fetzler Loc: North West PA

Here is an image of a museum specimen. This guy is about 2 mm in length and has been a great learning model.

This was shot with D7200, 85mm micro nikkor plus Raynox MSN 202.

I found it necessary to use Flash and a shutter delay of 1 sec. Maybe I should have used more.

Software was helicon remote and helicon focus. The focus driver was the lens focus motor.

Any comments on whether a focusing rail would be better. I have quite a bit of experience up to 1:1 but this is quite a bit harder.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Just the delay won't do it. The mirror slap is the main culprit. So lock the mirror up, focus on the rear screen and use delay or a remote shutter release to cut out all the vibration you can.
Next step is focus stacking.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

This is a stack of 50 pictures. Mirror up mode is not possible with Helicon software. The exposure is controlled through my andriod tablet so there is no touching the tripod mounted camera. The camera option d4 lifts the mirror 0-3 sec before exposure occurs.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

Very interesting! The Helicon system is one that I would most seriously consider using if ever I get into focus stacking. Their focusing ring looks very interesting.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

The ghosting appears to be the actual subject, as the camera focuses inward the subject changes in size through focus breathing I believe.. I experience this using Zerene stacking software but your able to choose individual frames and selectively clone out ghosting or other non variable parts of the stack. A real problem with hairy subjects as the hairs overlap and change prospective as you change focus distance to subject. Looks like your off to a good start, wish I knew more about your software. I wonder if you reversed the stack if the ghosting would be less of an issue. Check out the microphotography web page and see if the folks over there can give you more insight......https://www.amateurmicrography.net

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I've started my journey in higher magnification photography a week ago myself. I also use Helicon Remote to control the camera shutter and to organize the files. I've used Helicon Focus however I found it to be a bit "ghosty" and I've tried the different modes of stacking that it provides. I also use Zerene Stacker which between the two appears to produce a bit sharper image via the Pyramid stacking method compared to the Depth Map method.

I believe an important facet of "focus stacking" is to keep the camera focus fixed how it appears best and then to move the camera very small increments between shots. Keeping the camera in a fixed position and using the focus ring of the camera is not as precise as that of a focusing rail that can be moved a portion of a millimeter at a time.

This is much the same technique as shooting a single macro shot where you fix the focal distance in advance and then rock your body to achieve that perfect focus.

Enjoy your venture and please continue to share your results for I'm sure that we all enjoy seeing them.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

The methods you and sippyjug are attempting are fairly alien to me, but I have absorbed a few items when perusing the photomacrography.net site. One is that these artifacts can be lessoned by using a smaller aperture to reduce the out of focus areas in the stack. This is the cost of the # of images that goes into the stack and some image sharpness, certainly, but in the end the result can still be outstanding.

rmpsrpms Loc: Santa Clara, CA

Focusing by lens ring focus is recommended up to around 0.5:1. For modern macro lenses the focal length changes as you go higher than this, causing significant change in magnification within the stack. This forces Helicon to do a lot of scaling of the picture to keep the mag constant, reducing sharpness. If you use a rail, you can often eliminate scaling altogether, and come out with a much sharper stack.

You may also want to consider using a teleconverter rather than the Raynox. In this magnification range, teleconverters will give a superior result vs add-on diopter lenses. The reason is simple to understand if you look at the effective aperture comparison between the two methods. It looks like you're running around 3:1 magnification in your shot above, and I'll assume you're at f/4. Here are the scenarios:

1. Raynox

Feff = (m+1) * Finf = (3+1) * 4 = f/16

2. 3x teleconverter

Feff = TCX * Finf = 3 * 4 = f/12

So at the same magnification, the teleconverter gives you a good advantage over the diopter add-on. Plus, your 85mm macro is optimized at 1:1, so it will be working at its optimum magnification, and it is certainly going to be higher quality than the Raynox. All the TC does is magnify the good image onto your sensor.