I think there is some confusion about semantics. Stacking is usually used to describe techniques for HDR and increasing DOF. There are some other related techniques that are referred to as stacking.

Adobe has more Info on this: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/image-stacks.html

According to Adobe, "You can use image stacks to enhance images in number of ways: To reduce image noise and distortion in forensic, medical, or astrophotographic images. To remove unwanted or accidental objects from a series of stationary photos or a series of video frames. For example, you want to remove a figure walking through an image, or remove a car passing in front of the main subject matter."

I plan to try this as well :-)

This is a following up to my Aug 31st post on the same subject.
In my internet research I read an article on Flipboard where the photographer is using stacking photography in place of using an ND filter. His reasoning is that when using an ND filter you are subject to blurring due to the long exposure. Now this blurring might be what you want if its water, but you also get blurring from wind. Consequently, the image is not sharp. So, in the article the photographer takes a series of static photos from the same position, then stacks them together in photoshop to create a more dynamic, sharper image. His example showed a photo of the New York skyline with clouds and lightning. He captured 267 images and then used the best ones in a stack to create his final image.
Here is his photoshop process:
1. assemble your images
2. go to file, scripts, load stack (files need to be the same diminsions)
3. if the files are raw then click on "add open files."
4. click on auto align
5. in the layer menu, click on smart object, stack mode and choose either median or mean.
6. then wait while ps does its magic.

I have not tried this yet but will when I can shoot a bunch of the appropriate images.

I would imagine this would work best with a scene with changing lighting conditions, like a sunrise/sunset or cloudy storms.

It also looks like you will need to spend a lot of time recording the images, like and hour or more.

If any of you try this please show us the results.

If you can’t slow your shutter below 1/100”, you can shoot 25 frames at 1/100” each and then stack them. The effect as regards rendering motion will be similar to shooting at 1/4” cuz whatever moves is never quite the same from frame to frame.

You should notice that the *total* exposure time actually is 1/4” even though it’s the sum of many shorter exposures. Daylight could easily require f:45 or f:64 to shoot a single frame at 1/4”. This is where the comparison to a neutral density filter slips in. A 1.5 or 1.8 density would allow 1/4” in daylight at a more reasonable aperture, around f:8 or f:11 instead of f:64.

This is a following up to my Aug 31st post on the same subject.
In my internet research I read an article on Flipboard where the photographer is using stacking photography in place of using an ND filter. His reasoning is that when using an ND filter you are subject to blurring due to the long exposure. Now this blurring might be what you want if its water, but you also get blurring from wind. Consequently, the image is not sharp. So, in the article the photographer takes a series of static photos from the same position, then stacks them together in photoshop to create a more dynamic, sharper image. His example showed a photo of the New York skyline with clouds and lightning. He captured 267 images and then used the best ones in a stack to create his final image.
Here is his photoshop process:
1. assemble your images
2. go to file, scripts, load stack (files need to be the same diminsions)
3. if the files are raw then click on "add open files."
4. click on auto align
5. in the layer menu, click on smart object, stack mode and choose either median or mean.
6. then wait while ps does its magic.

I have not tried this yet but will when I can shoot a bunch of the appropriate images.

I would imagine this would work best with a scene with changing lighting conditions, like a sunrise/sunset or cloudy storms.

It also looks like you will need to spend a lot of time recording the images, like and hour or more.

If any of you try this please show us the results.