Best Focus-Stacker and Why?

Martin G. wrote in post #12906351
John,
Have you been stacking with Dmap in Zerene? I could swear that is what you have been doing judging by your results.
Seriously, I never obtained such horrible pictures in Zerene as the ones you have shown in your tests, except when I had tried Dmap, they look like typical Dmap stacks. I always stack in Dmax since I never understood how to work out Dmap (and I seem not to be the only one) and it always produced images like the ones you have shown, seems like only Rik understands the obscure science of Dmap! lol That is why I stick to Dmax.
Can you enlighten me?
Martin

Interesting, Martin.

My program does not have a Dmax, but it does have a Pmax and a Dmap. When I first tried Zerene, I used both Pmax and Dmap, and got horrible results. Then, when I sent the images to Rik, he advised me specifically to use Dmap ... which (you are correct!) provided all of those images.

I have run 2 stacks now using strictly Pmax, and both of them came out better by far than Dmap, though they still fell short of CS5 IMO. I am going to bed now, but tomorrow I will update my blog with the "alternative" stacks and let you and the others be the judge of these, but indeed your point here seems to be very well-taken, based on the first 2 stacks that I have run on the .tiff files. Will do the rest tomorrow ...

Cheers!

Jack

.

oups, my bad, yes I meant Pmax

John, I gotta say that if I would have come up with stacks like those, I would have quit before learning the whys and wherefores. Just my good luck that I started with CS5.

Martin G. wrote in post #12907543
oups, my bad, yes I meant Pmax

Okay, Martin, I added image-stacking results from Zerene Stacker (Pmax) this time as well as with Dmap.


((( The Results are Here )))


For those who can't be bothered with reading and actually seeing the results for themselves (LOL), here is a summary:

* Adobe CS5 Extended Stacker: First Place (7x out of 7)
* Zerene Stacker (Pmax): Second Place (Tied for First Place 3x, Second Place 3x, Loser 1x)
* Helicon-Focus Stacker: Third Place (Tied for First Place 1x, Second Place 2x, Loser 4x)
* Zerene Stacker (Dmap): Last Place (First Place 0x, Second Place 3x, Loser 4x)


Click on the above link for full details

Jack


.

chauncey wrote in post #12909434
John, I gotta say that if I would have come up with stacks like those, I would have quit before learning the whys and wherefores.

Exactly. I made a quick decision after just doing the one image ... so I decided to do several more just to be sure (in both formats with Zerene too!) ... but after these results I no longer am interested in the other two products.

Too much trouble = wasted time.

chauncey wrote in post #12909434
Just my good luck that I started with CS5.

Mine too

Jack

.

Hi John,

Thanks for taking time to re-run the tests with Pmax and to compare these 3 programs.

I have to say that I am most impressed by what PS produces straight out without any retouching. Specially revealing in the last few shots you have shown in your tests. The ones with PS are pretty much usable without any major further adjustments which is remarkable to say the least.

What I would be curious to see for myself is how the retouching works in PS to see if I could use this program for what I do (remember that my shots do not allign perfectly, so whatever the program, there is no output image that will be useable after the stack, so my needs are based on the comodity of the retouching tool). Not sure if there is a trial version of CS5 that can be used, will have to look into this. Anyhow, it will be a very long time before I have the funds to aquire this program even if I would find it is suitable for my needs.

Thank you for your time

Martin

Martain, there are a ton of Photoshop CS5 retouching tutorials out there, a few from YouTube are listed here https://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdis​play.php?f=38
Also, be aware that they have academic versions available from places like this www.academicsuperstore​.comfor the non-pros out there.

