I use Helicon Focus mostly for plant photos and other small scenes. It is SO MUCH BETTER than Photoshop. It is easy to use once you learn the basics. Like someone mentioned above, I start with Method B and almost always have good results on the first try.
I think that it is well worth the expense if you do a decent amount of focus stacking. Since getting this software, I am focus stacking a lot more because it works so well and makes the process simple. I have even had subjects move quite a bit due to wind while photographing and in some cases, Helicon has been able to come up with an almost seamless result on the first try (for example, lily pads floating across water and moving during the photography process). I use the DNG workflow mentioned above, as well.
Hi Richard:
Yes, I’ve made larger prints (17x22 - if that is large by your definition). They look great. There’s no reason a focus stacked image should not look just like a single image capture if the stacking is done well. Helicon is so good, that looking at the images at 100% on the screen you can’t find any artifacts of stacking
I will second Sarah’s statement that Helicon Focus is far superior to Photoshop for image stacking. It was originally developed for photo microscopy which is why I first started using quite a few years ago. It is worth the price!
@Keith_Bauer I would define large as starting at 30 in on the short side but good to know. I just know that the few images where I’ve blended multiple exposures, I’ve had a hard time getting it all perfect at 100% so it doesn’t look like a composite.
I’ve used Helicon for a few years now, and generally do most of my focus stacking using the “pyramid” algorithm of that software, usually with great success. However, particularly with outdoor macro work, I’ve had multiple stacks that Helicon could not combine into a sharp, artifact-free image but Photoshop could.
All of these failed Helicon stacks had the same problem, namely some amount of unwanted movement—either due to wind, or movement of the living subject itself. Helicon was unable to perfectly align all the images, regardless of which stacking strategy (weighted average, depth map , or pyramid) was selected. I shared one of these troublesome stacks with customer support at Helicon at their request. They weren’t able to do any better than I did. They had a few suggestions but I had already tried them, like increasing the rotational misalignment setting and trying the other stacking strategies. I’ve concluded that Photoshop is simply better at aligning stacks where movement is an issue. I’m not saying this makes Photoshop t he better stacking program overall— there’s a limit as to how much movement it can handle, and overall, Helicon stomps it in terms of speed. But it’s nice to have both programs available for these occasional troublesome stacks. Postscript: I have Zerene also, and it also failed on the stacks in question.
Hi Kerry, Welcome aboard. I have had the same results between Adobe Products and Helicon. Over the years PS seems to be improving focus stacking capabilities, however if I need something quick Helicon is still the speed star.
Yes, welcome to NPN! thanks for chiming in on your experience.
In my short time using it, I have had similar experiences. I think the SW works beautifully for the most part. But I have notice, and actually understandably, that if an element moves significantly (wind) between various exposures - especially from the nearest/furtherst perspective, that element may show ghosting, or literally two versions.
What is cool with the software is the “retouching” phase where you can select the sharpest layer and simply paint in the version you desire - at that location. The blends are pretty seemless. And in my experience, the very finely detailed scenes (field of flowers) one would be hard pressed to notice any anomalies.