Best Focus-Stacker and Why?

DQE wrote in post #13290028
Jack,
As best I can follow your post, I think you may have missed that Zerene handles 16-bit uncompressed photos, inputting and outputting them as tiffs.
Here's a quote and a link to this page, easily found on Zerene's FAQ page, easily located with Google:
http://www.zerenesyste​ms.com …ve_images_as_ti​ff_or_jpeg
"What kinds of image files will Zerene Stacker handle?"
"The input and output formats are JPEG and TIFF, the latter in either 8- or 16-bit RGB. A few other formats such as PNG and BMP can be read but not written."
Here's the info from Zerene's FAQ regarding color profiles. I also prefer ProPhoto and was glad to read that it will preserve this color space if I want to work that way. Here's this FAQ:
http://www.zerenesyste​ms.com …ker_handle_colo​r_profiles
"How does Zerene Stacker handle color profiles?"
"By default, whatever color profile is used by the input files is also copied through to output files that are saved as JPEG or TIFF. However, color profile is always ignored in Zerene Stacker's own screen displays. As a result, stacks using a wide-gamut profile such as ProPhotoRGB may appear significantly different when displayed by Zerene Stacker than when displayed by Photoshop or similar tool. On some computers Zerene Stacker will also ignore the color profile of your monitor, so that even sRGB images look different than shown in Photoshop. These differences may be worrisome if you don't know what's causing them, but the key thing to remember is that the color profile will be correct in the output file."
"Note: there is an optional setting at Options > Preferences > Color Management that can cause color profiles to be omitted from output files. If you're having trouble with profiles, check there to be sure that the Output option is selected to “Copy profile from input”."
I hope this helps.

Thanks for your input, DQE, I appreciate it.

No, I didn't miss that Zerene purported to handle 16-bit .tiff files, I just didn't see the the program handle them as well as Photoshop.

However, what I may well have missed was the last thing you wrote: I am not sure that this was clicked in my program. However, since I have let my free 30-day trail lapse, I would have to order the Zerene product at this point to proceed further, but since I am very satisfied with Photoshop I don't see this happening soon.

I may change my mind as I get into higher-magnification shots, with huge numbers of images to stack, as that seems to be where Zerene excels more so than what I experienced with my own style of photography.

Jack


.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13290868
Jack,
Thank you for the further discussion.
You still seem to be missing a couple of fundamental concepts, so I'll simplify this as best I can.

I am sure there are several elements missing in my level of understanding regarding your Zerene program, so thank you for any input. However, there is nothing I feel is missing in my level of understanding of doing what I want to do in Photoshop CS5.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13290868
Jack,
Zerene Stacker does not have a color management problem. Many of our users work in 16-bit ProPhoto color space, and they're quite happy with what they get. That's because when used properly, Zerene Stacker exactly copies pixel values and color profile from input to output.

Sorry Rik, but this seems to be a direct contradiction of what you just finished telling Martin. You said to him, "This can still be processed as a single stack using PMax, but it probably won't work well using DMap because the depth map will be forced to pass through unfocused images on its path from focus to focus. In this case you can expect to have some color shifts and noise accumulation as side effects of PMax. If those are not acceptable, then Photoshop would be the better tool as noted in my previous post."

With my style of photography, which is usually 1:1 or less, and deliberately involves vivid colors taken in optimal natural lighting, and with some randomness to the order, the difference in quality of color output was dramatically in favor of Photoshop. Again, this is not said with malice, but in earnest, and you seem to have basically just admitted this.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13290868
Jack,
Screen displays do assume sRGB, but this is clearly documented and does not affect the output quality. If you have test cases showing anything to the contrary, then please send them to upport@zerenesystems.c​om because that would be a bug.

Well, here again, you were very helpful in providing email support, and for that I thanked you both publicly, and in private, but at the end of the day even your own results as the designer of Zerene did not match what I got using Photoshop. This is not my own bias, as several members here (including Martin) concurred. Martin may have ultimately returned to Zerene, as he indicated, and that's great. But I don't freehand shoot like Martin, I use a macro focus rail (or at least a tripod), and my images are immediately usable right after my stacks, or with but a minor degree of touch-up.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13290868
Jack,
To the extent that people don't understand how this works, ZS does have a user management problem. I'll do the best I can to address that through improved documentation and diagnostics.

I would imagine that no one knows how to use your program better than you do, and yet the results you yourself achieved with my files still weren't what Photoshop did with them IMO and in the unsolicited opinons of those who commented on them here.

