Stumptowner wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Stumptowner wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
I have been trying all day to get an experiment done with no luck at all ....
I am trying to do some focus stacking and no matter what I do I can't seem to get the focus to change to different parts of the scene.
I can either get the front in focus or the whole thing in focus (which is normally what I would want right LOL)
I want to get the flower and leaves in one part then the spiky things in another part and the evergreen in another part ....
I guess I'm not grasping the concept.
I have the camera on aperture priority because it's the f/stop that is supposed to change
I have taken about a hundred photos of this today with the camera on every manual setting available including completely manual and still no luck
Can somebody explain to me how to go about this ?
I have been trying all day to get an experiment do... (
show quote)
The aperture is not supposed to change. The only thing that should change is the focal point. Ideally this is accomplished for macro shots is by moving the camera closer with each shot. This is best done using a rail. The idea is that this plane of focus is overlapped. Of course if you are using this technique for a landscape the overlap will have to occur by changing the focal point using the lens. In either case, you should leave some space around the subject for cropping.
quote=photogrl57 I have been trying all day to ge... (
show quote)
I don't have a macro lens so that was not an option for me ... the camera is supposed to remain completely still for this technique ... every book I read and every tutorial I checked out said the same thing only the f/stop changes ... which is why I was so confused as to how the heck to get it accomplished..... However we have quite a few photographic genius' among us ... and I was able to accomplish my task and the experiment was a complete success. Using my existing equipment. :) HooRah !!
quote=Stumptowner quote=photogrl57 I have been t... (
show quote)
Agree to disagree. I've also read a lot on focus stacking and they generally recommend a constant f 8 aperture ( this is the "sweet spot" for most lenses.) Check it out on wikipedia, or google helicon focus, or Zerene Stacker.
quote=photogrl57 quote=Stumptowner quote=photog... (
show quote)
Right .... I am agreeing with you LOL ... I finally figured it out .... it's all about focal length ... that's what I was doing wrong ..... I have 3 ebooks on it ... but I wasn't getting it .... it's all good now .... Thank you very much for your input though I really appreciate it :)
HOHIMER wrote:
______________________________________________
Focus stacking is a series of images made at different depth points in the image. In order to do this properly you need a focusing rail that can move your camera forward at set intervals. The correct way to do this is not to change the focusing of the lens, you have to literally move the camera forward slowly and make exposures as the camera is moved. Changing the focusing of the lens changes the perspective of the subject and the end result is not sharp. This has to be done on a focusing rail. There are videos on youtube that explain the process. Look for focus stacking on a focusing rail. You dont change the focusing of the camera, you have to move the entire camera forward bit by bit until you cover the depth of the item you want to photograph keeping the focusing of the camera untouched. Here is a video on the correct way to do focus stacking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf7ABBqd0bw&feature=related One last thing, you can not have your camera set to auto focusing it must be in the manual setting. This is the only way to do focus stacking properly. I would recommend the Novoflex castel-l focusing rail, you can find these used on ebay for a good price. They are a little expensive but its a great rail. The stacking is done in photo merge in photoshop and there are videos about this also.
______________________________________________ br ... (
show quote)
_________________________________________________
Silver.
How do you think the focusing rail might work on the 9 foot length proposed above?[/quote]
Focus stacking is used most for macro type imaging. You could do larger items but it may cause a problem with the focusing points.
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes it is stacking for depth of field ... and is all done post processing ... well once you actually succeed in getting the shots lol
Stacking takes several photos each with their own section in focus and combines them to bring the whole scene into sharp focus ... I know I can do it in one shot but what is the challenge in that LOL
Is this for an assignment from a photo school or are you just into self-inflicting personal pain?
How about shoot with the front layer in focus, take some snippers to the front layer so it's gone, then shoot the second layer in focus, take some snippers to it so it's gone, and so on and so on. Destructive, yes, but the potential of a stereo-ish effect like the old ViewMaster disks might be wild.
marcomarks wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes it is stacking for depth of field ... and is all done post processing ... well once you actually succeed in getting the shots lol
Stacking takes several photos each with their own section in focus and combines them to bring the whole scene into sharp focus ... I know I can do it in one shot but what is the challenge in that LOL
Is this for an assignment from a photo school or are you just into self-inflicting personal pain?
How about shoot with the front layer in focus, take some snippers to the front layer so it's gone, then shoot the second layer in focus, take some snippers to it so it's gone, and so on and so on. Destructive, yes, but the potential of a stereo-ish effect like the old ViewMaster disks might be wild.
quote=photogrl57 Yes it is stacking for depth of ... (
show quote)
Not for school it was an experiment.
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do .. thank you for the link going there now to check it out :)
I am really confused now. As I understood it, you were trying to have 3 or 4 "different" planes of focus be sharp (in focus) without regard for the multiple planes in between them being in focus. Then just now its seems that you want the whole picture in focus. I thought that is what you already had. All or just one plane of focus. Help me understand, please.
