![]() I know Zerene has various parameters & modes that assist in reducing stacking artifacts. They have demos you can download for free. Might be worthwhile to try these same original images with a dedicated stacking program like Zerene or Helicon. Since your manual stacks turned out OK, agree it must be something within PS. Very interesting, even though I don't use PS for stacking, I use Zerene. Hopefully somebody else may find my experience useful, to avoid the kinds of frustrations I've had. If nothing else, my manual focus stack proves that the source stack of images is just fine, the previous problem was with Photoshop itself. Result of manually painting masks to focus stack the same set of images. Finally I achieved a relatively nice result (I also did some color adjustments, please ignore since they don't have anything to do with the focus stack). I found this to be a good procedure because I could over-paint areas into closer focus zones without any net consequence for the resulting image, as painting subsequent layer masks above it would cover it anyways. Because the rearmost focus was on the bottom of the layer stack, I painted in the masks from back to front. It was very instructive and I learned a lot. So I decided to assemble all of the layers of images and do a manual focus stack. This can only be called an "awful" result, and it is typical of the results I've been seeing from Photoshop in other recent cases. I was immediately disappointed with the result, seeing blurry patches appear all over the place, especially where they are most noticeable (look at the numbers and text on the lens). Result of focus stacking using Photoshop CS6 Auto-Merge Layers function. When I loaded the raw files into photoshop CS6 and did "Auto-Blend Layers" this is what I got: ![]() But instead of 4-5, I made 11 increments, so that I could eliminate step size as a factor. My results and some tables suggested that I could get the entire subject into focus in 4-5 focus increments. For instance, Helicon Focus gives you multiple stacking options to select which are appropriate for different images. ![]() I then looked at depth of field previews to see what kind of depth I was getting at f/8. When comparing Photoshop to dedicated focus stacking software like Helicon Focus, it also becomes abundantly clear that Photoshop lacks a lot of features. I used at 60mm f/2.8D micro-Nikkor set to f/8, mounted on my D3s affixed to an ultra-solid super-heavy studio tripod with heavy-duty head and no column extension.entirely eliminating camera stability and mounting issues from the equation. I didn't realize this until I did another very careful test shoot of my Nikon FM3a on a table. It turns out that I was wrong about being wrong, the problem was Photoshop itself. I thought that I must be doing something wrong with my procedures, that my focus increments were not small enough, etc. I have used the auto-panorama stitching function before in Photoshop CS6, with absolutely wonderful results, but the results this time were quite bad in almost every case.bugs, flowers, etc., all came out with blurry fringes interlaced through the image. So I've been doing more focus-stacked macro in recent months, and I have been blindly trusting and following the auto-blending feature in Photoshop (e.g., File>Automate>Photomerge, Select Files, Align Layers, and then Edit>Auto-Blend Layers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |