One of my main motivators is curiosity. When I shoot high resolution focus stacked macros, I often just want to see what's there. I want to see the minute structures and forms in all their detail. You bet I enlarge aspects of the image on my 27 inch monitor so I can see the details in their glory. When I print, I print large. While I do look at the whole image from the recommended distance, I also want to get up close and explore the intricacies of my subjects. (This forms the basis of my objection to dropping the resolution of large prints...I typically want to see the details up close...my vision, my decision)

In addition to the personal satisfaction they give me, my images are published in various plant journals. I used to do shows, but I havd gotten lazy.

Based upon my work, I opt for the highest resolution I can afford. I presently shoot Canon R5 and a Canon 5DSr.

Irwin

For me it's a horses for courses decision. What is most important to make the image work...the sharpest image at the plane of focus vs the sharpest image overall (greatest depth of field) vs an compromise value for both. If there is any doubt in your mind take the shot at different apertures, process them then compare. The investment in time is minimal and an extra digital shot costs nothing.

When processing the stopped down version, understanding the impact of diffraction is helpful. The diffracted image has slightly less contrast. So if you increase the contrast some and are a bit more aggressive on sharpening you may find that diffraction on non macro shots is not as big a bugaboo as thought.

Though I use focus stacking often in preference to stopping down, there are instances where it will not work, such as in seascapes due to the constant movement of the waves. Focus stacking does not work when there is substantial movement or lighting conditions change during the stack.

A previous poster mentioned that Bryan Peterson often shot at f22 or above. At a workshop given by Art Wolfe, he mentioned that he often shot stopped down fully when the perception of overall sharpness was more important than absolute sharpness at the point of focus. One of the beauties of the old photo magazines is that they would often publish the settings so you could see which images were fully stopped down. There are numerous top pros who stop down when the situation calls for it. There are also some who don't. The issue is how do you develop your personal vision.

To me, depth of field is a creative decision based on our individual photographic vision. One of the greatest virtues of digital is it allows us to experiment for free. The best advice is to try various types of shots at different apertures. It is not a one size fits all situation. After a short period of experimentation, you will get a feel for what solution best fulfills you vision.

About 15 years ago, I started to do focus stacked macro. At the time, it required a certain amount of manual practice to turn the focus ring in consistent small increments at 1:1 magnification. Hard experience taught me to count in between the shots to make sure that the camera settled after each focus adjustment. After a while, I became quite adept at turning the focus ring in consistent increments without moving the camera and had a very high success rate. But there were failures due to wind, changing light, and even the occasional tripod nudge.

Now my camera can automatically acquire the images for focus stack with a menu setting at a higher success rate. Since there is no shutter to open and shut, no mirror to raise and lower, and no one touching the camera in between shots, the time to acquire the images automatically is but a fraction of the time to acquire the images manually. For example, in a relatively thin stack of 30 images with a rest of 2 seconds between images to let the camera, it would take an extra minute. That may not sound like much but it increases the risk that the wind will cause movement or the lighting will change and wreck the stack.

Except for when I just feel like stacking manually (I find it fun, relaxing and challenging), the overwhelming majority of my stacks are shot using the camera's program. It bypasses the need to hone the manual skills I used to acquire my images for my stacks with a process that yields superior results.

This is just one of several in which the camera can bypass the skills that I worked hard to obtain. As I am able to get shots I would not have previously obtained and expand my vision, I have embraced the new technology, even if I occasionally manually focus stack for the sheer pleasure of doing so.

Irwin

There may be a less expensive alternative depending upon your existing equipment and intended use. If you have an Arca plate type system on you tripod, installing an Arca type plate perpendicular to the sensor is easier to install and lighter carry than a macro rail and more stable. This presumes that you did not need the side to side adjustment of a four way macro rail. With just several minutes practice it is easy to make fine adjustments by sliding the plate just a bit forward or backward. It also presumes that you will use the focus shift program for acquiring the images that comprise any focus stacks you do. This should also have the benefit of yielding a better set of images than would be obtained l using the rail.

At me at least, it is horses for course. AF does not work well for macro focus stacking (at least the first shot in the sequence, the rest is automatic except when I feel like manually stacking.) For general macro and most landscape, I also prefer manual focus. For people and wildlife I use the the AF with the eye recognition (a game changer) keyed to one of my back buttons with traditional AF keyed to a second back button for those situations where the camera can't discern the subject.

Irwin

There are extensive delays up and down the supply,manufacturing, and distribution chain. I recently read an article that Canon had designated a number of products as delayed. Although I pre-ordered my RF100mm macro, it took 4 or 5 months to receive from B&H. I am still awaiting the tripod ring I ordered contemporaneously.

Once I purchased my Canon RF 100-500, I found that I did not shoot my 70-200 f4. I found the 100-500mm to be a wonderfully versatile lens that performs well at 100, at 500, and at everything in between. It also is is a joy to use with the 1.4 RF teleconverter. At 500mm, the zoom was sharper than my older 500mm IS prime lens, which shocked me. But I did three tests and the results were clear each time. so I sold my 500mm prime. I have also loved shooting with the 800mm f/11. Because of the extreme focal length, the background blurs rather quickly. It is very sharp and exceptionally light....a joy to shoot even though it is a fixed aperture.