Grumpy D Stevens wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do .. thank you for the link going there now to check it out :)
I am really confused now. As I understood it, you were trying to have 3 or 4 "different" planes of focus be sharp (in focus) without regard for the multiple planes in between them being in focus. Then just now its seems that you want the whole picture in focus. I thought that is what you already had. All or just one plane of focus. Help me understand, please.
quote=photogrl57 quote=RMM If I understand what ... (
show quote)
It was an experiment in photo stacking .... here is the link
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-21016-1.html
photogrl57 wrote:
Grumpy D Stevens wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do .. thank you for the link going there now to check it out :)
I am really confused now. As I understood it, you were trying to have 3 or 4 "different" planes of focus be sharp (in focus) without regard for the multiple planes in between them being in focus. Then just now its seems that you want the whole picture in focus. I thought that is what you already had. All or just one plane of focus. Help me understand, please.
quote=photogrl57 quote=RMM If I understand what ... (
show quote)
It was an experiment in photo stacking .... here is the link
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-21016-1.html quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=photogrl57 quote=R... (
show quote)
Okay... I think I understand now. The goal is to achieve an extreme depth of field. By stacking enough shots, theoretically everything should be in focus to both extremes.
Have you compared the result of this experiment with a single shot using a short focal length lens like 35mm, aperture priority, slow shutter, and f/22? That should also achieve an almost unlimited depth of field from infinity to almost up to the shooter.
marcomarks wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Grumpy D Stevens wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do .. thank you for the link going there now to check it out :)
I am really confused now. As I understood it, you were trying to have 3 or 4 "different" planes of focus be sharp (in focus) without regard for the multiple planes in between them being in focus. Then just now its seems that you want the whole picture in focus. I thought that is what you already had. All or just one plane of focus. Help me understand, please.
quote=photogrl57 quote=RMM If I understand what ... (
show quote)
It was an experiment in photo stacking .... here is the link
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-21016-1.html quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=photogrl57 quote=R... (
show quote)
Okay... I think I understand now. The goal is to achieve an extreme depth of field. By stacking enough shots, theoretically everything should be in focus to both extremes.
Have you compared the result of this experiment with a single shot using a short focal length lens like 35mm, aperture priority, slow shutter, and f/22? That should also achieve an almost unlimited depth of field from infinity to almost up to the shooter.
quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=p... (
show quote)
Oh a single shot is the easy part ... I can do that ... It's getting there from a different process that was the challenge I was issued. :) I learned quite a bit from the experiment so for that I'm grateful.
And yes just taking one single shot in focus would be sooooooo much easier LOL.
photogrl57 wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Grumpy D Stevens wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do .. thank you for the link going there now to check it out :)
I am really confused now. As I understood it, you were trying to have 3 or 4 "different" planes of focus be sharp (in focus) without regard for the multiple planes in between them being in focus. Then just now its seems that you want the whole picture in focus. I thought that is what you already had. All or just one plane of focus. Help me understand, please.
quote=photogrl57 quote=RMM If I understand what ... (
show quote)
It was an experiment in photo stacking .... here is the link
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-21016-1.html quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=photogrl57 quote=R... (
show quote)
Okay... I think I understand now. The goal is to achieve an extreme depth of field. By stacking enough shots, theoretically everything should be in focus to both extremes.
Have you compared the result of this experiment with a single shot using a short focal length lens like 35mm, aperture priority, slow shutter, and f/22? That should also achieve an almost unlimited depth of field from infinity to almost up to the shooter.
quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=p... (
show quote)
Oh a single shot is the easy part ... I can do that ... It's getting there from a different process that was the challenge I was issued. :) I learned quite a bit from the experiment so for that I'm grateful.
And yes just taking one single shot in focus would be sooooooo much easier LOL.
quote=marcomarks quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy ... (
show quote)
I didn't mean you couldn't do a single shot, or should do a single shot, I just wanted to know if you had compared the two to find if there was any benefit other than being a challenge.
photogrl57 wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Grumpy D Stevens wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do .. thank you for the link going there now to check it out :)
I am really confused now. As I understood it, you were trying to have 3 or 4 "different" planes of focus be sharp (in focus) without regard for the multiple planes in between them being in focus. Then just now its seems that you want the whole picture in focus. I thought that is what you already had. All or just one plane of focus. Help me understand, please.
quote=photogrl57 quote=RMM If I understand what ... (
show quote)
It was an experiment in photo stacking .... here is the link
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-21016-1.html quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=photogrl57 quote=R... (
show quote)
Okay... I think I understand now. The goal is to achieve an extreme depth of field. By stacking enough shots, theoretically everything should be in focus to both extremes.
