Focus Stacking

[Dennis P Finegan]

Digital photography has opened up new possibilities with post-processing. As macro photography has increased in popularity, focus stacking has opened up new areas to explore. Basically, it is a little like HD photography where multiple images are taken at different exposures. In stacking, the focus is changed, not the exposure. I found a beginning tutorial that describes the picture taking process, but not the how-to in software. Have a look: https://photographylife.com/focus-stacking-macro-photography

 

[glbarlow]

Higher end Nikon cameras have feature for this I use occasionally.  Set the parameters in menu, focus at the very closest point (on a tripod) click the shutter once and it will take a series of photos at incremental focus points front to back, I just wait until it’s done. Nikon calls it Focus Shift.

 

Of course that stack of photos still has to be merged either in Photoshop or a program like Helicon Focus, which I have. While it ultimately results in an almost 3-D like photo, the down side is it takes a considerable amount of time to generate that one resulting image between taking it and processing it. 

[Dr PR]

Focus stacking is a lot of work, both in taking the series of images and in combining them into one image. But it yields images you can't get any other way. I use it often when photographing wildflowers and in photographing ship models.

 

Here is an example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note that you can see the grain in the end of the bowsprit dowel, and in the masts, and in the planks in the transom. The distance from the tip of the bowsprit dowel to the end of the boat davits on the stern is 22 1/2 inches! The camera lens was about 6 inches in front of the end of the bowsprit dowel.

 

I took a series of 12 photos, each focused upon parts of the model at successively greater distances. I was careful to ensure that each photo's depth of field overlapped the previous photo so there were no blurred ranges in between. I used an excellent macro lens for the pictures - a Nikon 105 mm  f/2.8 macro lens designed especially for close up images with a great depth of field.

 

The 12 photos were taken into Photoshop and placed as layers in a single file. Then I used the "Auto-Blend Layers" function to combine them into a single image. The program selected the sharpest parts of each layer and cut out the blurry parts too close or too distant to be in the focus range.  Then they were all combined into a single layer.

 

It is a pretty good picture, but the process isn't perfect. Notice on the lower left that near the edge the planks are blurred. I have see similar blurring near the edges of many stacked photos where the program can't decide what parts are the sharpest. But still the image is far better than what you can get with a single exposure, no matter what camera and lens you are using.

 

It took about an hour to take the pictures and edit them in Photoshop.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Dr PR

[Justin P.]

Good focus stacking requires a rail in my opinion.  They can be had for small amounts of money.  In this way you are not adjust the focus of the camera, but it’s distance from the object providing greater clarity.   Helicon Focus software is a great purpose built option if your looking to take focus stacking seriously.

[bartley]

You are quite correct, Justine.  There are many scientific applications of focus stacking and we always use a rail to do this.  Changing the focal point, especially with a zoom lens, causes a marginal change in size and so greater demands are placed on the software.  Even so the quality suffers especially at the edges of the frame.  You may interested to know that in medical imaging and in forensic applications we take multiple images and then use mathematical functions to look for differences between images.

 

John

[gsdpic]

7 hours ago, Justin P. said:

Good focus stacking requires a rail in my opinion.  They can be had for small amounts of money.  In this way you are not adjust the focus of the camera, but it’s distance from the object providing greater clarity.   Helicon Focus software is a great purpose built option if your looking to take focus stacking seriously.

 

Using a rail for macro focus stacking is certainly helpful.  But at model ship sizes it may not be practical.  That image above by Dr PR would require one heck of a rail to take it without changing the focus distance on the lens.  And doing focus stacking in landscape photography obviously cannot be done with a rail.

 

4 hours ago, bartley said:

You are quite correct, Justine.  There are many scientific applications of focus stacking and we always use a rail to do this.  Changing the focal point, especially with a zoom lens, causes a marginal change in size and so greater demands are placed on the software.  Even so the quality suffers especially at the edges of the frame.  You may interested to know that in medical imaging and in forensic applications we take multiple images and then use mathematical functions to look for differences between images.

 

John

 

The size of the object in the photograph will change regardless of whether you use a rail to move the camera or you change the focus distance.   For this reason it is probably best to compose the image such that the object does not fill the frame as much as you want and then crop after stacking.  I suspect the blurry left edge of Dr PR's photo is due to this....the images where those parts of the model would have been in focus did not actually include those parts of the model in the frame.