Admittedly, I selected subects that I felt would be very difficult to render, and you have indicated that the order in which I took the images was not ideal for the way Zerene works either. Still, the order was the same for both programs.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13290868
Jack,
No, not at all.
At the risk of being blunt, your conclusions are founded in beginner mistakes followed by incorrect inferences. The initial error of shooting in random order is perfectly understandable, though it is also so unusual that I didn't think to ask about it. However, this error completely prevents Zerene Stacker from being used in a way that meets your evaluation criteria. Your observations about color and bokeh stem from the way that you did use it, which was simply not correct for preserving those aspects.
I will happily agree that Photoshop is the tool of choice if you want to shoot randomly focused heaps and evaluate stacked results on the basis of bokeh and creamy transitions. Zerene Stacker just won't handle that combination.

Well, Rik, you can call my stacks "heaps" if you want, but the truth is most folks shooting nature photography aren't going to be able to take their stacked shots with machine-like precison. And, from what I have been able to gather, most of the really successful Zerene stacks involve 1) huge #s of images being combined, 2) little or no real color challenges/dynamic range, 3) automated and/or rigidly-controlled stacking sequences, and 4) 8-bit, sRGB, jpg files. Now, I have heard people say the program handles vivid colors rendered in the 16-bit ProPhoto color space, but I have yet to actually see what I consider to be such an image displayed by anyone.

It seems as if the findings I have made were exactly correct IF the images to be stacked were not taken with exact, machine-like precision that Zerene needs in order to be at its most effective. And, apparently, it isn't all that unusual to take random-ordered stacks, either, as Martin likewise admits to shooting in random order himself.

It seems to me that you basically just admit the truth of everything I have described when you responded to Martin. To reiterate, you said, "The really tough cases are like yours, where the shooter is not able to hold to a single line of view, but instead the lens or the subject moves laterally from one frame to another. This causes perspective changes. The subject and background line up differently from one frame to another, and that makes things very difficult to align as you'd like. In this case, Zerene Stacker will attempt to line things up as best it can using only shift, translate, and scale, while Photoshop will fire up a larger arsenal including perspective and lens distortion. The additional degrees of freedom allow Photoshop to do a better job of keeping things lined up. However, neither tool really knows what parts of the image you care about, so the results are not necessarily what you'd like. Frequently people just give up trying to use automated methods to stack these, and resort to manual methods instead. This is another case where I'd give the nod to Photoshop, since it has a far wider range of painting and transformation tools than Zerene Stacker does."

Thus, with the two direct quotes I just obtained from your own responses here, we have seen that (when images are not exactly sequentially taken) that both color quality/noise and alignment accuracy in Zerene suffer considerably, and that Photoshop will handle the images better and produce better results ... which is pretty much what I have said all along

Finally, I am not sure that choosing random focus points to combine is a "user error," as it is more reflective of the realities of shooting nature shots versus studio shots. Again, in your own words Photoshop has "the larger arsenal" to handle these maters.

Where Photoshop falters, and Zerene rises up and excels, seems to be in handling HUGE multi-image stacks, taken with ultra-precision rails or control of the sequence. Within this context, Photoshop bogs down and takes forever, producing results that are no longer favorable, whereas Zerene runs through this kind of stack rather quickly, producing better results.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13290868
Jack,
Photoshop is also well suited to people who prefer a very simple interface.

Are you saying that Zerene is a more complex program than Photoshop or that Zerene has a more complex interface and learning curve? Wow, we certainly disagree here!

The truth is, Zerene's interface is so simple it doesn't even represent colors accurately when you use it: the user actually has to close-out Zerene and re-open his finished stack in another program just to see the results properly.

By contrast, there are whole college courses devoted to mastering Photoshop and what it can do, and I think it is fair to say no program on earth handles and manages color better. I personally have purchased over 30 hours of video tutorials in order to learn Photoshop, and there is still plenty more to learn that's not covered.

And, actually Rik, that might be a great idea for you to consider: making a video tutorial on how to use Zerene Stacker to its uttermost.

I know that you spend hours coaching folks online, and by private email, and that is very considerate of you ... however, have you ever considered investing a couple of weeks of your time in producing a DVD tutorial that covers every aspect of handling your Zerene product? This might ultimately prove to be a far better way to teach your customers its strengths, its weaknesses, its best user preferences, etc. You might be doing your users a great service by providing such a DVD tutorial, not to mention saving yourself a lot of time in the long run.

