DSLRUsers.com

Here's my first attempt at focus stacking. This is 15 images shot at f/5.6 with my D7000 and 60mm f/2.8D with pop-up flash and mini diffuser. I should have shot at f/8 and taken smaller steps but it still turned out OK for a first attempt.

It is a pity the moth has gone because I'd like to have another go.

Looks pretty good Andrew. Just the feet look out. Are they recoverable? ie do you have any images that include them in focus?

I'm confused though. Wouldn't f/8 give you larger steps, or are you after more lattitude?

As for the image itself, I would be inclined to bump the contrast up a tad.
I know these are similar to the bark because they are camouflaged, but I'd like a little more separation

Mr Darcy wrote:Just the feet look out. Are they recoverable? ie do you have any images that include them in focus?

I don't believe so. I think I jumped some steps.

Mr Darcy wrote:I'm confused though. Wouldn't f/8 give you larger steps, or are you after more lattitude?

Yes, larger potential steps, so I would have avoided missing portions. Plus I think f/8 is probably sharper than f/5.6 for the narrow areas that are in focus. I'd rather have more images than I need than not enough.

Nice work Andrew (and brave stacking a living/potentially moving thing first up ) - my real problem isn't so much the sharpness of the moth or the stacking anomalies but that the tree branch itself just suddenly stops being sharp - if that was either more gradual or you shot enough to cover the tree perhaps?

Remorhaz wrote:...and brave stacking a living/potentially moving thing first up

It was more that I found the moth and realised it was going to be difficult to get a good shot with a single image so I tried focus stacking. Being a moth and being daytime, I knew it wasn't going to be moving.

Remorhaz wrote:my real problem isn't so much the sharpness of the moth or the stacking anomalies but that the tree branch itself just suddenly stops being sharp - if that was either more gradual or you shot enough to cover the tree perhaps?

Yeah, next time I try a shot like this it will be at f/8 and I'll start from the branch at the bottom right all the way to the centre left so that the branch is in focus the whole way.

I just have to find another moth - difficult at this time of the year.

I don't mind this one, its a good subject and nicely done having it sit still for so long, as you have already identified 5.6 is too high, f8 or even down to f11 will give much better strike rate.

biggerry wrote:I don't mind this one, its a good subject and nicely done having it sit still for so long, as you have already identified 5.6 is too high, f8 or even down to f11 will give much better strike rate.

I don't know - I've been stacking most of mine using f/2.8 to f/5.6 (but using lots of source images - anywhere from 10 to 50). I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not but it's just what I've been instinctively doing (probably more risky but I expect you get a nicer blurred background). I might try some at a much more stopped down scenario (f/8 or f/11) and see what ensues?

I guess if BG is that important, just a single shot at f2.8 and add that to the front or back and just cleanup the frame BG in the software, the difference in the number of shots is a significant factor for me.

biggerry wrote:I guess if BG is that important, just a single shot at f2.8 and add that to the front or back and just cleanup the frame BG in the software, the difference in the number of shots is a significant factor for me.

That could work for some images - however I've noticed with many of my more complex shots (e.g. flower petals and parts at quite different distances) that the blurred out closer components naturally spreads out over parts of the subject and background behind in the different shots - so I end up having to blend in blurred background components from many different frames across the whole sequence to different parts of the image. I probably didn't explain this properly but suffice to say a single f/2.8 shot won't work cleanly for many images.