Built-In Focus Stacking? (Page 4): I'm shooting it down because the concept is flawed. There's no way for the camera to know what the important focal points are in an image, plus since...

TheDman Loc: USA

Morning Star wrote:

Well, it's like everything else: Different strokes for different folks!
I would not have a use for focus stacking or focus bracketing either, at least not at the moment, but that's no reason to shoot it down because there are others who likely will use it and even come to depend on it.

I'm shooting it down because the concept is flawed. There's no way for the camera to know what the important focal points are in an image, plus since DOF increases as the focal point moves away it would need to increase focal length exponentially which I doubt it does, etc. And none of that even accounts for the fact that you might want to change your shutter speed on certain shots.

TheDman Loc: USA

Apaflo wrote:

The exposure bracketing was necessary, the focus stacking was just
convenient. There was no need to bracket focus!

At f/22, with a 20mm lens on a full frame camera the DOF is from 1 foot to infinity if the lens is focused at 2.1 feet.

LOL! No, it is not. It falls completely apart when printed large, not to mention that shooting at f/22 kills sharpness anyway. This type of focus bracketing is done by all of the major landscape shooters today, and it's not because none of them know how much DOF f/22 can give them.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

TheDman wrote:

LOL! No, it is not. It falls completely apart when printed large, not to mention that shooting at f/22 kills sharpness anyway. This type of focus bracketing is done by all of the major landscape shooters today, and it's not because none of them know how much DOF f/22 can give them.

It is still convenience not necessity. Which is fine!

TheDman Loc: USA

Apaflo wrote:

It is still convenience not necessity. Which is fine!

Heck, shooting photos in the first place is not a necessity. What's your point? And how exactly is it a convenience? It's actually more work!

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

TheDman wrote:

I'm shooting it down because the concept is flawed. There's no way for the camera to know what the important focal points are in an image, plus since DOF increases as the focal point moves away it would need to increase focal length exponentially which I doubt it does, etc. And none of that even accounts for the fact that you might want to change your shutter speed on certain shots.

If focal points can be specified with an instrument such as the CamRanger, the feature can be built into a camera. And any changes in focal length due to moving the focal point a fraction of a millimeter at a time is negligible - those who employ focus stacking in close up work do it all the time.
Obviously, this has no relevance in landscape work, such as your interesting example.

Picdude Loc: Ohio

Apaflo wrote:

It is still convenience not necessity. Which is fine!

Actually, depending on the objective the photographer is trying to achieve, focus stacking IS a necessity.

In the following article, Steve Mackay describes how he was unable to depict the actual density of Bluebells in the foreground of his image as compared to the background without the aid of Focus Stacking:

http://www.stevemackayphotography.com/section363141_130929.html

The links below describe how overcome diffraction at f/22 and use focus stacking to increase DOF at f/8 to f/11 (where many lenses are happier operating):

http://digital-photography-school.com/getting-landscapes-sharp-focus-stacking/

http://www.fototripper.com/focus-stacking-in-photoshop-vs-f22-for-landscapes/

http://mibreit-photo.com/blog/2014/09/an-introduction-to-focus-stacking/

The next link describes using focus stacking to help increase DOF using a telephoto lens:

http://northcoastphotographer.net/files/0aac8f3adc6fcea6e7ba4245d9e4daea-85.html

And finally, an in-depth description of using focus stacking for landscape photography and calculating focal distances:

http://www.georgedouvos.com/douvos/Focus_Stacking_in_Landscape_and_Architectural_Photography.html

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Picdude wrote:

Actually, depending on the objective the photographer is trying to achieve, focus stacking IS a necessity.

You've taken my statement totally out of context. It was targetted at the one specific circumstance being described, where the DOF of any one of the shots in the stack (made for exposure stacking) was greater than needed for the entire image. In that one single case there was no necessity for focus stacking.

In no way, and quite clearly so, was that statement meant to generally say that focus stacking is not useful or not necessary in other circumstances. Didn't I describe focus stacks that require hundreds of exposures because each image has a DOF only slightly larger than the increment between images!

Leitz Loc: Solms

Apaflo wrote:

It is still convenience not necessity. Which is fine!

I would not have considered focus stacking for that shot, either. Even at f/11, the 21mm Super-Angulon has a depth of field from 29 inches (73cm) to infinity when focused at 1.5m. Besides, particularly in a landscape, anything at infinity would be so small there's not much point in trying to show pin-sharp detail there, so one could focus a bit closer yet.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Leitz wrote:

I would not have considered focus stacking for that shot, either. Even at f/11, the 21mm Super-Angulon has a depth of field from 29 inches (73cm) to infinity when focused at 1.5m. Besides, particularly in a landscape, anything at infinity would be so small there's not much point in trying to show pin-sharp detail there, so one could focus a bit closer yet.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Exactly! There was nothing out of focus to begin with.

TheDman Loc: USA

Leitz wrote:

I would not have considered focus stacking for that shot, either.

Then you wouldn't have gotten everything in razor-sharp focus. Try it sometime and post the results here.

TheDman Loc: USA

Apaflo wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Exactly! There was nothing out of focus to begin with.

Yeah, nothing. :roll:

(Download)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

TheDman wrote:

Yeah, nothing. :roll:

Show us the exposure made properly, focused at the hyperfocal distance rather than half way to the horizon. And stopped down to f/22. (Yes there will be diffraction at f/22, but careful sharpening will remove it too.)

Or better yet, focused on that flower, which is most certainly farther away from the camera than even the hyperfocal distance! Which is to say that it would be as sharp as any of the images in the stack.

What was actually done because it was convenient due to the fact that a stack was being made with bracketed exposures is simply no proof that it wasn't just for convenience and could not have been accomplished quicker and easier otherwise, absent the stack.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

FAQ: What is Focus-Stacking and What is Involved?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-155113-1.html

Focus Stacking in Macro-Photography
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5717972844/focus-stacking-in-macro-photography

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Nikonian72 wrote:

FAQ: What is Focus-Stacking and What is Involved?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-155113-1.html

Focus Stacking in Macro-Photography
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5717972844/focus-stacking-in-macro-photography

Thanks, Nikonian, some good information there. What's your opinion of having the focusing done automatically by the camera, useful or baloney?

NormanHarley Loc: Colorado

Crwiwy wrote:

CombineZP is a free program which works well and it has some half dozen different modes for creating the image.

Thank you for this program suggestion, I just downloaded it, can't wait to try it out! :lol: