Author Topic: Stacked Macro Images (Read 8862 times)

brm1949 · « **on:** May 15, 2013, 16:22 »

Has anyone had success with stacked images from Zerene or Helicon focus.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #1 on:** May 15, 2013, 17:06 »

I experimented with both, Helicon Focus quite a long time ago, Zerene much more recently. I regard Zerene as the more capable, and if I were to do this in any serious way I would get the Pro edition. I also have PhotoShop CS4 Extended which has similar functionality in PhotoMerge. Thus far I've been most successful with PhotoMerge...

Are you asking out of curiosity or do you have a serious interest?

Regards

brm1949 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 15, 2013, 17:09 »

Serious interest. Started playing around with Zerene and ControlMyNikon software and like the results. I was wondering about the rejection rate for stacked images across the sites.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #3 on:** May 15, 2013, 17:20 »

There is a member here who does a lot of the macro focus stacking. I think it is Rimglow?

rimglow · « **Reply #4 on:** May 15, 2013, 17:46 »

I've been doing it for years with great success. No rejections. In fact, it seems to be very desirable on Shutterstock, where focus is a premium. I use Photoshop CS6, Auto-Align, Auto-Merge, but I usually tweak the masks. Sometimes Auto-Merge gets it wrong.

I tried Helcon, but could see no advantage over Photoshop. As a buyer, shallow depth of field drives me crazy.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #5 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:02 »

I submitted one stacked image that was accepted by iStock (may have taken it down, can't remember). My experience is rather similar to Rimglow's.

My effort was really an experiment, but I'm curious what it is that you are photographing that requires this treatment. I think Rimglow will confirm - this technique requires quite a lot of effort for each image; it's not for a high-volume production shop. Like Rimglow, I also found PhotoShop's masks needed some tweaking...

Regards

brm1949 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:05 »

Just testing the waters, this is what I got so far.

brm1949 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:14 »

I do find it time consuming to say the least, but I love macro, bugs in particular and want to spend this summer doing that.

Mantis · « **Reply #8 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:17 »

What's the actual process to create a photo merge? How many images and do you focus on different parts of the subject them merge them?

brm1949 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:19 »

The one I posted was 37 images combined.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #10 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:25 »

Quote from: Mantis on May 15, 2013, 18:17

What's the actual process to create a photo merge? How many images and do you focus on different parts of the subject them merge them?

Adobe's terminology is not helpful because they use the term PhotoMerge for two distinct processes. This discussion is about a series of images taken in the same direction with small movements of the camera/subject on a fixed axis. Adobe also applies the term to the process of creating a panorama, multiple shots in different directions with the camera pivoting around a fixed point (which ideally coincides with the no parallax point).

Regards

pancaketom · « **Reply #11 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:40 »

I have a few that sell ok, but they were a lot of work to produce. Maybe if I got the workflow down or had a more automated system for taking the stacked images it would be worthwhile. As it is I think for most subjects it is probably only worth it if you want to create the image outside of the microstock universe - and then you might as well keyword and sell it. If you get your subject matter and workflow down it could be a good source of decent selling images.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:56 »

Quote from: brm1949 on May 15, 2013, 18:05

Just testing the waters, this is what I got so far.

Have to say, that just looks like a regular macro image.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** May 15, 2013, 18:58 »

Quote from: brm1949 on May 15, 2013, 18:19

The one I posted was 37 images combined.

How do you get a bug to stay still that long? I know you posted a flower, but you said you wanted to do bugs.

brm1949 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 15, 2013, 19:02 »

Strawberry blossom about the size of very small pea. As I said, just testing the waters. Without the stack would not have been able to get the shot.

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** May 15, 2013, 19:04 »

Quote from: brm1949 on May 15, 2013, 19:02

Strawberry blossom about the size of very small pea. As I said, just testing the waters. Without the stack would not have been able to get the shot.

Indeed. I'm just curious about the bugs. I did one last week and it was moving so fast up a sheer cliff I had to take the camera off the tripod as I couldn't keep up.

brm1949 · « **Reply #16 on:** May 15, 2013, 19:04 »

Early morning shots are doable.

w7lwi · « **Reply #17 on:** May 15, 2013, 20:33 »

I've used Helicon Focus for several years, mostly on macro shots where I wanted the entire object in focus. They say you can use it for landscapes, starting with whatever is immediately in front of you (within inches) and extending out to the horizon. Personally I've never tried that. The longest object I've done is an old stainless steel veterinary hypodermic syringe. In perfect focus from the hole in the end of the needle to the plunger sticking out the back. I like placing objects on a bias where it is both on an angle and going away from the camera. For close-up, stacking is about the only way to get an adequate DOF and minimize distortion.

I tried using Photoshop's merge function, but could never quite get the hang of it (old CS2, I use CS4 now). For me, personally, Helicon works just fine, quick and easy. Others will have success with Photoshop or Zerene or whatever works best for their workflow. It pretty much boils down to what feels right to you and gives the results you are looking for.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #18 on:** May 15, 2013, 20:34 »

Macro is my primary area of interest, do alot of it. I've been using Helicon for the past few years and have never had a rejection based on anything other than flat lighting (iStock). I often create the stack using a macro focusing rail which helps with comp and focusing.

There are 3 stacking methods within the Helicon program. I usually start with Method B and if I get too many artifacts I'll stack again using Method A or C.

The resulting image often needs some cleanup, particularly of edge blurring, in PS and yes, it is time consuming, but the end result is worth the effort.

Last time I looked at Zerene the stack images had to be Tiffs or jpegs (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm able to import my DNG's into Helicon.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 15, 2013, 22:41 »

I use Helicon for the same reason mentioned above - it will take raws but Zerene does not AFAIK. Helicon also is quite fast while Zerene took forever on my Mac - might work better with a PC. Helicon does make mistakes that have to be cleaned up but basically eliminates focus rejections, although it can take a lot of time. I use PS CS4 and Helicon is better - might not need it with CS6. I don't usually stack a ton of images - not worth it for microstock. From the example you posted, it looks like you know what you are doing already.

Has anybody used the Stackshot system (http://www.cognisys-inc.com/stackshot/stackshot.php)? It looks like a cool toy and I really want one but can't justify the price for microstock. If it will make a great improvement I'll try to talk myself into spending the money so if anyone has used it and thinks it's a good investment please let me know.

sharpshot · « **Reply #20 on:** May 16, 2013, 01:23 »

I did a few using an old version of photoacute a few years ago. That worked quite well but I had to tidy up a bit in photoshop elements.

I will try Zerene when I get some time, don't see a problem using tiffs.

brm1949 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 16, 2013, 06:01 »

Thanks for the advice, will continue to explore it.

Mantis · « **Reply #22 on:** May 16, 2013, 07:12 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on May 15, 2013, 18:25

Quote from: Mantis on May 15, 2013, 18:17
What's the actual process to create a photo merge? How many images and do you focus on different parts of the subject them merge them?

Adobe's terminology is not helpful because they use the term PhotoMerge for two distinct processes. This discussion is about a series of images taken in the same direction with small movements of the camera/subject on a fixed axis. Adobe also applies the term to the process of creating a panorama, multiple shots in different directions with the camera pivoting around a fixed point (which ideally coincides with the no parallax point).

Regards

I've done this quite a bit, but MANUALLY, by eye.....resizing each image to match the other. Will definitely play with photomerge. The time to do this manually is a lot.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #23 on:** May 16, 2013, 08:22 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 15, 2013, 18:58

Quote from: brm1949 on May 15, 2013, 18:19
The one I posted was 37 images combined.
How do you get a bug to stay still that long? I know you posted a flower, but you said you wanted to do bugs.

I'm not sure if you're going to like the answer: they slow down when you chill them down - in the refrigerator if need be.

Obviously your favourite bug will be hoping you know what you're doing, but that is the way it's done.

Regards

Pinocchio · « **Reply #24 on:** May 16, 2013, 08:26 »

Quote from: Mantis on May 16, 2013, 07:12

Quote from: Pinocchio on May 15, 2013, 18:25
Quote from: Mantis on May 15, 2013, 18:17
What's the actual process to create a photo merge? How many images and do you focus on different parts of the subject them merge them?

Adobe's terminology is not helpful because they use the term PhotoMerge for two distinct processes. This discussion is about a series of images taken in the same direction with small movements of the camera/subject on a fixed axis. Adobe also applies the term to the process of creating a panorama, multiple shots in different directions with the camera pivoting around a fixed point (which ideally coincides with the no parallax point).

Regards

I've done this quite a bit, but MANUALLY, by eye.....resizing each image to match the other. Will definitely play with photomerge. The time to do this manually is a lot.

Wow - I doubt I have the eye required to do a high-precision warp like that. That will definitely take lots of time, PhotoMerge will be the fast lane at F1 Grand Prix by comparison.

Regards

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stacked Macro Images (Read 8862 times)

brm1949

Pinocchio

brm1949

WarrenPrice

rimglow

Pinocchio

brm1949

brm1949

Mantis

brm1949

Pinocchio

pancaketom

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

brm1949

ShadySue

brm1949

w7lwi

mlwinphoto

sgoodwin4813

sharpshot

brm1949

Mantis

Pinocchio

Pinocchio

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors