I have posted three photos (hope that’s ok?) of an echeveria plant that started to bloom late last fall and since we have not had a particularly rough winter these blooms are still hanging in there.
I am trying to decide between stacking images in Photoshop and Helicon. Or not stacking at all, which is the third photo.
What artistic feedback would you like if any?
Having gone through this exercise i can’t tell the difference between the first photo (Photoshop stack) and the second photo (Helicon). I feel the answer is whatever the photographer intended, what was the reason, concept for the photo in the first place. Think i am leaning more towards the third photo, which is the single capture. I like the focal point of the small flower with the rest of the image slightly out of focus.
I would appreciate any comments, suggestions and/or techniques you would like to pass along.
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
This is 21 images that have been stacked. No additional processing was done as I am trying to compare pure image to image.
Nikon D7200, Tokina 100mm, f/9, 100iso, 1/5 sec., natural light (stacked images)
Nikon D7200, Tokina 100mm, f/4, 100iso, 1/25sec., natural light (one capture)
If you would like your image to be eligible for a feature on the NPN Instagram (@NaturePhotoNet), add the tag ‘ig’ and leave your Instagram username below.!
Linda, first of all, it is just fine that you upload more than one photo to do a comparison, bounce thoughts off of other photographers about stacking and not stacking. You sure did a wonderful job stacking, and it gives you a nice DOF all the way through the plant and blooms. If these old eyes are seeing correctly, I believe the second photo is the better of the 2 stacked images. It seems like things that need to be sharp are just a bit sharper, and the out of focus background is a little bit more out of focus. Again, old eyes could be playing tricks on me. I also like the single image, with the selective focus. It just makes me enjoy the inside of the bloom more, and the buds that are relatively sharp support the bloom, knowing that soon it too will be bloomed out. You are fortunate to have blooms to go outside and capture photos of, as around here the freezing has killed any flowers that are around. Hopefully those that are more experienced with stacking can chime in and help with your wonderful photos. I am enjoying your macros. Also remember that when it is flowers, you can also submit them in the Flora category (even if they are macro shots). Gives you some more options.
Thank you Shirley. I’m with you my ol’ eyes aren’t nearly what they used to be. Perhaps that’s why i prefer the softer out of focus photos. Seriously, I do like drawing the eyes into a specific portion of the photos, especially with the macros. But the challenge of the stacking process was/is getting my goat! And thanks for suggesting posting to the “flora” category, hadn’t considered that.
I prefer the single image. Nice capture. To my mind, more of the frame in focus distracts from the subject. You might want to try cropping out the right third of the image so it doesn’t compete with the subject.
Linda: As you know I’m a single capture guy but in this instance I think I prefer the stacks with little preference one over the other. I like seeing a bit more of these small structures in focus. The selective focus on #3 is good but I don’t think the flower is quite strong enough to command the attention it needs. All three are good efforts and kudos to you for your experimentation. >=))>
Thank you Don and Bill for taking the time to help me out here. I am feeling more and more of a “single capture” type, but having gone through this exercise, clearly there are times when stacking is more appropriate. I keep going back to what is the concept? What drew me to this image and why did i feel compelled to photograph it. On the two edits I’ve added, I did minor processing (burning some areas around the main flower). Then as Don suggested, I cropped it to further emphasis flower bud. I like the 2nd version (not cropped) because, for me, keeping the other flowers in the frame (but with them slightly darker) not only helps to put the little bud in context . I’d be interested in your thoughts and comments on the edits. And again, i truly appreciate everyones input.
Linda, this is a fine comparison, both between the two stacking options and between stacking and single image. Clearly choosing stacking vs single image is an artistic choice.
What follows is based on looking at expanded versions of your two stacked images and my experience.
First, the PS image is notably sharper. I believe this is due to your choice of stacking method and parameters in Helicon. Helicon’s C (or pyramid) method is usually sharper than either it’s A (weighted average) or B (depth map) methods. The B method gives sharper results than the A method. When you use a larger radius (like 20) the software is blending that number of pixels together to get the result. For images with lots of detail, you want a smaller radius, I typically use 4, when I use either the B or C methods on macro images. (You can use larger numbers, like 20, when there’s less detail or for landscape stacks.) The main drawback of Helicon’s C method is the need to fix bright white spots.
You can “mix and match” combinations of sharp and oof in any stack by your choice of images in the stack.
Here are two clips from your two stacks where I’m highlighting the two main stacking problems. The same issues appear in both posts, so I’m using the same descriptions.
Box 1: There are 2 diagonal somewhat blurred regions. These indicate that the depth change in your stack was not covered by the depth-of-field. If you’re adjusting your focus by hand, I know from personal experience how hard it is to get tiny depth changes. That’s why I routinely shoot macro stacks at f/16 and still end up throwing out lots of stacks. The fact that these soft strips are clearer in the PS image again shows the extra smoothing that you’re getting with your Helicon parameters (Something else to adjust, depending on the result you want.)
Box 2 (PS): The tip of the pad is nicely sharp. The soft area in the flower right behind the pad illustrates a laws of optics. The only way to get both the pad tip and the flower behind sharp, without a small soft area like you have here is to get both parts sharp in a single frame. With complex subjects like your plant here fulfilling this requirement is often impossible. That rim of softness can be fixed with some careful cloning after the stack is completed.
I’m surprised by the lack of sharpness on the flower tip and the pad tip in the Helicon stack. That’s not the type of performance that I expect from Helicon (in any of it’s methods).
Mark, I am totally overwhelmed with gratitude for all of these observations and comments you have given me. . . .and I am taking copious notes so on my next stacking adventure I can work earnestly with these techniques.
So, from reviewing your comments and looking at the images more closely I am thinking to create a sharper image I need to; 1. get new glasses - when i take a macro - I use live view and zoom in, hand focus and the use my remote release - but it never seems totally sharp to me, 2. should i choose to use Helicon, a smaller radius for stacking purposes would help and 3. experiment with macros at f/16 (don’t think I’ve tried that yet).
Then i am also wondering if it truly is my eye sight or are my camera (Nikon D7200) and macro lens (Tokina 100mm) at their capacities?
Thank you again Mark. I hope some day to have enough experience to feel comfortable to making the kind of meaningful contributions as you and the others have given me.
Linda, here’s a link to a Helicon stack that I posted last spring, Red Maple flowers and seeds.
Your post here got me investigating further, so I went in and restacked the same 10 images. I was surprised by the results! First, I saw little if any difference between using the B method with varying parameters and the C method also with varying parameters. That should be said with the caveat that while these flowers are a “close-up”, they are not a macro shot, so I’ll need to revisit the effects of parameter choice on sharpness in a true macro shot also. What I did see, were some places where last year’s version did a better job of retaining sharpness and one situation where the new version avoided a common artifact. I just emailed these two clips “new” and “old” to Helicon with my comments, which I’ll repeat here. The blue and green arrows point to spots where there is less sharpness in the “new” stack, while the yellow arrow points to an area where the old version left a blur around the edge with the new version shows a clean background.
This comparison you’ve done is very thorough and it will be really interesting to hear what Helicon has to say. In the meantime, I going to just keep on experimenting, testing and clicking away. Thanks again Mark.
- when i take a macro - I use live view and zoom in, hand focus and the use my remote release - but it never seems totally sharp to me, 2. should i choose to use Helicon, a smaller radius for stacking purposes would help and 3. experiment with macros at f/16 (don’t think I’ve tried that yet).
