mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

The JPEG algorithm can produce very subtle "banding" in parts of the image where slight color/shade gradients are involved. I had an image of the desert section from the Huntington Gardens in Pasadena, CA that was used as a two page spread in the new Huntington Cultivating Curiosity reference book. The background light blue sky had these subtle JPEG gradients (you had to look close to see them), of course the publisher used the RAW image files without the banding for the book!!

Some time ago I noticed this banding appearing in some of the silicon chip images I do, this was in an area where the top level metal interconnects where relatively wide (>25 microns). This metal is aluminum covered with Polyamide, which produces a gold like hue. At first I thought the subtle banding was due to ever-so-slight exposure variations due to lighting variations, and tried everything I could think of to eliminate or improve the banding without much success. Finally I realized it was most likely due to the JPEG algorithm and not the lighting, this took some time to figure out. Anyway, when I used RAW files (converted to TIFF in LR) this banding was significantly reduced, although I still have a very slight "banding" sometimes due to the slight lighting variations between shots.


Cheers,

Mike

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

I haven't use HF, so can't comment on such. One of the features I do like about ZS, not sure if an equivalent is in HF, is the dual methods (P and Dmap) with the retouching brush. This has proved to be a very handy feature for trying to get the best final IQ before heading to PS for post processing.

I don't use LR with ZS as a "plug-in", as I just copy the the images directly from the card to the HD, then load these files into ZS and go from there. Having many 200~600 stacks, this may not be the best work flow I must admit, but has worked for me.

Best,

Mike

MACT Loc: Connecticut

I use Helicon Remote. It will automatically determine the number of shots. You set the start and end positions and it looks at your lens and settings to calculate.

EnEs63 Loc: Asia

mawyatt - Thanks for your info. I'll spend some reading up on ZS and HF and see which works for me. The Pmap and Dmap are big advantages of ZS apparently? They both give 30 day trials so that should be enough time to see which one suits me best.

MACT - Yes, I read that HR has the calculator to determine the number of shots. By getting the 'Pro' version of HF it includes Helicon Remote also which could operate my Stackshot. Seems like quite a bit of wiring though if using the Stackshot.
1 wre from Stackshot to camera, 1 wire from Stackshot to Mac (Helicon Remote) and a third wire from Helicon Remote to camera.
I'll have a read up today and see how they work out.
MACT, do you use Helicon Focus as well as HR? If so, what do you think of that?
ZS does have the dual modes (Pmap & Dmap), for varying subject matter/qualities. This seems to be a very highly rated feature?
Thanks all.

MACT Loc: Connecticut

I have been happy with Helicon Remote and Focus, combined with Stackshot 3X . Both companies are very responsive to queries and ideas. Remote and Focus offer multiple options, and the chance to alter any of the parameters. One feature in Remote that is essential for me is to designate where the files will be stored, since I run out of room on the camera's SD card very quickly.

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

For size of the steps using Stackshot, I use the chart published on the Zerene website. I have found that their numbers work. I have not had trouble with banding or soft spots in the image. The one thing I would suggest is that you open up your aperture a bit from the f/11 or f/13 indicated in your post. Most of the macro lenses are at their sharpest (depth of field considerations aside) at f/5.6 or thereabouts. The additional depth of field is not needed because the chart will give you the step size appropriate for that fstop.

MACT Loc: Connecticut

One of the reasons I like Helicon Remote is you see your image on the computer. This is not just larger but also highlights in-focus parts, making indentifying the start and end positions much easier. You can also adjust camera settings onscreen, preview for exposure, and automates creating new folders for each stack.

EnEs63 Loc: Asia

Hi Guys,

Thank you for your views...

I have been reading a lot about both - Zerene and Helicon. Online tutorials have been useful also.
They both seem to be very capable programs - exceeding PS.

MACT - It's good to know the CS is good with the Stackshot & HR companies.

cactuspic - Yes, the charts on ZS do well and I believe are used by many, even if they don't use ZS.
I note your comment about my aperture setting - thank you for that tip.
I will be trying some test stacks once I get my head around all this and will see how my lenses perform at various f/stops. I have learnt already that it is not best to exceed f/16...

Coming back to you again MACT - HR's feature of focusing whilst viewing on screen seems to be a great advantage. I am not sure if ZS offers the same but it is on my list to be investigated. This saves a lot of moving about from Mac to camera and back to Mac... that gives me back-ache after a while! :)

I am at the stage of trying to decide which program to go for - ZS or HR.

From where I am right now I see the following...

Helicon Focus - I prefer the interface of HS over ZS.
The latter I found 'clunky' and was surprised to see parts of it in quite low-res... A bit like working with s/w from the 80's!?
It's not a major issue but something I noticed very quickly.

The only disadvantage with HF I read is that of quality - albeit, apparently, only noticeable at higher magnifications, according to reports written by Rik. (This guy is the author of ZS and knows his stuff!).
I am not sure if I need to worry about this too much though, as I won't be shooting at the magnifications he talks about, not yet at least!
HF appears to be streaks ahead of PS and I have been happy with that in the past...
HF would probably serve me very well for quite a while until I start venturing into x5 - x10 etc!
It's integration with Stackshot, onboard step calculator, remote onscreen focusing all appeal to me...

Zerene Stacker - My biggest hang-up with ZS is that it doesn't accept RAW.
Over time I have become just a Raw shooter and changing now seems to mean a new workflow to learn! Lazy eh? :o!
I appreciate I can shoot Tiff and Jpeg but Tiff's are big files and slow my Mac down considerably. Jpeg is just limiting.
Maybe Tiff's are a more lucrative option when my beloved 6 year old Mac gets upgraded to something with more RAM?

I note that ZS doesn't have the step calculator which, whilst perhaps a minor issue, just limits my preference somewhat?

Oh decisions, decisions!