One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal for software.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow > depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, > each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest > areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? > I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal > points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging > the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal > for software.
Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't tried it out yet.
wilt wrote: > Cynicor wrote: >> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: >>> One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow >>> depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, >>> each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest >>> areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? >>> I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal >>> points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging >>> the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal >>> for software. >> Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't >> tried it out yet.
> Taking a whole series of photos, all focused at a different plane in > space, and the photocompositing them with automated software...that is > what this program does, and it is NOT the same as one photo taken and > processed to have deep DOF, which is what the OP wants to do.
Cynicor wrote: > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>> One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow >> depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, >> each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest >> areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? >> I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal >> points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging >> the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal >> for software.
> Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't > tried it out yet.
<jt__rup__i_n@speak__easy.net> wrote: >Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: >> One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow >> depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, >> each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest >> areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? >> I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal >> points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging >> the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal >> for software.
>Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't >tried it out yet.
I just d/loaded this, and I'm looking forward to trying it out. Sounds like a very interesting piece of software. Thanks! -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a"
> One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow > depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, > each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest > areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? > I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal > points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging > the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal > for software.
> Roger
Have you given Registax a try, it is used in astronomical photography to "stack" lots of images. It may not be what you want of course.
Pete D wrote: > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote in > message news:44F0620E.80906@qwest.net...
>>One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow >>depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, >>each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest >>areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? >>I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal >>points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging >>the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal >>for software.
>>Roger
> Have you given Registax a try, it is used in astronomical photography to > "stack" lots of images. It may not be what you want of course.
I have registax and ImagesPlus. While they will both do the registration, but then one needs to select which portion of an image is sharpest and produce an image with only the sharpest single parts of each image. I think registax and imagesplus will average the stack to some degree, depending on the weights of the individual images (I use imagesplus for astrophotos of the planets where you stack hundreds of frames). I guess they should be tried to see what they actually do because I might be wrong.
>Cynicor wrote: >> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: >> > One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow >> > depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, >> > each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest >> > areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? >> > I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal >> > points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging >> > the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal >> > for software.
>> Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't >> tried it out yet.
>Taking a whole series of photos, all focused at a different plane in >space, and the photocompositing them with automated software...that is >what this program does, and it is NOT the same as one photo taken and >processed to have deep DOF, which is what the OP wants to do.
>I have seen claim about software to do what the OP wants to do, but I >have no idea if it is any more than yet another claim...the >photographic version of Snake Oil
A friend of mine, a very accomplished photomicrographer, started using helicon focus a few months ago. He has achieved some astonishing results, and reckons it is one of the most significant "happenings" in PM in his career. It does require a fairly fast computer, and it does have a tendency to produce artefacts on some types of image; IIRC, objects with hard edges have sometimes produced multiple facets.
I was certainly well impressed enough that I plan to get hold of a copy as soon as I update my computer.
I cannot report specifically about its performance in photomacrography, as opposed to photomicrography, but I cannot see any reason in principle why it should not work there as well. If you search around the web I'm sure you will find some discussion by experienced users which may enlighten you more than my second-hand knowledge can.
Cynicor wrote: > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: > > One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow > > depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, > > each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest > > areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? > > I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal > > points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging > > the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal > > for software.
> Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't > tried it out yet.
Wow, super neat program thanks for the link. This is a test shot I did of a 1/4 20 bolt, no way to get that kind of DOF and resolution at the same time in a single shot. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65830450/original
I find that it works best when using a lot of images with small shift of the focal point, the above shot was made from 14 images, it took about 5 mintues to make the output image.
>>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>>One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow >>>depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, >>>each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest >>>areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? >>>I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal >>>points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging >>>the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal >>>for software.
>>Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't >>tried it out yet.
> Wow, super neat program thanks for the link. > This is a test shot I did of a 1/4 20 bolt, no way to get that kind of > DOF and > resolution at the same time in a single shot. > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65830450/original
> I find that it works best when using a lot of images with small shift > of the focal point, > the above shot was made from 14 images, it took about 5 mintues to make > the output > image.
> Scott
Scott, Pretty neat. What f/stop and magnification did you use?
> >>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> >>>One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow > >>>depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, > >>>each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest > >>>areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? > >>>I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal > >>>points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging > >>>the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal > >>>for software.
> >>Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't > >>tried it out yet.
> > Wow, super neat program thanks for the link. > > This is a test shot I did of a 1/4 20 bolt, no way to get that kind of > > DOF and > > resolution at the same time in a single shot. > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65830450/original
> > I find that it works best when using a lot of images with small shift > > of the focal point, > > the above shot was made from 14 images, it took about 5 mintues to make > > the output > > image.
> > Scott
> Scott, > Pretty neat. What f/stop and magnification did you use?
Magnification was right around 0.5 (I used the 70-300 sigma lens) shot at f/11. This program might just push me into getting a real macro lens.
Much past f/11 and images from the 350D (or 20D) start to get some what soft.
> >>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> >>>One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow > >>>depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, > >>>each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest > >>>areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? > >>>I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal > >>>points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging > >>>the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal > >>>for software.
> >>Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't > >>tried it out yet.
> > Wow, super neat program thanks for the link. > > This is a test shot I did of a 1/4 20 bolt, no way to get that kind of > > DOF and > > resolution at the same time in a single shot. > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65830450/original
> > I find that it works best when using a lot of images with small shift > > of the focal point, > > the above shot was made from 14 images, it took about 5 mintues to make > > the output > > image.
> > Scott
> Scott, > Pretty neat. What f/stop and magnification did you use?
> Roger
Here is another one, also at f/11 and Mag of about 0.5x http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65838415/large Hit original at the bottom of the photo to get a much higher res view. This was put together with 24 images. Workflow was raw -> 16/color tiffs and then ran it through Helicon with the output as a 16 bit / color PSD.
It would appear that it can directly use raw files so I might give that a go just to see how that works.
Scott W wrote: > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: >> Scott W wrote:
>>> Cynicor wrote:
>>>> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>>>> One of the big issues with macro photography is the narrow >>>>> depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, >>>>> each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest >>>>> areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field? >>>>> I've been taking some macro shots where I get several focal >>>>> points with different parts of the subject in focus, then merging >>>>> the images in photoshop. It is tedious and seems ideal >>>>> for software. >>>> Yes! I just read about this a couple of days ago. Downloaded it, haven't >>>> tried it out yet.
>>> Wow, super neat program thanks for the link. >>> This is a test shot I did of a 1/4 20 bolt, no way to get that kind of >>> DOF and >>> resolution at the same time in a single shot. >>> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65830450/original
>>> I find that it works best when using a lot of images with small shift >>> of the focal point, >>> the above shot was made from 14 images, it took about 5 mintues to make >>> the output >>> image.
>>> Scott
>> Scott, >> Pretty neat. What f/stop and magnification did you use?
> Magnification was right around 0.5 (I used the 70-300 sigma lens) shot > at f/11. > This program might just push me into getting a real macro lens.
Well, looks like I just made the most expensive post in history...
> >> Pretty neat. What f/stop and magnification did you use?
> > Magnification was right around 0.5 (I used the 70-300 sigma lens) shot > > at f/11. > > This program might just push me into getting a real macro lens.
> Well, looks like I just made the most expensive post in history...
Could be, but now the question is which macro lens. Canon has a great one that goes from 1 to 5x but it does not focus, you have to move the camera, this would not be so good for this application.
It looks like a fair macro lens is going to set me back about $450 and a good one closer to $1200.
Scott W wrote: > Cynicor wrote: > > >> Pretty neat. What f/stop and magnification did you use?
>>>Magnification was right around 0.5 (I used the 70-300 sigma lens) shot >>>at f/11. >>>This program might just push me into getting a real macro lens.
>>Well, looks like I just made the most expensive post in history...
> Could be, but now the question is which macro lens. Canon has a great > one that goes from 1 to 5x but it does not focus, you have to move the > camera, this would not be so good for this application.
> It looks like a fair macro lens is going to set me back about $450 and > a good one closer to $1200.
Scott, For low magnification macro work, like 0.5x, a good lens is the 300 f/4 L IS. For examples, see: http://www.greglasley.net go to the dragonfly section. I met Greg last year and have seen 13x19 inch prints of the dragonflies--truly stunning. Then you also have a 300 for other distance work.
For 1:1 photography, a really great lens is the 180 mm f/3.5 L macro. I have it and it is one of the sharpest lenses in my collection. If you do bugs and need working distance, the 180 to 300 mm lenses are nice.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: >
> Scott, > For low magnification macro work, like 0.5x, a good lens is the > 300 f/4 L IS. For examples, see: > http://www.greglasley.net > go to the dragonfly section. I met Greg last year and have > seen 13x19 inch prints of the dragonflies--truly stunning. > Then you also have a 300 for other distance work.
> For 1:1 photography, a really great lens is the 180 mm f/3.5 L > macro. I have it and it is one of the sharpest lenses > in my collection. If you do bugs and need working > distance, the 180 to 300 mm lenses are nice.
The 180 is the one that caught my eye, fantastic looking MTF curves, but the price is a bit high.
A microscope with a camera mount might be another way to go.
Scott W wrote: > Cynicor wrote: > > >> Pretty neat. What f/stop and magnification did you use? >>> Magnification was right around 0.5 (I used the 70-300 sigma lens) shot >>> at f/11. >>> This program might just push me into getting a real macro lens.
>> Well, looks like I just made the most expensive post in history...
> Could be, but now the question is which macro lens. Canon has a great > one that goes from 1 to 5x but it does not focus, you have to move the > camera, this would not be so good for this application.
> It looks like a fair macro lens is going to set me back about $450 and > a good one closer to $1200.
Scott W wrote: > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>Scott, >>For low magnification macro work, like 0.5x, a good lens is the >>300 f/4 L IS. For examples, see: >> http://www.greglasley.net >>go to the dragonfly section. I met Greg last year and have >>seen 13x19 inch prints of the dragonflies--truly stunning. >>Then you also have a 300 for other distance work.
>>For 1:1 photography, a really great lens is the 180 mm f/3.5 L >>macro. I have it and it is one of the sharpest lenses >>in my collection. If you do bugs and need working >>distance, the 180 to 300 mm lenses are nice.
> The 180 is the one that caught my eye, fantastic looking MTF curves, > but the price is a bit high.
Yeah, but over the years, I've learned to buy the quality first so you don't have to buy it later. ;-)
It is a big lens though, and you have to consider if you want to lug it around.
|
