Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
Learning how to focus stack
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jan 14, 2021 13:35:41   #
Cany143 Loc: SE Utah
 
Focus stacking can indeed be a useful technique, and I hope you'll continue exploring its usefulnesses.

That said, apart from learning the technique, I'm not entirely sure what your intent may have been in these. Generally speaking, while there's nothing that says every plane of potential focus has to be in focus, there are areas --foreground elements in particular, but likewise some midground elements as well-- I'd have expected to see being so, but are not. My expectations and yours, of course, can be entirely different things, and that's perhaps as it should be.

If your intent was to produce a particular 'look' --one that resulted in neither the 'milky' look of water shot at a slow shutter speed nor the 'frozen' look of falling water at a faster shutter speed-- then I'd guess your intent was achieved. But given the planes of (potential) focus that are otherwise, I'm at a loss to see how focus stacking was the technique to use when the same could have been gotten in single shots, using appropriate shutter speeds and aperture settings.

I truly hope you --and anyone else who might read this-- don't see the above as being either unnecessary or overly critical. For all I know, you may have gotten exactly what you wanted to get.

Reply
Jan 14, 2021 13:39:47   #
BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh
 
It depends. In the example I described from my own photograph I could have fixed it by cloning out the walker either in two of the three photographs so only one came through in the composite or cloned the walker out of all three. I'm assuming that would work since I didn't actually try it. I admitedly have limited experience in this myself. In your case I believe the artifacts (they look a bit like pixelated smudges) would probably be best fixed by working with the composite image since they don't exist in the originals. There are articles out there on this technique most of which state that it works best with stationary objects like archetecture or landscapes (if not windy!). I hope you didn't take my comments as critical; I was just trying to point out what this process can produce. I hope I've been helpful.

Reply
Jan 14, 2021 14:36:28   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
Looks beautiful and produced in an excellent way

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2021 23:05:53   #
CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT
 
BurghByrd wrote:
It depends. In the example I described from my own photograph I could have fixed it by cloning out the walker either in two of the three photographs so only one came through in the composite or cloned the walker out of all three. I'm assuming that would work since I didn't actually try it. I admitedly have limited experience in this myself. In your case I believe the artifacts (they look a bit like pixelated smudges) would probably be best fixed by working with the composite image since they don't exist in the originals. There are articles out there on this technique most of which state that it works best with stationary objects like archetecture or landscapes (if not windy!). I hope you didn't take my comments as critical; I was just trying to point out what this process can produce. I hope I've been helpful.
It depends. In the example I described from my ow... (show quote)


You have been quite helpful and I would never take your comments as critical....I need all the help I can get.. I will look up how to fix the artifacts and see what I can find....thanks for the help!

Reply
Jan 14, 2021 23:09:50   #
CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT
 
Cany143 wrote:
Focus stacking can indeed be a useful technique, and I hope you'll continue exploring its usefulnesses.

That said, apart from learning the technique, I'm not entirely sure what your intent may have been in these. Generally speaking, while there's nothing that says every plane of potential focus has to be in focus, there are areas --foreground elements in particular, but likewise some midground elements as well-- I'd have expected to see being so, but are not. My expectations and yours, of course, can be entirely different things, and that's perhaps as it should be.

If your intent was to produce a particular 'look' --one that resulted in neither the 'milky' look of water shot at a slow shutter speed nor the 'frozen' look of falling water at a faster shutter speed-- then I'd guess your intent was achieved. But given the planes of (potential) focus that are otherwise, I'm at a loss to see how focus stacking was the technique to use when the same could have been gotten in single shots, using appropriate shutter speeds and aperture settings.

I truly hope you --and anyone else who might read this-- don't see the above as being either unnecessary or overly critical. For all I know, you may have gotten exactly what you wanted to get.
Focus stacking can indeed be a useful technique, a... (show quote)


My intent was to learn the technique....that's was pretty much it. Never tried it before so this was a fun experiment...nothing more.. I have never been able to get a shot with everything in focus using just the shutter speed and aperture...I just need more practice!

Reply
Jan 14, 2021 23:12:00   #
CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT
 
UTMike wrote:
A great start, Cindy! Keep it up.


Thanks Mike....I still need a lot of practice at this.

Reply
Jan 14, 2021 23:15:28   #
CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT
 
kpmac wrote:
It's a great start, Cindy. I am thinking of trying some stacking, too. I doubt that I could do better without lots of practice and sturdy.


I am learning a lot about stacking from this post....will take everyone's advice when i try it again.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.