Stackshot but no software

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

robirdman
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:53 pm

Stackshot but no software

Post by robirdman »

I thought this was all I needed and received it today, and set up a Bombardier beetle and tried several stack series. Only after that did I realize there was no software at all to combine them. I thought the Zerene and Helicon were just if you wanted to do it remotely, and I assumed for almost $600 there would be a means of combining the images.

Next I downloaded free CombineZ, but it didn't even recognize the D4 RAW files. Then I got a window I could only minimize and couldn't close, while the rest of the software window disappeared.

Then I investigated Photoshop CS6's own focus stacking method. I tried each of 3 series I did, where I tried to get the closest antenna and the farthest tarsi. It was spread fairly flat but I used 24 or 29 steps for 10mm distance. None of the series had all in focus. I thought it would be much better than just shooting a single shot with f45. These were with a 200mm macro Nikon with a close-up lens in front and I think F16 or F32. The head and thorax look pretty detailed but some parts of the elytra aren't even sharp. So this first effort was disappointing.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

That sounds like a frustrating experience.

In defense of Cognisys, nowhere on their website does it say that they provide stacking software. Quite the contrary, they say in the first paragraph of their StackShot description that "Focus stacking is the art of digitally combining a series of images with a narrow depth of field into a single image using a software program such as Zerene Stacker or Helicon Focus." Last I checked, trial copies of those two packages also come on a CD packaged with the rail, although I'm quite sure those versions are less current than what you can download for trial from either of those websites.

Now, about the result you got...
24 or 29 steps for 10mm distance.
...
200mm macro Nikon with a close-up lens in front and I think F16 or F32
I presume this means that you were operating at greater than 1X magnification, probably substantially greater considering that you're using a full-frame camera. I'll assume 2X. With a modern Nikon body and lens, the F16 or F32 refers to effective aperture, already corrected for the effects of magnification. So then referring to the third table HERE, 2X and F16 requires a step size of 0.14 mm to guarantee no focus banding. With 24 steps in 10 mm distance, you'd be over 0.40 mm, which is pushing it. Your lack of sharpness on the elytra could be due to either an overly large step size or an artifact of Photoshop's stacking method. You'd have to examine the source frames to see which.

If you'd like to greatly increase the odds of getting of a good result on your second effort, I suggest using a conservatively small step size such as in that table I mentioned, then running your images through either Zerene Stacker or Helicon Focus. Those are specialist products that generally do a better job than Photoshop's built-in stacking method.

Helicon Focus will accept your raw files directly into its user interface (and behind the scenes convert them to TIFF for the actual stacking). Zerene Stacker requires JPEG or TIFF for its input, but if you're using Lightroom there's a beta version with Lightroom plugin that hides the conversion in that case also.

I hope this helps.

Standard disclosure: I wrote Zerene Stacker and I'm the fellow who responds to requests for support@zerenesystems.com.

--Rik

robirdman
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:53 pm

Post by robirdman »

I should read more carefully instead of making assumptions, as I did when I thought the Optics objectives were what was depicted adjacently. I assumed with the name Stackshot that meant the capability was included to stack. And in reply to the question, is there anything else I need besides the shutter cable to get started, the tech said no. I am always astonished how something such as a CD that is a little piece of cheap plastic should cost so much. I know it is the argument of what it took to get to that point, but once there millions can be produced so cheaply. I compare the years developing expertise and organization of a symphony orchestra and yet the result CDs cost a fraction of many software CDs. Enough ranting.

It turns out this is going to be a much more expensive enterprise than first anticipated. I need to develop a better system. I meant to say that I was using f16 or f22, as reading in the viewfinder. I was avoiding going to f45 to avoid the diffraction that you warned against. The magnification was probably only a little more than x1. I will put a ruler in to get a value.

