fantom wrote:
I have done very, very little photo stacking so this may be a dumb question. I would think that with 930 images the body hornet's body would be in better focus. Would the 930 images spread over a longer distance have been of any benefit?
Also, Photoshop has a simple fix for removing anything (or multiple things) that move or change position in a series of images. Maybe that would be of use to you. To try it go to File>Scripts>Statistics and then just fill in the blanks. I'm not sure if that would have solved your problem but its worth a try.
I have done very, very little photo stacking so th... (
show quote)
Alan, diffraction plays a big part in the clarity and sharpness of the image. Focus stacking is a bit different than taking a single macro shot in the field and especially when seeking higher magnification.
I've learned that by keeping the f/stop to the most open position works best and perhaps up to the 2nd stop beyond it. Extending the lens with tubes, helicoid or bellows results in a loss of light on the sensor and cranking the f/stop to f/11 or more will most often result is softness.
I often shoot with microscope objectives as the camera lens and there is no aperture adjustment so they shoot "wide open" and produce razor sharp images. I do get frustrated that I have yet to find a way to reduce the size of the master image without impacting the high resolution which drives me crazier than I already am.
Try a session with a shorter stack, just as an experiment and yes only part of it will be in focus but this is just a test, with the aperture set full open and then at two stops closed. Example; f/2.8 and then about f/5.6. I believe you will notice a difference.
AlanTN
Loc: Rogersville, Tennessee
I'll look into it...thanks!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.