[WasntMe]

DoF Stacking = Depth of Field Stacking

For those that are unfamiliar with the/my terminology:
It's sort of like Bracketing with a focal point adjustment to pic out the best shot of a group. Instead, though, you adjust in set increments each shot and do a continuous set of shots through the whole DoF. Then you use software to combine the shots into one with whole shot in focus.
Was wondering if some are doing this out there?
What software are you using to combine your shots?

I am just starting to learn to do this and experiment with it to get better macro shots. Strawberries are what I am practicing with but cannabis trich shots some of you do would seem to make an Ideal subject for this.

Another cool feature I can play with thanks to CHDK software.
and if you are wondering what CHDK software is:
https://lifehacker.com/387380/turn-yo...a-super+camera

[DoobieDuck]

WM I have not posted any stacked images but I have been toying with it a bit. It is time consuming as it requires several images to stack, then the software grinds through the process rather slowly depending on the image resolution. I use Combine ZM software. So far I'm not impressed, mostly due to my not getting it right yet, the learning curve. I have seen some very nice images done by others. There are others here using this technique, maybe they'll chime in for you, us. DD

[GMT]

a guy called monkey did some great work using that technique. Not sure if he still has his gallery intact or not, hes not around here anymore. I give it a go sometimes using czm but my cam has an auto focus or area choice set up, so its tricky to get the right steps necessary for me. A manual focus dslr is really required as I'm sure you know. I imagine DoobieDuck will have done a fair amount of work using the technique.

[GMT]

lmao DD, I was writing my post as you posted.
Knew you'd have had a play.

[foomar]

Played with software stacking a while back , both free programs are a bit clunky but work with patience , this was three rail images combined and doubles the achievable depth of field , two hours of pissing about however and a steep learning curve , lost a whole weekend with this.



Personally i feel its a step too far and its use often gives an artificial look , will stick to experimenting with glass.

[WasntMe]

Hey Doobieduck and GMT,

Thanks for popping in The CombineZM program is also the one I'm trying to learn.
Since I am a CHDK user the guide I am going by to start off is this one:
https://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/DoF_Stacking. Since I am just using a sw mod P&S my macro are not as close as any of you using a specialized macro lens so I also figure my increments can be a bit bigger, I would guess at least.
Am I correct in thinking you guys are using RAW files?

Doobieduck: What focal increments have you tried on bud shots... 1mm? Does your cam have a bracketing feature? Am I recalling corectly.. you are using a Nikon D90?

GMT: Thanks for the heads up on monkey. I'm going to go check the members list now.

[Mulletsoda]

I've done it before, it is a bit of work. Totally worth it, in my opinion. You can get some amazing results, it just takes time. Contrary to popular belief (lucky for us!) this doesn't require expensive cameras, lenses or software. It's been awhile since I've done any DoF stacking, but here's a few links to get you up to speed on the method I used:

https://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/DoF_Stacking
https://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief
https://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/.../rp-stack.html

There are two basic options with taking the photos... you can write a script or you can set the bracketing to adjust the focus each step. Both are pretty well documented, though I'd go with bracketing if you're new to working on low level electronics. I've done both, the stacking is easier and they both yield about the same results.

Edit: Ha! I stepped away in the middle of putting that post together, lots of replies with the same info! So, yeah, I've done the shots with an SD1000, and used CombineZM for windows and Hugin for linux. Hugin is much more complicated, but it can do some amazing stuff. I did a ton of great panoramic stitching with the hugin program.

[foomar]

Just sparked them both up to remind myself , Helicon is easier to get on with than combine , the zm interface is sparse and not intuitive to use , worth persisting with but results seem the same useing either , some photoshop versions have it built in but not used it myself yet.
Many forums are dead , does not seem a widespread technique outside micro.

Not sure what the ZM software you guys are talking about is, but I used the Zerene stacker free trail download for a few images. Is that the same thing as ZM?

Also not sure on bracketing, I thought it was different exposure times but perhaps it also refers to different focal lengths?

For this macro I used my extension tube set on top of my 70-200 I believe.....The extension tubes are a bitch, but this shot was totally worth it....I also have to light the shot with random lighting since I dont have a macro flash ring and my flash is blocked when I am so close to the buds.....I just take shots and manually change the focal lengths, I forget but I think I used around 5 shots for each of these images. I think I may have even done different exposure times to bring out some light in the shaded areas.






And Monkey was the shiooot! Dude had his photo skills on lock, did ya check if hes still around?

[foomar]

The Helicon software seems stable and intuitive in its latest release , four images took twenty mins to process , need more memory , cannot use RAW on this glorified PDA.

Depth of field is good but looks a bit fake , needs fiddling with and some patience.