Fred Miranda wrote:
Were those handheld Stephen? Awesome images!
Thanks Fred! No, not hand held. I don’t do as we’ll hand held—especially for close up work. Focus stacks in particular require a tripod....I know the last one was a focus stack and pretty sure the first one too.
Luvwine wrote:
Thanks Fred! No, not hand held. I don’t do as we’ll hand held—especially for close up work. Focus stacks in particular require a tripod....I know the last one was a focus stack and pretty sure the first one too.
Would you mind sharing your technique Stephen? Do you use Zerene?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Would you mind sharing your technique Stephen? Do you use Zerene?
I am sure my technique is very basic. I try to capture with an aperture where I like the bokeh—often F2 or F2.8 on the CV 65. I allow a bit of extra room in framing as the magnification changes slightly as you change focus due to the extension of the barrel. I take however many images—usually 4-10 images. I develop one in LR—adjusting color temp, sharpening, contrast, etc. then I select the other frames and sync the development. I then open them as layers in PS and auto align and auto blend layers. Then I flatten the image and crop and usually am done then tho obviously can do some PS corrections if needed. I then save it and use LR to export and upload.
Never tried Zerene. I probably should as it might be faster (I just bought a new computer in part due to how slow my 7 year old machine was combining images) and would likely work better for tough stacks. I have had difficulty with PS when there is subject movement of any significant degree. I also need to get a better understanding for astrophotography. I suspect Zerene would work better for that application. Do you recommend Zerene?
Luvwine wrote:
I am sure my technique is very basic. I try to capture with an aperture where I like the bokeh—often F2 or F2.8 on the CV 65. I allow a bit of extra room in framing as the magnification changes slightly as you change focus due to the extension of the barrel. I take however many images—usually 4-10 images. I develop one in LR—adjusting color temp, sharpening, contrast, etc. then I select the other frames and sync the development. I then open them as layers in PS and auto align and auto blend layers. Then I flatten the image and crop and usually am done then tho obviously can do some PS corrections if needed. I then save it and use LR to export and upload.
Never tried Zerene. I probably should as it might be faster (I just bought a new computer in part due to how slow my 7 year old machine was combining images) and would likely work better for tough stacks. I have had difficulty with PS when there is subject movement of any significant degree. I also need to get a better understanding for astrophotography. I suspect Zerene would work better for that application. Do you recommend Zerene?...Show more →
I use Zerene a lot. I’m not sure it’s faster than PS but it is scriptable for large stacks which have sub stacks where you might want each sub stack blended one way, and a different method use to blend the results of each sub stack.
For smaller stacks the benefit is just that hat there are times when PS gets it wrong and Zerene works, though vice versa happens too. PS is better at alignment of handheld frames than Zerene.
Luvwine wrote:
I am sure my technique is very basic. I try to capture with an aperture where I like the bokeh—often F2 or F2.8 on the CV 65. I allow a bit of extra room in framing as the magnification changes slightly as you change focus due to the extension of the barrel. I take however many images—usually 4-10 images. I develop one in LR—adjusting color temp, sharpening, contrast, etc. then I select the other frames and sync the development. I then open them as layers in PS and auto align and auto blend layers. Then I flatten the image and crop and usually am done then tho obviously can do some PS corrections if needed. I then save it and use LR to export and upload.
Never tried Zerene. I probably should as it might be faster (I just bought a new computer in part due to how slow my 7 year old machine was combining images) and would likely work better for tough stacks. I have had difficulty with PS when there is subject movement of any significant degree. I also need to get a better understanding for astrophotography. I suspect Zerene would work better for that application. Do you recommend Zerene?...Show more →
Thanks for sharing this Stephen. I never used Zerene for macro work but it's my preferred choice for landscapes. I am not a fan of Photoshop's auto-blend as it's prone to errors and does not allow much tweaking. What I really like about Zerene is the way you can easily edit the output and even use different blending techniques combined. I do recommend it and many photographers use it for macro.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for sharing this Stephen. I never used Zerene for macro work but it's my preferred choice for landscapes. I am not a fan of Photoshop's auto-blend as it's prone to errors and does not allow much tweaking. What I really like about Zerene is the way you can easily edit the output and even use different blending techniques combined. I do recommend it and many photographers use it for macro.
What do you like for macro? For landscapes, if not too many shots (often just 2-3) doing it manually with layers if the auto blend does not work makes sense no?
Luvwine wrote:
What do you like for macro? For landscapes, if not too many shots (often just 2-3) doing it manually with layers if the auto blend does not work makes sense no?
Yes, it works manually but in many occasions it's not so easy to blend depending on the foreground. Zerene is just so easy and accurate, I get lazy.
Sorry, I was not clear about my macro shooting..The truth is, I don't do much macro work and usually don't focus stack at all...