Something to think about anyway ... because I can tell you I learned a whole lot more about how to use Photoshop, by watching professional video tutorials, than I ever learned reading books or reviewing posts online.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13290868
Jack,
I recently heard from an experienced pro photographer who gives workshops on focus stacking, and I thought he put it rather nicely: "I positioned Zerene Stacker against Photoshop as a tool that allowed much more control over the outcome."
I should add that nobody gets kickbacks for recommending Zerene Stacker. It's all done on the basis of providing the most appropriate tool for the users in question, with the presenter's reputation on the line. So when I read that a Canon Explorer of Light is recommending Zerene Stacker in his workshops, I take some pride in that (http://gccdesigns.com/​blog/?p=534).
I hope this is helpful. I'll be happy to answer any further questions.
--Rik

Well, I guess it all depends on what the photographer's needs and expectations are. I clicked on the provided link but couldn't find any stacked macro shots to compare to the results I get using my own methods, using my own preferred style of photography, so it's hard for me to measure the weight of his words.

Certainly, I am not looking to take microscopic images of fly's eyes, with limited color range, in what I do. And this kind of image seems to be the "poster-style" image that represents Zerene's capabilities (Helicon's too, for that matter). Again, if I too were looking to shoot at 5:1 or greater magnification, and make a 120-image stack of fly's eyes, or of jumping spider faces, with no real DR or background color (and if I had an automated stacker), I too would choose Zerene to handle this kind of an image. In fact, you just finished using this very kind of image as an example of what Zerene could do:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

John do you have any good focus stacks produced by Photoshop, produced from more than a very few simple images?
I also use CS5, but have over a few hundred "stacks", learned to view its stacker as a surprisingly low-value add-on compared to what you get for a bargain price with Zerene. ( I have no connection other than as a moderately experienced user). Photoshop is wonderful overall, and yes it can handle undemanding stacks as well, but I spent too many hours waiting for its poor results before finding something better. It's true, Zerene is a little more exacting to use, but it's a specialist product. As long as you take reasonable care with the input, and learn the basics of the tool, the output is consistently better. After using Zerene for a handful of images and learning from them you would have found what worked for you, and that it's very quick to do.
For sure if you're haphazard with the input, Photoshop fudges it together better without you having to learn anything.

Zerene certainly doesn't require "machine like precision" more than a focus rail which I note you use. I have dozens of perfectly good handheld stacks from Zerene too. If I have images "out of order" it doesn't take more than minutes in PS to swap the layers to find the correct order.

I must say your phraseology appears to be designed to be continuously derogatory about a product you got poor results from because you hadn't read the instructions. I don't think that's justified by suggesting that your unintended omission was somehow virtuous, highlighting a shortcoming in the product!
One example - Zerene "purports to handle". I can tell you that I find it "does handle". I use the same color and workspace, and software, as you and don't wind up with the effects you're producing. Something in your workflow perhaps - or the detail you need to read about. Full dynamic range is handled perfectly well. Even when accommodating a penchant for over-saturated colors. It is true that you can mess it up if you get it wrong, which you have demonstrated.
Further - you claim that it has been said that Zerene is a more complex program than Photoshop. Surely it would be obvious to other than a desperate man that the comment was aimed at the stacking part of the program. To suggest otherwise is a rather blatant "Straw Man" ploy.
You take many opportunities to attack what you happen not, or choose not, to understand. Pmax alters colors, but adds otherwise lost (to eg, Photoshop) detail. Dmap doesn't - it's much more like Photoshop in that respect. But you take the particular attribute of Pmax and apply it as though it would ruin the whole image. Only a fool would apply it in such a way - assuming he'd learned the basics.

Before you make such assertions about a product perhaps it would be better to show evidence that you are at least knowledgeable, experienced and competent in the area, and also have taken reasonable steps to see check your methods and results, and understand any problems you see. Showing evidence of a lack of analysis does nothing to further your cause, whatever that is.
This is perhaps something we might see from someone sore about the cost of a generalised product such as PS, feeling the need to expound its virtues?


You have left the judgment on your blog, that for someone contemplating a book on jumping spiders, that Photoshop is the way to go for stacking images. Fortunately, anyone with that task ahead of them is likely to be sufficient of an entomologist to have reviewed the methods of their peers and not make the mistake of adopting your advice. I really think you should delete it without delay for your own sake. Yours is just one voice in the crowd.

Looking at your flickr images I am unable to locate the evidence of a practitioner well versed in the stacking metier. Perhaps you can direct us?
The first image I looked at, quite a simple photograph which you head up the insects section with, has a glaringly and suddenly fuzzy leg, and blurred abdomen tip, in near center-field. As this is for a calendar I assume you want resolution for publication, so it has to be a stack. So the randomly blurred parts are explicable, only if the photographer
1) didn't execute the stack well, and in addition
2) didn't look objectively at his result, or if he did, was prepared to accept remarkably low standards
or
3) calls it "style".
Similarly, the three Ironweed photographs, are all just plain bad. They're so full of out-of-focus blobs that they're unusable for anything. Seed catalog packshots are better than that. Maybe it was windy, but you didn't get enough sharp images in the stack, simple. If you want a program that makes the least bad mess out of bad technique, fine. That fellow Rik is evidently too restrained to say "garbage in, garbage out". That's probably what he means when he says something like "sure, go ahead with Photoshop it's better for you."


This is not a question of style, and attempts to excuse it as such would be rather depressing.

So you don't think my image is good, Gascar?

Funny how, on Rik's own board, he said said of the above image:

rjlittlefield wrote:
="rjlittlefield"]This is very cool. The spider is beautiful and your photo is flawless.
...
--Rik

Therefore, Rik either really liked my image himself, or he was being ingenuine. I'd like to believe Rik really liked my image himself, and I have had some of the top arachnologists in the US state the same. If you personally don't like my image, you have the right to your own tastes, and I guess I will have to learn to get along in this world without your approval.

Honestly, though, I don't want to get into a spiraling insult-fest with you (or anyone else), and I can see that my blog article has aroused some bitter feelings in some people. For that I sincerely apologize.

Rather than insult my photographs, perhaps you can post several photos of your own, to show me how to do things, or maybe you can direct me to your website so that I can really learn? One thing I do know is the truth of this adage:

"Every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him."
~ Emerson

Unfortunately, for someone who proposes to be against degrading remarks, you certainly have made more degrading remarks in your opening post than anyone here has yet to make.

Therefore, I will give you a chance to reflect on your own attitude, and to see if you can practice what you preach, as well as allow for some time for you to show me some shots of your own. I am really interested in learning from anyone who's got something to teach, so I will get back to you tomorrow.

Headed off to a state park now

Jack


.

John Koerner wrote in post #13293097
Funny how, on Rik's own board, he said said of the above image:

Rik Littlefield wrote:
This is very cool. The spider is beautiful and your photo is flawless.

Therefore, Rik either really liked my image himself, or he was being ingenuine.

Yes, I wrote that, and I meant every word of it at the time I wrote it.

However, as seems to be common in this discussion, there's a backstory that John has omitted.

When he posted on photomacrography.net, he placed the image in our Nature gallery, an area that we clearly describe as "Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment." Accompanying the photo, he wrote that:

When I wrote "photo is flawless", I was interpreting it in the context that John described: a 3-frame stack of a highly-active spider under natural conditions.

But when I got to reading John's blog, I gathered that actually the spider had been collected by beating it off a bush, then transferring it to some sort of lab where it had been photographed later. When I asked John about that, he clarified that:

Based on the clarification, we moved the post to our gallery for Technical and Studio Photography. No harm done -- inappropriate placement happens a lot with new members.

However, the standards for image quality are rather different between the two galleries. That's why we separated them in the first place.

If I had fully understood the situation from the beginning, it's quite unlikely that I would have said "flawless". More likely I would have inquired why only 3 frames? Other members in our forum regularly shoot several dozens of frames under cool morning conditions, resulting in images that are impeccably sharp everywhere on the subject.

Cool morning shooting is a favorite technique of John Hallmén, who likes to push the envelope of stacking. A recent example is his 58-frame field stack of a caterpillar in its J-shape defensive posture ("Unknown Caterpillar" at http://www.flickr.com …6186322817/in/p​hotostream). He renders that stack in stereo also, using Zerene Stacker's "synthetic stereo" capability that allows generating high quality stereo pairs or rocking animations from a single deep stack. I like to watch John's work -- it's a real pleasure to see what tools can do in the hands of a master user.

Thanks for the opportunity for further discussion -- most appreciated.

--Rik

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13294401
<SNIP>

Cool morning shooting is a favorite technique of John Hallmén, who likes to push the envelope of stacking. A recent example is his 58-frame field stack of a caterpillar in its J-shape defensive posture ("Unknown Caterpillar" at http://www.flickr.com …6186322817/in/p​hotostream). He renders that stack in stereo also, using Zerene Stacker's "synthetic stereo" capability that allows generating high quality stereo pairs or rocking animations from a single deep stack. I like to watch John's work -- it's a real pleasure to see what tools can do in the hands of a master user.

Thanks for the opportunity for further discussion -- most appreciated.