Martin G. wrote in post #12923866
Hi John,
Thanks for taking time to re-run the tests with Pmax and to compare these 3 programs.
I have to say that I am most impressed by what PS produces straight out without any retouching. Specially revealing in the last few shots you have shown in your tests. The ones with PS are pretty much usable without any major further adjustments which is remarkable to say the least.
What I would be curious to see for myself is how the retouching works in PS to see if I could use this program for what I do (remember that my shots do not allign perfectly, so whatever the program, there is no output image that will be useable after the stack, so my needs are based on the comodity of the retouching tool). Not sure if there is a trial version of CS5 that can be used, will have to look into this. Anyhow, it will be a very long time before I have the funds to aquire this program even if I would find it is suitable for my needs.
Thank you for your time
Martin

Hey Martin,

Thank you for taking the time to comment. Your observations were the same as my own. I mean, essentially, what anyone's goal is when they hit the "stack" button is to get usable images when it's over ... not to have to spend several hours "correcting" the flaws inherent in their stacking program's output. (Let alone to have to do this with every single image too )

Regarding the alignment of your images, that is actually the difference between Photoshop and these other programs: Adobe works in layers ... where the other programs try to "map" and combine the images. By working in layers, Adboe moves one image to the left, one image to the right, etc., (which truly aligns them properly) ... and then you hit the "stack" button ... while the others try to do it all at once from a "map". Thus, in the end, I think Adobe's layered stack would produce better results for you, given your style of shooting.

As far as Adobe's retouching tools, I don't think there is a program made by any company that has more retouching tools than Adobe CS5 Extended. In fact, most of the peripheral companies that offer "touch-up" software, offer themselves as plug-ins to Adobe, because Adobe is pretty much The Defacto Standard against which all other programs are compared to, judged, and designed to work with.

Jack

PS: Yes, you can download a free 30-day trial of Adobe CS5 Extended too (there's a link on the 1st paragraph of my blog).

.

.

John Koerner wrote in post #12881208
I have answered my own question: The Adobe Photoshop CS5 stacker gave me, by far, the best results in really tricky stacking situations.

Here is my report

Cheers!

Jack

.

Hey John, I have just spent an hour going through your blog. All I can do at this stage is to thank you for sharing that mine of information with us.

I am not totally new to macro photography, but like all "real" photographers I am learning new stuff all the time. Which is why I enjoy POTN so much.

Of course there is a lot of opinion and prejudice to wade through, but every now and then I come across someone like yourself who has taken the time to actually demonstrate how they have reached their conclusions...and the lessons are most gratefully received.

Thank you!

John,

I will just have to download the trial and see for myself.

But, in order to illustrate what I mean by not allign, I am not talking simple left-right or up-down misalignment, I am talking perspective shifts and angles.

I think pictures would help.

This is a stack from my recent Argentina trip. This is untouched staight out of Zerene. But it does not really matter what program you use in this case, the pictures do not fit together at all. I presume that PS would not really come with anything better.

Ricardo222 wrote in post #12925058
Hey John, I have just spent an hour going through your blog. All I can do at this stage is to thank you for sharing that mine of information with us.
I am not totally new to macro photography, but like all "real" photographers I am learning new stuff all the time. Which is why I enjoy POTN so much.
Of course there is a lot of opinion and prejudice to wade through, but every now and then I come across someone like yourself who has taken the time to actually demonstrate how they have reached their conclusions...and the lessons are most gratefully received.
Thank you!

Thank you very much Ricardo, both for taking an hour out of your time to read my blog, and then for taking the time to comment on it. I sincerely appreciate it!

Jack

Martin G. wrote in post #12925214
John,
I will just have to download the trial and see for myself.

I agree, just as I had to download Helicon and Zerene to see for myself. If you decide to download Adobe CS5 Exended, I just posted a new blog entry and have a direct link to it at the very end (see below).

Martin G. wrote in post #12925214
John,
But, in order to illustrate what I mean by not allign, I am not talking simple left-right or up-down misalignment, I am talking perspective shifts and angles.
I think pictures would help.
This is a stack from my recent Argentina trip. This is untouched staight out of Zerene. But it does not really matter what program you use in this case, the pictures do not fit together at all. I presume that PS would not really come with anything better.
xxx

Well, I think that may be an unwarranted presumption. Adobe uses Layers first to align all the images under each other, then it blends them, but you could see for sure if you download their program and try it.