With the CV 65, I go handheld, trying to be as still as possible. Sometimes I shoot several frames per second in order to nail focus with insects or gentle wind. Here is an example: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1451413/68#14405840
I promise to start getting serious though. I really like your images.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it works manually but in many occasions it's not so easy to blend depending on the foreground. Zerene is just so easy and accurate, I get lazy.
Sorry, I was not clear about my macro shooting..The truth is, I don't do much macro work and usually don't focus stack at all...
With the CV 65, I go handheld, trying to be as still as possible. Sometimes I shoot several frames per second in order to nail focus with insects or gentle wind. Here is an example: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1451413/68#14405840
I promise to start getting serious though. I really like your images.
You and David have convinced me to give Zerene a try. In reading about the program, I bet it will be faster on my new machine. I got an 8 core iMac pro and Zerene claims to fully use the multi-core machines. PS does not from what I have read and this could make a significant difference in speed. Of course, the results are what matter and if you both like the program it must be worthwhile. Thx for the suggestion and your kind words. In most cases, I have come to like the look of focus stacked images better than either stopping way down or only having small amounts of the subject in focus. Of course, this is image dependent and sometimes having only a bit in focus works as your lovely image above illustrates.
I wonder if Arsenal or a future Sony firmware will automate focus stacking. If so, that might make an autofocus macro like the Sony 90/2.8 more interesting.
Luvwine wrote:
You and David have convinced me to give Zerene a try. In reading about the program, I bet it will be faster on my new machine. I got an 8 core iMac pro and Zerene claims to fully use the multi-core machines. PS does not from what I have read and this could make a significant difference in speed. Of course, the results are what matter and if you both like the program it must be worthwhile. Thx for the suggestion and your kind words. In most cases, I have come to like the look of focus stacked images better than either stopping way down or only having small amounts of the subject in focus. Of course, this is image dependent and sometimes having only a bit in focus works as your lovely image above illustrates.
I wonder if Arsenal or a future Sony firmware will automate focus stacking. If so, that might make an autofocus macro like the Sony 90/2.8 more interesting....Show more →
I forgot about Arsenal, it could make this process more seamless. It's schedule to ship next month. Still, I believe Zerene is a great option but takes a bit of a learning curve so I suggest checking the developer's videos.
Fred, I think I remember a handheld stack you shot in Yosemite-Half Dome? with the 65 on a fairly arduous hike. I think you mentioned using Zerene for that image.
Going to try and research how to focus stack images. I've never tried but always wanted to. These are shot at f/2.8 and f/8 - the second one was a fairly heavy crop.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it works manually but in many occasions it's not so easy to blend depending on the foreground. Zerene is just so easy and accurate, I get lazy.
Sorry, I was not clear about my macro shooting..The truth is, I don't do much macro work and usually don't focus stack at all...
With the CV 65, I go handheld, trying to be as still as possible. Sometimes I shoot several frames per second in order to nail focus with insects or gentle wind. Here is an example: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1451413/68#14405840
I promise to start getting serious though. I really like your images.
Fred, I know this is not a CV 65mm image, but just wanted to share that I loaded Zerene's demo and in about five minutes, I did this stacked image (8 images). It was faster that PS on my 8 core machine. It also had fewer defects tho there were portions of the image where I liked the PS output better, overall, I think the Zerene stack was better on this image. I think I may like Zerene...
Luvwine wrote:
Fred, I know this is not a CV 65mm image, but just wanted to share that I loaded Zerene's demo and in about five minutes, I did this stacked image (8 images). It was faster that PS on my 8 core machine. It also had fewer defects tho there were portions of the image where I liked the PS output better, overall, I think the Zerene stack was better on this image. I think I may like Zerene...
Luvwine wrote:
Fred, I know this is not a CV 65mm image, but just wanted to share that I loaded Zerene's demo and in about five minutes, I did this stacked image (8 images). It was faster that PS on my 8 core machine. It also had fewer defects tho there were portions of the image where I liked the PS output better, overall, I think the Zerene stack was better on this image. I think I may like Zerene...
Waiting for the 110/2.5 to be available to see if it replaces my 135/3.4 APO Telyt, which is great for long distance shots, but for candid portraits it's not at it's best at MFD, MFD is not always convenient, and less DOF would be nice to have. The 135/2 APO Zeiss is fantastic, but it's pretty big and heavy . . . and f/2.8 is sometimes just right to get eyes + some DOF on the face nice and sharp.
jhinkey wrote:
The 135/2 APO Zeiss is fantastic, but it's pretty big and heavy . . . and f/2.8 is sometimes just right to get eyes + some DOF on the face nice and sharp.
I am not sure that it will be that much lighter but we'll see.
Wildflower season is in full bloom here, sorry couldn't resist, so I've been giving the 65 a workout. I've hardly even touched my Sony 90 after using this lens now and can't wait to replace it with the 110 later this year. The 65 really does great for most flowers, it just lacks the reach and magnification for the really small ones. I'll try and post a stacked image later using Helicon Focus software.
I really like your images.