--Rik

I personally find John Hallmén's stacks to be inspiring beyond words. At his flickr page (linked below), one finds many examples of live bug field stacks with nice, soft backgrounds, as well as delightfully rich and varied colors. Hallmén's stacks provide plenty of evidence that Zerene Stacker works well for field macro photography as well as for macro studio projects.

https://secure.flickr.​com/photos/johnhallmen​/

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13294401
Yes, I wrote that, and I meant every word of it at the time I wrote it.
However, as seems to be common in this discussion, there's a backstory that John has omitted.

While I do appreciate the original comment, Rik, I am curious to learn how can you believe I "omitted" any backstory, when I very clearly placed the reference link to the comment?

It seems to me that the only "backstory" being omitted here is your growing dislike for me because of my honest views on your product. The truth of this is getting pretty clear by now, but hey, you have right to feel any way you want to.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13294401
When he posted on photomacrography.net, he placed the image in our Nature gallery, an area that we clearly describe as "Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment." Accompanying the photo, he wrote that:
When I wrote "photo is flawless", I was interpreting it in the context that John described: a 3-frame stack of a highly-active spider under natural conditions.

Again, this is all revealed in the link I provided initially.

The truth is, by "natural conditions," the fact is the spider was outside, and there were no artificial lighting instruments, no artificial backgrounds, nor anything else artificial ... as opposed to my taking a stack of a dead spider, in a studio, with flash photography, and false backgrounds. Nothing of the sort was done like that here.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13294401
When I wrote "photo is flawless", I was interpreting it in the context that John described: a 3-frame stack of a highly-active spider under natural conditions.

And that is exactly what it was, save for some degree of control regarding its placement and a plamp controlling the foliage she was resting upon. I am a stickler for nature shots being taken with natural light versus flash, and that is what I meant.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13294401
But when I got to reading John's blog, I gathered that actually the spider had been collected by beating it off a bush, then transferring it to some sort of lab where it had been photographed later. When I asked John about that, he clarified that:

You are now making your own incorrect inferences, Rik. The spider photographed in my blog post was not the same spider I photographed in the above image. Those photos in my blog were the first photographs ever taken of the species in Dr. Edwards' lab back in June, and they involved flash photography which I personally don't like. Heck, they were even taken with a different lens too (the 180mm), which was insufficient to capture them correctly. Those spiders from the blog post are now dead and preserved in the museum.

The spider I photographed was my own specimen, and those photos were taken under natural (though slightly-controlled) conditions, using my MP-E 65 lens. So you're jumping the gun here in your beliefs and making accusations that are false. The photo I submitted on your sight was not a stack that I took in a lab. It was a stack of took of the spider outside in nature, under natural lighting conditions, with human control of its placement and the branch it was on. Hope this clarifies.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13294401
Based on the clarification, we moved the post to our gallery for Technical and Studio Photography. No harm done -- inappropriate placement happens a lot with new members.

You clarified on your site that any kind of control at all is not accepted in the "nature" section, which is fine (your forum, your rules). However, you are wrong in your belief that my shot was taken in any kind of a lab at all, it was not. There were no fake backgrounds, nor with any kind of artificial light. Again, it was as "natural" a shot as can be taken of a 4mm spider that moves as quickly as this one does.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13294401
However, the standards for image quality are rather different between the two galleries. That's why we separated them in the first place.
If I had fully understood the situation from the beginning, it's quite unlikely that I would have said "flawless". More likely I would have inquired why only 3 frames? Other members in our forum regularly shoot several dozens of frames under cool morning conditions, resulting in images that are impeccably sharp everywhere on the subject.

You don't fully-understand the situation, Rik, which is why you're making the incorrect inferences you're making.

You now are getting a bit rhetorical (if not petty), by wondering about the number of stacks. Why not more frames? Oh, I guess because the spider simply won't hold still for that long, that's why. Do you really need to ask this--or are you just being petty now over my opinion of your product?

In case you really don't know, I will try my best to explain why I only took 3 frames to you. Here we go: some creatures are different from each other. For example, crab spiders tend to hold still for several minutes, even hours, so taking multiple-stack images of such creatures is a relatively easy thing to do. However, you might be surprised to learn that some creatures are herky-jerky and are forever making quick, darting movements. Even in the morning, some such creatures still move a lot, they continuously clean their chelicerae with their palps, they rapidly alter their head positiong, etc. This is why the only true "stacks" that can be done with many species have to be performed on dead animals Rik. On the slower end, this is also why other species can be stacked easily.