Martin G. wrote in post #12925214
John,
A clearly totally unusable image. That was me bent 90 degree down in a garbage can with the MPE.
xxx

I would have to see the Adobe result to compare, but I do agree this is an unusable image as-is. However, it is basically a simple image: no real background bokeh, clean lines on the fly face, so it should have been easy to stack cleanly IMO.

Martin G. wrote in post #12925214
John,
I am extremely familiar with Zerene, it has a very easy and good retouching tool that allows me to manually select whatever part of whatever pictures I want to include in my stack. In about 15 minutes (I did not really time myself, but I am quite fast at working with Zerene, never hours, not even 30 minutes for pretty much any situation) of simple retouching (and cropping in PSE), I obtain this:
xxx

That was a much better result, to be sure. And I understand about being totally familiar with a program ... that kind of investment of time "to get there" is not something any person wants to give up to start all over again at the beginning with a new program. So this is completely understandable.

However, if that "switch" to another program would ultimately save a person hours of time, not to mention open their possibilities in endless other ways not included in the other program, then that is something else again.

Martin G. wrote in post #12925214
John,
so for me, the deal breaker will be how PS allows you to retouch the image. The way Zerene works is pretty much "meant" for the way I work (handheld in poor balancing condition... yes I know I should use a tripod! ). It is very intuitive and fast to use for me. Remember that a user will always work much faster with a software he is used to. But the winter months might give me ample time to start learning stacking in CS5!
Just wanted to illustrate what I meant in case it was not clear and also possibly for other people to see what can be done.
I guess I just need to try it for myself and see.

Again, understood Martin, and what you say makes perfect sense. If you decide to give it a try, I have whipped-up a full tutorial on how to use the Adobe CS5 Stacker:

>>> Tutorial on Adobe CS5 Stacker

At the end of the article is a link to the Adobe Free Download site, where you can use the program for 30 days and see for yourself. I would certainly be very interested in hearing your own experiences and feedback.

Martin G. wrote in post #12925214
John,
All the best and once more, thank you for taking the time to test these softwares, I am sure it will be usefull to many.
Martin

Same to you Martin, your own feedback and time providing your experiences has helped me here too, and for that I sincerely thank you. Looking forward to hearing your results!

Have a good one

Jack


.

When you take these images, regardless of the number of images, using a focusing rail or simply moving the camera, you are altering the perspective...the image subject changes in pixel size in relation to the total image.

It's more than simple alignment via masking, you cannot align subjects of a different size, at some point there must be a fundamental resizing of the subjects within the image.

John Koerner wrote in post #12925882
Again, understood Martin, and what you say makes perfect sense. If you decide to give it a try, I have whipped-up a full tutorial on how to use the Adobe CS5 Stacker:

>>> Tutorial on Adobe CS5 Stacker

At the end of the article is a link to the Adobe Free Download site, where you can use the program for 30 days and see for yourself. I would certainly be very interested in hearing your own experiences and feedback.

Most excellent, it will save me a lot of time trying to fiddle and see how it works.

I will try it out for sure as soon as I get the chance.

Martin

Hello John,

I downloaded CS5 this morning as I was eager to try it, since most of my shots are all stacked in the first place.

First I want to thank you again for the tutorial, it saved me tons of time not to have to fiddle and search how to work this thing out.

I have redone the stack of my recent buterfly shot. I have to say that I was not impressed with the result I got with CS5. This is a 28 shots handheld stack. I chose this one because I knew the shots alligned very well, so I wanted to compare how things came out in the complete automated process (since I do not know how to retouch a stack in PS). I had obtained a decent image in Zerene when I had done it, so I thought CS should handle this very easily.

Here is a crop of the image. I have pointed out with black arrows several problems. There are nasty hallos around the legs, missing information on the antennae and the tip of the face of the buterfly among the most noticeable problems at first glance.