Flower photographs using focus stacking

[Alan Clark]

• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/2.7999999523163
• 1/350 sec
• ISO 100

Lantana camara 'Feston Rose'. 17 images stacked in Helicon Focus. Although focus stacking is usually used to increase depth of field, in this case I shot at f2.8 to minimise DOF to defocus the background.

• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/2.7999999523163
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 100

12 images

• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/2.7999999523163
• 1/350 sec
• ISO 100

18 images. These are tiny flowers, shot at 1x magnification.

• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/2.7999999523163
• 1/350 sec
• ISO 100

12 images.

 

[brphotographycanada]

View attachment 48145Lantana camara 'Feston Rose'. 17 images stacked in Helicon Focus. Although focus stacking is usually used to increase depth of field, in this case I shot at f2.8 to minimise DOF to defocus the background.



View attachment 48146
12 images



View attachment 4814918 images. These are tiny flowers, shot at 1x magnification.



View attachment 48148
12 images.

F/2.7999999 lol. That's a funny quirk. Amazing photos. I've dabbled with focus stacking of flowers with very mixed results. Were you indoors or was it just no wind at all?

 

[Alan Clark]

They were outdoors. I shot them hand-held in burst mode at the highest frame rate, which I find is the easiest and fastest method. However, there was a gusty wind so I needed a few attempts with the third photo, the flowers were very unsteady.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Alan,
17 shots at f2.8 and associated limited DOF will result in unfocused stack image transition areas and/ or
Limited full image depth sharpness.

First photo seems to be a bit softer at the flower stamen center, the second and third much improved the
Fourth which indicates focus depth loss at the most rightwards flower.

Not intending to be critical,but offering constructive opinion only , I would normally expect to see many more stack images
to achieve full subject sharp focus......understand you were field handholding in windy conditions and recognise that is
A challenge.

In the field, unless your subject is very small, a f2.8 lens will require many stack shots and in windy conditions will compromise
Your stack blending accuracy. In the field I would in most instances go for a lens with a longerminimum focus distance and hence greater
DOF to minimise the required stack shots for image full depth focus and accommodate wind effect.

I haven't used helicon for some time but generally find zerene stacker and photoshop the more efficient softwares for post blending artifact
Resolution with photoshop the better system as long as you have a high end PC...there are of course pros and cons for either system

A few comments which i hope may assist in your focus stacking journey.....

 

[Alan Clark]

Hi Ray,
Thank you for your comments. I am aware that f2.8 can result in unfocused areas and less-than-optimal sharpness, so I stop down by 2 or 3 stops if I think the background is less of a problem.
I was aware that the closest flower is out-of-focus in the fourth image, I failed to get a frame with it sharp, so poor technique on my part.
I don't agree that a longer lens will give better DOF, it is a function of the f-stop only, not focal length.
I am not familiar with Zerene so I will investigate.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Alan,
i think you will find the DOF is "proportional to the square of the change in focal length" for the same aperture,
and not soley dependent upon aperture size alone.

 

[Alan Clark]

DOF in close-up depends on the f number and the magnification, not the focal length, as this shows:
https://damienfournierdotco.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/dof_magnification_serie21.jpg?w=1250

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

No point in going down this rabbit hole Alan , my original suggestion was to increase focal length/minimum focus distance
and hence DOF to support achieving full image sharpness with minimum shots.

Light physics are light physics and that doesn't change.....no matter how much we would like it to.

I don't have much more to add......