Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Links and Resources
Landscape Focus Stacking - for selmslie
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Oct 17, 2017 11:21:16   #
rfcoakley
 
This post is provided at the suggestion of user selmslie in response to his assertion in another unrelated thread that: "stacking is useless for landscape. You are usually focused on infinity."

I have done some informal attempts with focus stacking of landscapes and did encounter difficulty with movement in foreground elements (e.g., grass/flower movement between shots). So, I don't currently have a good example of this technique from my own work. I do, however, see a lot of merit to it. Below is a link to a prior post that shows great results.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-431965-1.html

Also, here's a link to a Tony Northrup video on the technique:

https://northrup.photo/my-account/download-sdp-ebook/stunning-digital-photography-video-index/landscape-focus-stacking/

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 11:52:27   #
TheDman
 
I've had this conversation before. I focus stack whenever I need to, which is quite often, as do all the top landscape photographers I know.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 12:09:35   #
jerryc41 (a regular here)
 
rfcoakley wrote:
This post is provided at the suggestion of user selmslie in response to his assertion in another unrelated thread that: "stacking is useless for landscape. You are usually focused on infinity."

I have done some informal attempts with focus stacking of landscapes and did encounter difficulty with movement in foreground elements (e.g., grass/flower movement between shots). So, I don't currently have a good example of this technique from my own work. I do, however, see a lot of merit to it. Below is a link to a prior post that shows great results.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-431965-1.html

Also, here's a link to a Tony Northrup video on the technique:

https://northrup.photo/my-account/download-sdp-ebook/stunning-digital-photography-video-index/landscape-focus-stacking/
This post is provided at the suggestion of user i... (show quote)


Thanks for that. It's always good to have more information.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 12:18:00   #
LoneRangeFinder
 
Generally focus stacking for landscapes is used for objects in the foreground, so whether or not the focus is near infinity is irrelevant to the use of FS for landscapes.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 12:21:14   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
rfcoakley wrote:
This post is provided at the suggestion of user selmslie in response to his assertion in another unrelated thread that: "stacking is useless for landscape. You are usually focused on infinity."

I have done some informal attempts with focus stacking of landscapes and did encounter difficulty with movement in foreground elements (e.g., grass/flower movement between shots). So, I don't currently have a good example of this technique from my own work. I do, however, see a lot of merit to it. Below is a link to a prior post that shows great results.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-431965-1.html

Also, here's a link to a Tony Northrup video on the technique:

https://northrup.photo/my-account/download-sdp-ebook/stunning-digital-photography-video-index/landscape-focus-stacking/
This post is provided at the suggestion of user i... (show quote)

I would not worry about what his user post. He is mostly blowing wind all over and is a specialist in hitchhiking other folks thread for no other reason than 'because'.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 12:37:33   #
Peterff
 
Rongnongno wrote:
I would not worry about what his user post. He is mostly blowing wind all over and is a specialist in hitchhiking other folks thread for no other reason than 'because'.


Are you pontificating again Ron? The Dman's posts and examples make complete sense if that is the kind of result desired. As do other's opinions on the merits of any technique.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 13:19:31   #
speters (a regular here)
 
rfcoakley wrote:
This post is provided at the suggestion of user selmslie in response to his assertion in another unrelated thread that: "stacking is useless for landscape. You are usually focused on infinity."

I have done some informal attempts with focus stacking of landscapes and did encounter difficulty with movement in foreground elements (e.g., grass/flower movement between shots). So, I don't currently have a good example of this technique from my own work. I do, however, see a lot of merit to it. Below is a link to a prior post that shows great results.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-431965-1.html

Also, here's a link to a Tony Northrup video on the technique:

https://northrup.photo/my-account/download-sdp-ebook/stunning-digital-photography-video-index/landscape-focus-stacking/
This post is provided at the suggestion of user i... (show quote)
Of course, focus stacking is great for landscape photography, allowing you to capture shots, you would otherwise not be able to get!

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 13:22:51   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
Peterff wrote:
Are you pontificating again Ron? The Dman's posts and examples make complete sense if that is the kind of result desired. As do other's opinions on the merits of any technique.

I see that you read why I ignore you. I am dismissing almost everything this user posts because more often than not there is absolutely nothing that justifies his 'position(s)'. His 'interventions are just 'because' I can interject anything - there always be one to agree with me.

Same as your post today at the moment.

Stacking for landscape has been done for a long time yet he comes out and says "you don't needed" it despite that stacking has been demonstrated time and time again as beneficial in landscaping where DoF is important. It is not for nothing that stacking is being implements left and right, at different degree by manufacturers who process it in camera or don't like the new D850.

So my initial statement stays.

Something you completely missed in your hunger to prove me wrong... I answered the OP, not Dman. Per my post you would see that twice I agree with focus stating. One by stating the smelie guy has nothing to say of value in many subject and then in my present post.

Now you understand WHY you are in my ignore list.

There is a difference trying to be a 'peace whatever' and stating the true.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 13:28:20   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
rfcoakley wrote:
This post is provided at the suggestion of user selmslie in response to his assertion in another unrelated thread that: "stacking is useless for landscape. You are usually focused on infinity."

I have done some informal attempts with focus stacking of landscapes and did encounter difficulty with movement in foreground elements (e.g., grass/flower movement between shots). So, I don't currently have a good example of this technique from my own work. I do, however, see a lot of merit to it. Below is a link to a prior post that shows great results.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-431965-1.html

Also, here's a link to a Tony Northrup video on the technique:

https://northrup.photo/my-account/download-sdp-ebook/stunning-digital-photography-video-index/landscape-focus-stacking/
This post is provided at the suggestion of user i... (show quote)

Thank you for starting your own thread.

In the thread that was hijacked by a couple of others, the OP was asking a simple question regarding whether to invest in a D850 or better glass. Maybe you all missed the OP's opening sentence, "I am a just beyond beginner photographer." That makes stacking totally irrelevant off topic in that thread.

There was never any doubt in my mind that that focus stacking could be used for landscape. There are plenty of testimonials to that effect. Some even take the trouble to use it.

I don't need it because it's easier to use view camera movements and get all of the resolution I need where I want it. Unfortunately that's something you can't do as easily with the small format.

My question was whether any of you had first hand experience with it. Apparently not.

We all look forward to you taking the time to learn about landscape photography and focus stacking so that you can develop your own understanding of the topic.

Then you will be qualified to publish your results and explain the pros and cons of using the method.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 13:35:18   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
Rongnongno wrote:
... Now you understand WHY you are in my ignore list. ....

The reason so many people are on your Ignore list is that so many people can see through you and know you can't back up your weird claims with real photography.

Besides, it's entertaining to make fun of you and watch you react. You are so predictable.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 15:20:43   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
TheDman wrote:
I've had this conversation before. I focus stack whenever I need to, which is quite often, as do all the top landscape photographers I know.

Thank you as well for your post and the link. It's good to hear from someone who has actually used stacking with landscapes.

For others curious about the concept, start from the TheDman's link and try to ignore Apaflo's attempt to debate yet another topic for which he has no hands-on knowledge.

What you will find is that focus stacking of multiple images for micro, macro and close-up photography has almost nothing in common with how you might use it for landscapes.

You use focus stacking with macro subjects, not by changing the focus, but by moving the camera to sweep the plane of focus over the narrow depth of the subject. You don't change the lens's focus distance because that would alter the magnification.

With landscapes you are more likely to selectively focus on the distant scene plus one or at most two shots carefully focused on a particular part of the scene like the foreground and possibly the middle ground. This would be done without moving the camera. The change of focus will not significantly affect the magnification, especially with a wide angle lens. And a wide angle lens has less need for focus stacking because the DOF at a small aperture is already huge.