Irwin

If you get a good close-up filter with multiple elements, you will get good results. Raynox, Canon, and Nikon have made very good multi-element filters. I found the Raynox products to be very highly corrected. Extension tubes with proper electronic connections, like Kenco are also very good. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Many of the closeup lenses are best used for longer focal length lenses. The add a layer of glass which will add minor distortion to the image. There is no light loss, so you will not have to increase the exposure time (important if there is a chance of movement). Also with a closeup lens, you will tend to have a greater working distance than using extension to at comparable magnification, which makes it easier to light your subject and less likely to spook small critters. If you are using a fixed lens camera, a closeup lens is your only option.

Extension tubes tend to work best for middle focal length lenses. Although they do not have an extra layer of glass to add distortion, using a lens outside of its normal magnification can cause increased chromatic and spherical aberrations and vignetting. Also, you will lose light. To get to 1:1 magnification, you will lose approximately 2 stops of light. with tubes, you also tend to be closer to your subject for the same magnification.

There seem to be some very high quality, used 3rd party macro lenses from manufactures like Sigma and Tamron that are relatively cheap on Ebay. If I could find a used macro in good shape from a manufacturer such as Sigma or Tamron, then that is what I would choose provided I could afford it.

Irwin

I think the first image looks far better than the second. The background is smoother in the first and the dove looks over-sharpened in the second. I don't know if it was the purely the sharpening program or the was also a change in the contrast and micro-contrast controls, but the 2nd image is too contrasy and has a huge blown-out hotspot near the right edge. For the most part, it is rare for me to sharpen the entire image. In this case, I probably would have selectively sharpened the eye and left the rest of the images alone.

The objectionability of noise is one of those areas personal preferences. I respect Bob's opinion on noise and grain but vehemently disagree. When I was shooting black and white, except in those rare instances where it helped to create a particular mood, I disliked grain in my shots and was consistently trying to minimize it. Long before digital, grain was usually a major negative for me and had nothing to do with the naming of digital "noise". I write this only to point out that grain in black and white was not universally loved, and there some photographers that found grain to be as objectionable as they subsequently found noise. Like grain, the tolerance for noise is a personal judgement and vision.

Irwin

[quote=billnikon]And prints are no longer excepted as evidence in most trials because they can be manipulated.


Bill, as a retired trial lawyer, who has tried numerous cases involving photographic evidence, I can flatly state that this is not true. In both the state and federal Courts that I've practiced in, if you lay a predicate with testimony that the photo is a true and accurate representation, a print is admissible, absent other considerations. Those other considerations include relevance, a determination that the prejudicial impact outweighs the probative value, and a host of other similar objections. But if the print is authenticated as accurate, it is typically admitted.

Irwin

It really isn't a stick of TNT. The setting in raw, with rare exception, do not change the data that the camera records, it changes just how it is initially displayed. For example, my camera setting regarding contrast, saturation, and sharpening do not effect the raw data, just how it's initially displayed. So long as you have the same exposure you can totally change those initial setting in your raw processor without a penalty. In other words if I took two shoot with the same exposure settings (shutter speed, f/stop, ISO) and change the incamera settings on contrast, sharpening, light color, saturation etc, the raw capture would have the identical. Think of those setting as a change of clothes that do not permantntly change underneath

Focus stacking is a technique to control the zone of sharp sharp focus. The choice of what is kept in focus and what is blurred is an artistic choice of what the photographer seeks to focus keep sharp, what is let go soft, and what the transition zone will look like. Because you can keep everything in focus doesn't mean that every should be in focus. Focus stacking allows you to more precisely control your zone of focus.

The number of images in a focus stack is dependent on four factors: the magnification, the depth of the desired zone of sharp focus, the f/stop and the focal length of the lens (in situations of lower magnification). When at microscopic magnifications, stacks numbering in the hundreds of images are common. At 1:1 and f/5.6 my stacks typically range from the 30's to 100+. In close-ups ups, given the different focal lengths, f/stops, magnifications and depths of of the zone of focus the numbers can vary widely, but for me they typically fall between 8-40.

In practice, focus stacking offers several advantages over a single shot. 1. getting a deep zone of focus while minimizing diffraction, 2. sharpness deteriorates as you move closer and further from the point of focus when stopped down but with focus stacking a uniform sharpness can be obtained, 3. sometimes the depth of field is not deep enough when stopped down but that same are can in sharp focus in a stacked image, and 4. you can get a deep focus and beautifully blurred background in the same image. I'm sure that I would think of additional benefits with my second cup of coffee.

Where the subject is moving or the light is changing, focus stacking does not work well.

I also think that there have been a bit of a market shift towards away from face to face transactions during Covid. All of my Craigslist transactions involved personal contact, while few of my eBay transactions did.

Irwin

I have been using a 2TB SSD for my Lightroom catalog for 3 or 4 years. I bring it with me when I travel so I cn work on my photos. I also download my travel photos onto it for eventual transfer to my home machine. That was i can work on the images. When on the road, I synchronize to a second SSD. They have been more dependable, more durable, smaller, lighter and far better than the portable mechanical drives I had been using previously

Irwin.

[quote=CaptainPhoto]Why not shoot in "Focus Stacking" mode to get a greater DOF


Focus stacking does not work well with moving subjects