 

[Justin P.]

5 hours ago, gsdpic said:

Using a rail for macro focus stacking is certainly helpful.  But at model ship sizes it may not be practical

I dont know if this is necessarily true.  I think depending on your standard, and your capacity you probably can get away with both.   However, I perform technical photography for documentation and examination purposes on medium to large size three-dimensional museum/library objects all the time.   One facet of these workflows generally include focus-stacked images that can span up to 12" or more of depth and I use a rail.  Doing so provides images with far fewer anomalies.  Much depends on how you setup your workflow and how you plan your post-processing and the capabilities/resolution of your camera as well as your proficiency with purpose built software.

[glbarlow]

16 hours ago, Justin P. said:

Good focus stacking requires a rail in my opinion

A rail isn’t used or needed at all with the Nikon’s Focus Shift feature, all the work is done by the camera, a tripod is essential though. It actually wouldn’t be needed with any camera doing the same process manually changing focus. Your changing the point of focus without changing the framing of the photo. The camera can’t move, if it does the image is corrupted. Only the focal plane changes incrementally front to back. I think some may be confused. The image, more specifically the composition, stays exactly the same, nothing changes or gets bigger.  All that happens is the precise point of focus of the image is changed. Selection of the best aperture is also important as there is an associated depth of field wherever the focus point is. Part of the work is knowing the overlap so there are no soft spots between stacked images. Nikon Focus shift does this overlap based on a setting I choose. I take these mostly at f/5.6 for smaller closer things (like a ship model) or f/8 for deeper landscape photos (a stream or waterfall). A rail likely helps for macro images like a flower, I’ve never used one but guessing that’s a different process than Focus Shift photography. I have though taken photos of flowers without one, just a tripod and Focus Shift.  
 

The only reason I don’t do more of these is the setup and processing time required, even with the focus shifting done by my cameras.  Helicon Focus and Photoshop work their magic to select and blend the best focus of every element in the frame.  I took a Focus shift of Cheerful stern to bow, it used 50 images. I’ve done landscape images that take 150-300.  A lot of memory and processing given my Nikon Z7s and D850 take 45MB images and a lot processing power to blend that many images. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by glbarlow

[James H]

I need to see if my D5100 does this. At the moment I'm doing the photos manually and stacking in Photoshop. 

[glbarlow]

1 minute ago, James H said:

my D5100 does this.

Sorry James, I doubt it does. I think The Z mirrorless (both my Z7 and Z7II have it) but perhaps only D850 and above in DSLRs. Time for a camera upgrade?  

[James H]

1 minute ago, glbarlow said:

Sorry James, I doubt it does. I think The Z mirrorless (both my Z7 and Z7II have it) but perhaps only D850 and above in DSLRs. Time for a camera upgrade?  

That's quite possible. What would be the next step from a D5100 that would include such a feature.....but won't bankrupt me? The D850 you mention? That's probably more than I can stretch to.

[glbarlow]

7 minutes ago, James H said:

The D850 you mention?

Actually all Nikon’s new technologies is going to the Mirrorless Z line. They’ve come a long way, I wouldn’t buy another DSLR at this point. There is an FTZ adapter so you can still use your f mount lenses, the S line lens are also the main path forward but can be deferred. I know the Z6 has focus shift, not sure about the more moderately price Z5. I’m sure Nikon’s web page will say.  Canon users are out of luck altogether. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by glbarlow

[bartley]

The problem is, Glenn, that theory is not always born out in practice. Your Nikon is changing the focusing point gradually during the collection of the images. Theoretically the size of an image should not change as you change the focus but manufacturing tolerances  of the lens and other factors result in what is called  "focus breathing" ,  This means that the focal length changes very slightly as you change the focus, hence the size of the image.  One of the lens elements has to move to change the focus and it is almost impossible to do this without effecting other elements. This effect is, of course, dependent on the lens design.  The real question is would you notice it?  Probably not in everyday general work,  such as the photo you describe of Cheerful, but in technical photography it becomes very important. 