These facts are further complicated when a person is trying to take these photos in cool, natural light--because it involves using a 1/5 - 1/20 shutter speed.

The truth is, anyone can freeze a frame when using a flash and 1/250 shutter speed ... especially taking shots of a creature that's not moving much ... but try taking stack shots of an active spider using a 1/6 shutter speed, in order to obtain optimal lighting without a flash ... and you might find yourself unable to get one clear frame without movement, let alone 3.

rjlittlefield wrote in post #13294401
Cool morning shooting is a favorite technique of John Hallmén, who likes to push the envelope of stacking. A recent example is his 58-frame field stack of a caterpillar in its J-shape defensive posture ("Unknown Caterpillar" at http://www.flickr.com …/johnhal...in/p​hotostream). He renders that stack in stereo also, using Zerene Stacker's "synthetic stereo" capability that allows generating high quality stereo pairs or rocking animations from a single deep stack. I like to watch John's work -- it's a real pleasure to see what tools can do in the hands of a master user.
Thanks for the opportunity for further discussion -- most appreciated.
--Rik

That is a beautiful photo with wonderful lighting.

But, here again, stacking images of a caterpillar that's as big as your thumb, and just sits there in a frozen posture, is quite a bit easier to do than trying to stack a highly-active spider that never sits still and is half the size of a grain of rice. I myself can easily take multiple early-morning stacks of large moths and such, but this little spider is no easy task, even in the morning, especially with her metallic reflective sheen. All of these factors contribute to the level of difficulty of any stack, so I am surprised I have to explain them to you.

Anyway, in closing, I find it interesting that you yourself selected this particular example of one of Mr. Hallmén's photos as what to expect from a "master" user of what your Zerene product can do. While I really do like the color and composition of this photo, since you want to nitpick on my images now, allow me to do the same in return. With all due respect to the photographer, and to your Zerene product, if a person right-clicks on Hallmén's Flickr image, and selects the option to view this image at "original" size, anyone can see many tiny ghosting and stacking imperfections all along the back of the caterpillar's neck and in certain other areas

However, that said, one of the things I don't like about stacking is the over-focus (pardon the pun) on searching for defects, rather than simply appreciating the color and composition (not to mention the subject!) of an image. Stacking is a potentially great tool that does have its definite uses ... but when the beautiful colors, the thoughful composition, and even the subject itself take a back seat to whether "every single detail is in focus" or not, something even more important becomes lost. Because at that point, the love of photography has died and been replaced with an over-obsession with "everything being in focus."

The truth is, fine art photography has been around a whole lot longer than focus-stacking, and most images do NOT need to be stacked in order to be either beautiful or appreciated. In fact, very few images of mine are stacked at all. It is simply unnecessary to do in most cases.

The best thing about this last thread response of yours Rik, is that I was given the opportunity to view the photography of Mr. Hallmén, because (all nitpicking aside), if we can get back to our love of photography, there were many absolutely wonderful images I was able to enjoy and appreciate, color-, subject-, and-composition-wise ... and so I thank you for that.

Jack

.

John I said nothing about "degrading" - you misquote. It's really better if you get details right here as well as in your dealings with technical subjects.
“Derogatory” would certainly be an appropriate tone for remarks about your blog.

I can just as easily choose Photoshop or Zerene, or CombineZM. The last of those is free, though you didn't mention it in your comparison – another demerit? I frankly don't care much which works best for detail and control, but I have no doubts, after hundreds of varied stacks.
Where I have a number of poorly aligned images, the greater range of distorting abilities of PS might theoretically help make the best of a bad job. In that case, PS might be thought appropriate, but I haven't found PS to be worth its disadvantages for stacking - so far.
Any of the stackers would do a decent job with the three images you present as an example. It's hardly a test, as they'd all pass, teaching us little. If your Mom likes it, does that help your argument?
Inasmuch as we are members of a community of photographers who use stacking, it is good to see members sharing their experiences. It is bad when they make so many mistakes, and downright unpleasant when they try to support their bad conclusions, with more testosterone than reason on show.
Increasingly, the community will see your blog only having first read the battering it receives through these more popular forums. I doubt that prospective calendar sales would justify the damage being done to your reputation, which may do better without the blog.
You are certainly doing the community as a whole a disservice, by leaving it as it is.

Gascar wrote in post #13298478
John I said nothing about "degrading" - you misquote. It's really better if you get details right here as well as in your dealings with technical subjects.
“Derogatory” would certainly be an appropriate tone for remarks about your blog.

Forgive my misquote, but I honestly didn't see anything really worthwhile in your vitriolic attack, so I pretty much just skimmed it.