Because the two techniques are different, automated focus stacking built in to a D850 is not optimal for macro and probably not effective for landscape where you should be doing it manually.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 17:13:06   #
Peterff
 
Rongnongno wrote:
I see that you read why I ignore you. I am dismissing almost everything this user posts because more often than not there is absolutely nothing that justifies his 'position(s)'. His 'interventions are just 'because' I can interject anything - there always be one to agree with me.

Same as your post today at the moment.

Stacking for landscape has been done for a long time yet he comes out and says "you don't needed" it despite that stacking has been demonstrated time and time again as beneficial in landscaping where DoF is important. It is not for nothing that stacking is being implements left and right, at different degree by manufacturers who process it in camera or don't like the new D850.

So my initial statement stays.

Something you completely missed in your hunger to prove me wrong... I answered the OP, not Dman. Per my post you would see that twice I agree with focus stating. One by stating the smelie guy has nothing to say of value in many subject and then in my present post.

Now you understand WHY you are in my ignore list.

There is a difference trying to be a 'peace whatever' and stating the true.
I see that you read why I ignore you. I am dismis... (show quote)


Well, having observed and read your contributions for many years, I've finally realized that being on your ignore list is no great loss, and may be a badge of honor, especially when I see some ( a few) of the other members of that group.

Some of the criteria for membership of your ignore list are as follows:

Usually rude
Just plain rude with everyone and complains about it.
Unable to have any sort of polite exchange
Self appointed white knight
Delusional
Floods threads with non-sense
Pontificates
Folks I found ignoring me
Simple they are 3/4 nincompoops who somehow decided to ignore me
Now you can always extend an olive branch but it will likely be used as firewood
The rest are folks I just do not like for one reason or another
Attic users

So, perhaps we should take a poll of other users and their reactions over time to your own online persona and style. Perhaps there may be other criteria, but just how many of your own criteria would others consider that apply to you yourself? There has certainly been quite a wealth of commentary over the years, frequently about your lack of understanding of social or online etiquette and very self centric approach, often laced with implied insults.

So, finally you have earned a place on my own ignore list. You are simply no longer worth the effort. Je ne regrette rien. Not including the last two lines of course!

I'm waiting for the lock to click now!

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 17:31:15   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
Peterff wrote:
.../...

So? I gave up on you months ago.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 17:39:59   #
Peterff
 
Rongnongno wrote:
So? I gave up on you months ago.


Yes, I know that, although your sense of time may be in question! However, I felt that your response deserved a response. How would you score yourself on your own criteria?

A simple scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is low and 5 is high would suffice for each attribute!

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 18:43:23   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
Peterff wrote:
Well, having observed and read your contributions for many years, I've finally realized that being on your ignore list is no great loss, and may be a badge of honor, especially when I see some ( a few) of the other members of that group.

Some of the criteria for membership of your ignore list are as follows:

Usually rude
Just plain rude with everyone and complains about it.
Unable to have any sort of polite exchange
Self appointed white knight
Delusional
Floods threads with non-sense
Pontificates
Folks I found ignoring me
Simple they are 3/4 nincompoops who somehow decided to ignore me
Now you can always extend an olive branch but it will likely be used as firewood
The rest are folks I just do not like for one reason or another
Attic users

So, perhaps we should take a poll of other users and their reactions over time to your own online persona and style. Perhaps there may be other criteria, but just how many of your own criteria would others consider that apply to you yourself? There has certainly been quite a wealth of commentary over the years, frequently about your lack of understanding of social or online etiquette and very self centric approach, often laced with implied insults.

So, finally you have earned a place on my own ignore list. You are simply no longer worth the effort. Je ne regrette rien. Not including the last two lines of course!

I'm waiting for the lock to click now!
Well, having observed and read your contributions ... (show quote)

As much as I would like to add to your list of reasons to avoid Rongnongno - ignorant, unpleasant, inarticulate, troll - he's just not worth the effort. He is a joke.

He's just not worth anyone's time.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Links and Resources
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2018 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.