Have you compared the result of this experiment with a single shot using a short focal length lens like 35mm, aperture priority, slow shutter, and f/22? That should also achieve an almost unlimited depth of field from infinity to almost up to the shooter.
quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=p... (
show quote)
Oh a single shot is the easy part ... I can do that ... It's getting there from a different process that was the challenge I was issued. :) I learned quite a bit from the experiment so for that I'm grateful.
And yes just taking one single shot in focus would be sooooooo much easier LOL.
quote=marcomarks quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy ... (
show quote)
In most cases one shot is fine. However, almost all lenses have a sweet spot which is consistently @ f5.6 to f8. Stacking is primarily used in macro photography where f22 won't get you noticeable more DOF. The other result of using f22 is a degradation in the image due to diffraction.
lesdmd
Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland
I didn't mean you couldn't do a single shot, or should do a single shot, I just wanted to know if you had compared the two to find if there was any benefit other than being a challenge.[/quote]
The physics of the lens limits the results. While you achieve greater depth of field at a smaller aperture you lose sharpness of the image. Since every lens has a "sweet" aperture (usually around F8) taking a range of shots at that setting will provide optimal definition.
marcomarks wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Grumpy D Stevens wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do .. thank you for the link going there now to check it out :)
I am really confused now. As I understood it, you were trying to have 3 or 4 "different" planes of focus be sharp (in focus) without regard for the multiple planes in between them being in focus. Then just now its seems that you want the whole picture in focus. I thought that is what you already had. All or just one plane of focus. Help me understand, please.
quote=photogrl57 quote=RMM If I understand what ... (
show quote)
It was an experiment in photo stacking .... here is the link
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-21016-1.html quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=photogrl57 quote=R... (
show quote)
Okay... I think I understand now. The goal is to achieve an extreme depth of field. By stacking enough shots, theoretically everything should be in focus to both extremes.
Have you compared the result of this experiment with a single shot using a short focal length lens like 35mm, aperture priority, slow shutter, and f/22? That should also achieve an almost unlimited depth of field from infinity to almost up to the shooter.
quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=p... (
show quote)
Oh a single shot is the easy part ... I can do that ... It's getting there from a different process that was the challenge I was issued. :) I learned quite a bit from the experiment so for that I'm grateful.
And yes just taking one single shot in focus would be sooooooo much easier LOL.
quote=marcomarks quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy ... (
show quote)
I didn't mean you couldn't do a single shot, or should do a single shot, I just wanted to know if you had compared the two to find if there was any benefit other than being a challenge.
quote=photogrl57 quote=marcomarks quote=photogr... (
show quote)
Not really .... at least not in the subjects that I have photographed so far .... with one possible exception ... Not having a macro lens .... I could possibly benefit from knowing the process in the future.
photogrl57 wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Grumpy D Stevens wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do .. thank you for the link going there now to check it out :)
I am really confused now. As I understood it, you were trying to have 3 or 4 "different" planes of focus be sharp (in focus) without regard for the multiple planes in between them being in focus. Then just now its seems that you want the whole picture in focus. I thought that is what you already had. All or just one plane of focus. Help me understand, please.
quote=photogrl57 quote=RMM If I understand what ... (
show quote)
It was an experiment in photo stacking .... here is the link
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-21016-1.html quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=photogrl57 quote=R... (
show quote)
Okay... I think I understand now. The goal is to achieve an extreme depth of field. By stacking enough shots, theoretically everything should be in focus to both extremes.
Have you compared the result of this experiment with a single shot using a short focal length lens like 35mm, aperture priority, slow shutter, and f/22? That should also achieve an almost unlimited depth of field from infinity to almost up to the shooter.
quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy D Stevens quote=p... (
show quote)
Oh a single shot is the easy part ... I can do that ... It's getting there from a different process that was the challenge I was issued. :) I learned quite a bit from the experiment so for that I'm grateful.
And yes just taking one single shot in focus would be sooooooo much easier LOL.
quote=marcomarks quote=photogrl57 quote=Grumpy ... (
show quote)
I didn't mean you couldn't do a single shot, or should do a single shot, I just wanted to know if you had compared the two to find if there was any benefit other than being a challenge.
quote=photogrl57 quote=marcomarks quote=photogr... (
show quote)
Not really .... at least not in the subjects that I have photographed so far .... with one possible exception ... Not having a macro lens .... I could possibly benefit from knowing the process in the future.
quote=marcomarks quote=photogrl57 quote=marcoma... (
show quote)
Try it the next time you are shooting a landscape.
:)
This may be overly simple, but if this is an arrangement could you focus on the near object "click" and remove that object and go to the next level and "click" and so forth untill you get all the levels taken then stack? That may not be an option if the flowers are living in a pot. Just a diffrent slant from a pure amature.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