Gascar wrote in post #13298478
I can just as easily choose Photoshop or Zerene, or CombineZM. The last of those is free, though you didn't mention it in your comparison – another demerit? I frankly don't care much which works best for detail and control, but I have no doubts, after hundreds of varied stacks.

With all of the "hundreds of stacks" that you've done, Gascar, why are you afraid to post your photography here for examination, as I asked? I tend to take people more seriously if they can show me something in their own abilities that I can aspire to, as opposed to those who make noise while hiding under cover.

Gascar wrote in post #13298478
Where I have a number of poorly aligned images, the greater range of distorting abilities of PS might theoretically help make the best of a bad job. In that case, PS might be thought appropriate, but I haven't found PS to be worth its disadvantages for stacking - so far.

It seems like you're only echoing what's already been established regarding Photoshop's superior tools with regard to alignment and perspective. After that, you've only given your own opinion (same as I have) here, while not clarifying the kinds of stacks you do nor even being willing to show your own photography as something to be aspired to or not.

Do you have anything new to add or some samples of your work to show?

Gascar wrote in post #13298478
Any of the stackers would do a decent job with the three images you present as an example. It's hardly a test, as they'd all pass, teaching us little. If your Mom likes it, does that help your argument?

What 3 images? I took several photos, from simple to complex, in my test. I wasn't trying to pass those photos off as "great photography" in my test; I was just taking randomly complex shots to test how the stacking programs handled them.

Your angry opinion doesn't mean anything either, and you certainly haven't offered anything worthwhile of your own as a test. So before you go running off to mommy, maybe you ought to conduct a serious controlled test of your own, and publish the findings, before you criticize mine.

Gascar wrote in post #13298478
Inasmuch as we are members of a community of photographers who use stacking, it is good to see members sharing their experiences. It is bad when they make so many mistakes, and downright unpleasant when they try to support their bad conclusions, with more testosterone than reason on show.

Excuse me Gascar, but this was a pretty civil, pleasant thread until you showed up. (Read it from page 1 on down and you'll see.)

I would think even the most casual viewer can see that you're not coming across as either very reasonable nor very pleasant yourself. It is hard to reason with anyone who possesses the very character weaknesses he purports to dislike.

Have you ever considered conducting yourself pleasantly in the same sentence that you're decrying someone "else" for being unpleasant, if you want to escape the embarrassment of absolute hypocrisy?

Gascar wrote in post #13298478
Increasingly, the community will see your blog only having first read the battering it receives through these more popular forums. I doubt that prospective calendar sales would justify the damage being done to your reputation, which may do better without the blog.

Anytime a person publishes an opinion on something, there will be people who agree with that opinion as well as those who do not, and any time a person tries to do something there will always be a chance he might make a mistake (or be misunderstood, etc.). Those things appear to scare you, Gascar (as you still have not provided any photos or tests of your own, to demonstrate your own level of understanding), but they do not scare me.

If anything, it is only by making mistakes and running the risk of being corrected that a person can learn, so the man who is afraid to stand up and run the risk of being criticized is only limiting his own growth and progress.

I think the objective reader will be benefitted both by any mistakes I may have made, as well as by any truths that I was able to bring into light. When mistakes and weaknesses are able to be pointed out (on either sides!), revealing this can only be considered edifying. And (again, if you actually read this whole thread), you will find that most people feel it was a beneficial thread topic and effort.

If you would like to make an attempt to live up to your own words and a) conduct your own 'proper' test, b) document each and every step you've taken, and take as much time writing it all up as I have, and then c) showing us all the detailed photos to back everything up, you could do nothing but be the very helpful member of this community that you allege to admire.

Absent this, all you are going is being a negative, unpleasant individual yourself, while offering no worthwhile effort or contribution of your own.

Jack

.

John Koerner wrote in post #13292569
I am sure there are several elements missing in my level of understanding regarding your Zerene program, so thank you for any input. However, there is nothing I feel is missing in my level of understanding of doing what I want to do in Photoshop CS5.

Johnathan,

It's a real shame to think about how much time you've spent posting about this one particular subject and the countless hours of your life you've lost trying to defending yourself to....well, everyone. From looking at your long winded responses on here and the other forum mentioned in this thread, I'm amazed that you find any time to sleep!

If you want to avoid such pummeling in the future, it seems like the best approach would be to compare two different things in which you have an equal understanding. That way, instead of getting so worked up (it looks like this has taken quite a toll on you if you've had to have cooling down periods and post veiled threats), you can make a more adequate and informed comparison and spend your spare time out shooting all these little critters rather than typing on the computer for hours at a time. Just some friendly advice.