I started to experiment with diffusing the light of the 3 R1 flashes that I was using and it greatly reduced the exposure even more than I expected. Where before I might have had something like 1/250 f45, ISO 50, I was going to slower shutters and higher ISO and still dark, with the flashes not always giving the same exposure with 4 second intervals. As these batteries were costing over $7 each, or $21 for 3, they might only last for a few subjects with lots more shots for each and cost many hundreds or thousands(??) to finish documenting the collection I hoped to. So I may need a different illumination systems as well.

I monitored through the viewfinder. I tried live view as well but I had to lower the settings to 1/30, f5.6 and a very high ISO to see the subject clearly and I don't know that I trusted this more. I have never hooked the D4 up to the computer for remote viewing so would have to see what is involved.

I don't use Lightroom. I downloaded a trial once and didn't notice the advantages over how I use Bridge. It didn't seem to share the data I had already entered there.
I am already invested and committed to getting better results. My first efforts were a bit of an excited rush to see how things turned out. I'm hoping that I don't have to go out in the snow just to get more batteries before my next trial.

robirdman
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:53 pm

Post by robirdman »

Field is 25 mm wide. I am trying again at F32. I see that it is the antennae that are sticking up more, otherwise it would need such depth.

robirdman
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:53 pm

Post by robirdman »

Here are results on my second trial for advice on improvement. One is from Photoshop and the other Helicon , which didn't deal with the RAW file well and I don't know what to change. From 26 RAW images 25mm field, 200mm macro w/close-up, F32, 1/4" ISO 160 w 3R1 flashes with some white packing material taped over.
I tried a different beetle of the same species as the first one was discolored by being in ammonia and acetone too long and its antennae were in a much higher plane.

Image
Image

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

robirdman wrote:Here are results on my second trial for advice on improvement.
I assume that you're the consumer for these images. So, what aspects of the images would you most like to see improved?

--Rik

robirdman
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:53 pm

Post by robirdman »

To come closer to the quality of images I've seen here.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

robirdman wrote:To come closer to the quality of images I've seen here.
For reference, compare http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=22450 and http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=10149.

These show the same type of subject photographed by two different people using different equipment, methods, and goals.

I think you'll agree that the images shown by Yousef Alhabshi are outstanding in all respects: posing, illumination, sharpness, specimen prep (cleaning), and post-processing. The tradeoff is that these images no doubt required a long time to produce. It would not be possible to prepare images of this quality for a sizable collection.

In contrast, the images shown by Pau are more utilitarian. They're not as esthetically appealing and they don't show as much detail, but they would have been much faster to produce. This is the level of imagery that's appropriate for large collections.

I'm still unclear about your goals. Maybe you are too. A reasonable way to proceed might be to push for the highest quality you can get, learn how to do that, then slack off to whatever you can afford for the bulk of your collection.

--Rik

robirdman
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:53 pm

Post by robirdman »

I am going to try another series today at f8 or f11.
If I am reading the chart right then I should have steps at .072 and .14 then for those?
200mm macro with closeup appears to be 1.4x.

I hoping I might get an quick answer while I am testing lighting setups with bigger flashes that just use AA batteries, before try the stack.
Thanks

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

robirdman wrote:I am going to try another series today at f8 or f11.
If I am reading the chart right then I should have steps at .072 and .14 then for those?
200mm macro with closeup appears to be 1.4x.
That sounds right to me.

--Rik

robirdman
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:53 pm

Post by robirdman »

Actually I went ahead and shot F10 with ,120mm steps, with 2 SB800 flashes. I haven't stacked yet, but I wanted to try a new beetle, which is smaller, on a triangle, and with a closeup that has a 2cm field. this one is shinier though and I am still seeing bright spots while trying different diffuser situations with stuff I have handy. Still haven't got the lighting satisfactory.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Sounds like you need a wrap-around diffuser.

If you have a white foam cup handy, then cut out the bottom and place the resulting cylinder over & around the specimen. Orient your flashes so they strike the cup both on the outside and on the inside (shining in through the hole in the end). Be sure the flashes do not strike the specimen directly.

Alternatively, make a cone of any thin white paper and use it the same way.

--Rik

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic