I experimented with Stacking 3 frames using CombineZP and Zenene Stacker.
The first stack is by CZP, the second is by ZS.
Which do you think is best?
Hack
Wooden Motorcycle
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
And here is a photo I took by focusing at mid-mass.
Hack
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 40D
Image Date: 2010:01:24 01:36:15
Flash Used: Yes (Manual)
Focal Length: 100.0mm
CCD Width: 22.25mm
Exposure Time: 0.0040 s (1/250)
Aperture: f/9.0
ISO equiv: 250
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
I used the same settings for the stacked images. For some reason when I right-click on the ZS stack, it won't tell me the EXIF data, the CZP stack will.
Hack
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 40D
Image Date: 2010:01:24 01:36:15
Flash Used: Yes (Manual)
Focal Length: 100.0mm
CCD Width: 22.25mm
Exposure Time: 0.0040 s (1/250)
Aperture: f/9.0
ISO equiv: 250
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
I used the same settings for the stacked images. For some reason when I right-click on the ZS stack, it won't tell me the EXIF data, the CZP stack will.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23561
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
The difference between your CZP and ZS images is that by default CZP does some sharpening and contrast enhancement, where ZS does not. This is why the ZS result looks like your single frame except for more DOF. If you edit the macros in CZP, you can turn those off.
ZS does not preserve EXIF data; CZP does.
--Rik
ZS does not preserve EXIF data; CZP does.
--Rik
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23561
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
The difference is in the rear end, seat and behind. It's a bit blurred in the single shot.
From the standpoint of overall appearance, this scene illustrates a case where using a wider aperture and stacking can be helpful even at low magnification.
The issue is that "busy" background. It's easy for the cycle to get lost in the plaid fabric.
As shown here, the single shot gives better separation because the background is more OOF. The stacked result, shot at the same aperture setting, has the background sharper and hence more distracting.
But one could get the best of both worlds by opening the lens wider, maybe full open, and shooting a more closely spaced stack. That way the cycle could be fully in focus, with the background even more blurred than in the single shot here.
Hack, one comment about image comparisons. It's best if the images are identical except for the aspect being discussed. In this case, the images have different perspective, size, and framing, so it's a lot harder to tease out what's actually causing differences in appearance.
--Rik
From the standpoint of overall appearance, this scene illustrates a case where using a wider aperture and stacking can be helpful even at low magnification.
The issue is that "busy" background. It's easy for the cycle to get lost in the plaid fabric.
As shown here, the single shot gives better separation because the background is more OOF. The stacked result, shot at the same aperture setting, has the background sharper and hence more distracting.
But one could get the best of both worlds by opening the lens wider, maybe full open, and shooting a more closely spaced stack. That way the cycle could be fully in focus, with the background even more blurred than in the single shot here.
Hack, one comment about image comparisons. It's best if the images are identical except for the aspect being discussed. In this case, the images have different perspective, size, and framing, so it's a lot harder to tease out what's actually causing differences in appearance.
--Rik
As far as size goes, I'm not sure how to make the two stacked ones identical. I tried to crop them as close as my old eyes could determine.
I think if I do it again, I'll use a solid colored background. I didn't think about the fabric of the sofa completing with the bike when I was taking the pics.
There's a lot more to photography, I'm realizing, than just aiming and pressing the shutter.
Hack
I think if I do it again, I'll use a solid colored background. I didn't think about the fabric of the sofa completing with the bike when I was taking the pics.
There's a lot more to photography, I'm realizing, than just aiming and pressing the shutter.
Hack
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23561
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Oh, sorry. Those two were OK. I was really commenting on the two stacked versus the one single shot, responding to ChrisR's comment. The camera appears to have been moved between the stacks and the single shot. You can see that the motorcycle lines up completely differently with the background. More careful study indicates that the single shot was made from a higher viewpoint, with the camera pointing down more and moved a bit to the right. And the image sizes are different as posted, 800x533 versus 678×501.Hack wrote:As far as size goes, I'm not sure how to make the two stacked ones identical. I tried to crop them as close as my old eyes could determine.
Backgrounds are a perennial problem. We humans have selective attention, and it's very selective. When we're setting up a shot, our attention is focused on the subject. Completely insane stuff in the background gets overlooked just because it's not the subject. One of the checklist items for photographing people is "look to be sure there's no potted plant growing out of your subject's head".I think if I do it again, I'll use a solid colored background. I didn't think about the fabric of the sofa completing with the bike when I was taking the pics.
And no matter how much you learn, the amount left seems to be unchanged!There's a lot more to photography, I'm realizing, than just aiming and pressing the shutter.
--Rik