one of them. And you need to change the focus yourself. Ignore lighting for this purpose; lighting has nothing to do with it, and it will not create the differences in focus that you need. You can change the focus on numerous ways, but you almost never can do it with autofocus. Generally, you do it by changing the focus using the lens barrel, with the camera set to manual focus, or by moving the camera.

These changes of focus will generally be large enough that they will be readily apparent when you look at the images on the computer. You won't have people arguing about whether the focal plane is the same or not.

Dan

---

My goal is shoot pictures that people will enjoy. I had no intention of starting an argument. I hope you're right about not needing the tech stuff but I fear I may have gone as far as raw talent and good looks will take me:) If I'm right tech stuff is needed. For good or for bad CiC is my photo club and it is here that I come for techy talk.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

This reminds me of the 'Spot the difference' comps in the papers:D

What we have also got in the images apart from lighting/exposure difference is some very obvious movement, the most significant the brown leaf at sampler point 1.

There is also other movement that may be subject or camera. Movement at a 3.2 sec exposure, blur, apparent sharpness?


No 1
http://i65.tinypic.com/211ji9i.jpg

No 2
http://i67.tinypic.com/vfwpwh.jpg

---

Apparently my tech reasoning is not as good as my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Such is Forum life, eh, Brian?

George has a point and FastStone Viewer seems to agree (only slight differences in the histograms):

http://kronometric.org/phot/post/CiC/temp/compCats.jpg

---

Indeed it is but i do learn from this back and forth. Now if I may? I know that the differences are slight. But in my mind 'slight' is a synonym for 'subtle' and subtle is what I'm trying to learn. Time and time again the help that capture 1 puts out stresses that enough subtle differences done properly will make a major difference in the finished product.

I realize that I have a long way to go to get subtle with my subtlety but I'll eventually get there:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

Indeed it is but i do learn from this back and forth. Now if I may? I know that the differences are slight. But in my mind 'slight' is a synonym for 'subtle' and subtle is what I'm trying to learn. Time and time again the help that capture 1 puts out stresses that enough subtle differences done properly will make a major difference in the finished product.

I realize that I have a long way to go to get subtle with my subtlety but I'll eventually get there:)

---

Thanks for the clarification, Brian. Perhaps the only remaining issue is what the Fiji stacker does to your image which I don't know and can only offer that a) very subtle movements might show up as blur and b) subtle variations in lighting would get averaged out and c) I'm not sure about focal variations unless Fiji picks the best from each "layer" like others of it's ilk.

Out of interest, I ran the four through TuFuse focus stacking and at least the caterpillar appears not have moved, eh? :)

Do pardon my over-zealous sharpening - no subtlety there at all . . .

http://kronometric.org/phot/post/CiC...aterpillar.jpg

Quote:

---

I had no intention of starting an argument.

---

Nor I. I just thought that you had a misconception that would hold you back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Thanks for the clarification, Brian. Perhaps the only remaining issue is what the Fiji stacker does to your image which I don't know and can only offer that a) very subtle movements might show up as blur and b) subtle variations in lighting would get averaged out and c) I'm not sure about focal variations unless Fiji picks the best from each "layer" like others of it's ilk.

Out of interest, I ran the four through TuFuse focus stacking and at least the caterpillar appears not have moved, eh? :)

Do pardon my over-zealous sharpening - no subtlety there at all . . .

http://kronometric.org/phot/post/CiC...aterpillar.jpg

---

Surprisingly the life with the most legs does the least movement. You're pardoned.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

Surprisingly the life with the most legs does the least movement. You're pardoned.:)

---

Yeah, one can see strange things☺
You could make the result of the stacking also out of each individual image. Most part of what you think to be the result is editing done either by you or the used software. The stacking it self didn't add anything to it.
I see it as a discovering journey, keep going on.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

Yeah, one can see strange things☺
You could make the result of the stacking also out of each individual image. Most part of what you think to be the result is editing done either by you or the used software. The stacking it self didn't add anything to it.
I see it as a discovering journey, keep going on.

George

---

Absolutely a journey of discovery