-Adam

My photography isn't under examination,
it's your analysis of some programs.
You would only argue black is white. You've seen Rik's, you've seen John Hallmen's, and yet you learn nothing. What is lacking is any good stacks of yours, to justify what you’re saying. But we see none.

I don't need to be the world's best car driver to point out that someone crashing about because he doesn't know how to control his vehicle, and then complaining about the vehicle, deserves condemnation.
That's what you've done. Looking at my driving will not justify any change in an opinion that you're a lousy driver not competent to judge about cars, if all you’ve demonstrated is crashing into you trees. It's well beyond a matter of opinion. Trying to claim it’s only that, shows a severe lack of ability to think straight. Do you understand that?

I said that although we know they exist, I've not found a use for them in this context. Not the same at all and for you make that mistake about what it "seemed" shows only how twisted your thinking has become. Everyone reading this will see straight through you.
You have to learn to read, John. Look up "Straw Man" it's a classic invalid and rather childish way of going about an discussion when you don't want to be in the hole you've gotten yourself. You do it a lot and belittle yourself in the process.

But you made a complete hash of pretty much every comparison in your "test". Are you still trying to maintain that is was a respectable piece of work? It was a car crash.
The one image you keep promoting because some people said it was ok (some later retracted, it seems) was the one of the spider, with only 3 images, and no difficulties for a stacking program. You've shown us nothing good that PS can do that the others can't. (Ok it wasn’t easy to take the pictures – but that’s irrelevant.) We got a lot of stuff about peole thnking it was a nice picture!!!!
So we have no evidence, and a lot of invalid conclusion.

But as has been repeatedly explained, you didn't know what you were doing so made a hash of the whole thing, and completely invalid conclusions. Why don't you go back and try again? Because you aren't interested in getting things right? Obviously you’re not, or you'd still be using ZS.

Are you still trying to say that your judgements were a valid opinion? You got it wrong. Period. Serial car crashes do not invoke a matter of opinion about whether it’s good driving or the driver is up to comparing cars – unless the driver’s trying to show how big a mess he can make.

The people who enjoyed your blog had either never done any stacking, or found it “amusing”. As I said, to write a “comparison” requires some expertise.

So would you advocate learning about driving, or about cars, by watching people crash them?
You make WRONG CONCLUSIONS – those are primarily the “mistakes you may have made”. See?
It is blatantly NOT ok to leave them. It’s blatantly self-degrading to leave those mistakes up there, too. Why do that? For the general amusement of the reader?

I don’t need to any more. I’ve got both programs, learned by doing my own unbiased tests, and I’ve told you which one is much more useful, once the basics are understood. Rik and others have told you why. You’re nowhere near that level of understanding, and have given up by not having the program. And when the guy who wrote the thing tries to explain something you evidently don’t understand you ignore that, and rant on about matters of opinion again.
I don’t have an axe to grind, I don’t have a piece of stuff published under my name on the net.
I don’t need to constantly bring up bogus arguments on irrelevant points like you keep doing.

If you can’t see you’re doing it, you’re deluding yourself – nobody can help you there.

If you leave that stuff on the net, you will only attract more people saying it’s no good, and wondering what sort of person leaves it there.

If you don’t like that, tough, it’s the internet. Smell the coffee.
What you wrote is wrong, and you do not have the right to be ignored.

adamsheehy wrote in post #13299637
Johnathan,
It's a real shame to think about how much time you've spent posting about this one particular subject and the countless hours of your life you've lost trying to defending yourself to....well, everyone. From looking at your long winded responses on here and the other forum mentioned in this thread, I'm amazed that you find any time to sleep!
If you want to avoid such pummeling in the future, it seems like the best approach would be to compare two different things in which you have an equal understanding. That way, instead of getting so worked up (it looks like this has taken quite a toll on you if you've had to have cooling down periods and post veiled threats), you can make a more adequate and informed comparison and spend your spare time out shooting all these little critters rather than typing on the computer for hours at a time. Just some friendly advice.
-Adam

LOL, this is probably the best advice yet, to stop spending any more time on this. I have to agree with you here, in that I am long-winded, because I do enjoy writing and discussing photography with people. Yet to spend my time attempting to give thoughtful responses to the sort who appear to get off talking smack from behind their computer screen isn't very productive at all

Cheers,

Jack


.

I think that is enough, please just drop this now, it is not adding value for other users an has become personal.

It doesn't matter who is in the right, time out please.