 

John

[Dr PR]

In the 12 photo sequence I posted above I did see slight image magnification changes with each different focus distance. I see this with image sequences using only a few photos. Photoshop has an "Auto-Align Layers" function that places all images aligned and rescaled so that the features in each image line up at the same size. Then the  "Auto-Blend Layers" function does the photo stacking.

 

I agree that the blurred parts of my image were probably not in sharp focus in any of the 12 images, but even when they are I often see blurry perimeters. As the focus distance changes the image magnification changes so the picture area in the first image (closest focus to the camera) is wider than in the last image (most distant focus from the camera). So not all images contain the same picture area. This means the outer parts of the stacked image may not contain any sharp images, so there is nothing there for the focus stack software to choose.

 

I understand the use of a rail - I have three different units. But as was said, trying to use a rail on an object nearly two feet deep would be a lot more difficult than just putting the camera on a tripod and shooting a sequence of individually focused pictures.

 

First, even with a good depth of field (high f number and long exposures)  the camera would have to move more than a foot or more. If it was close to the model the image magnification (view angle)would change greatly from start to finish. This would be much more than by just refocusing the lens on a fixed camera.

 

Rather than using a macro lens as I did, a longer focal length lens (telephoto) positioned several feet from the model would help with the magnification change with camera movement. I experimented with this a lot about 40 years ago and got good results with a 300 mm f4 lens. But it requires a very large/long work space. And a long rail. And a  very solid vibration free work environment.

 

This brings me to my point. Most of us are not photographing museum pieces, and we don't have the large photo studio with all the specialized camera equipment and long rails. So it isn't "better" for those of us who don't have it.

 

****

 

One more thing. I have been pretty successful hand holding my camera and macro lens while photographing wildflowers outdoors - and photo stacking multiple images to get a great depth of field. Everyone says you can't photo stack hand held images, and they are wrong. Photoshop's  "Auto-Align Layers" does a very good job compensating for small camera motion differences. It works most of the time if you know what you are doing - and there isn't a lot of breeze blowing the flowers! Most, but not all of the time. But if you don't try it it fails every time.

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

1 km long, in focus from start to finish, no photo stacking

spotting scopes do not have similar depth of field as camera lens

I use it sometimes for my model ships for and it works great

[Justin P.]

11 hours ago, Dr PR said:

This brings me to my point. Most of us are not photographing museum pieces, and we don't have the large photo studio with all the specialized camera equipment and long rails. So it isn't "better" for those of us who don't have it.

Well...   I think we can agree to disagree.  I didnt mean to offend anyone with my rail suggestion.   Its a minimal investment, and if used correctly can be very helpful - hence, my suggestion.  It is afterall, only my opinion.    You are absolutely right, a rail isnt helpful if you dont have one.   

 

I personally would not use a macro lens or a telephoto lens to shoot something like a model ship If I were going to be focus stacking (unless I was doing close-ups on some detail, but still never a telephoto).   While its true that I do shoot museum pieces for work, I only brought that up as an example that you can shoot things that are complex 3-d objects of the same size as a model ship using a rail with no problem.   It isnt complicated and does not require anything expensive or special.   The rail we use in my studio at work is the same  I use at home...   $25, and about 10" long.    We use pretty standard cameras, lights...   nothing specialized.   Its a common misconception that good photography requires heavy investment.   

 

It is true that you can get good results using all sorts of methods - from precision rails on a $400 tripod, to standing on your head in a 20 knot wind.     There hasnt been a photography thread that isnt rife with 5 different methods and 20 different opinions.    I was just offering one. 

[Charles Green]

RE: Gaetan's comments

 

Depth of field increases with focusing distance.  This explains the great DOF in his outdoor photo.  At the other extreme, DOF in an image from a common desk-top microscope may be measured by the fourth decimal place.  Regardless of the optical instrument being used, lenses of the same focal length, at the same focusing distance, and at the same f#, will all produce the same DOF. 

[glbarlow]

1 hour ago, Justin P. said:

  I didnt mean to offend anyone with my rail suggestion.

No offense taken. I also didn’t mean to offend anyone pointing out while a rail is likely helpful in a macro environment especially if your doing the focusing steps manually, it isn’t helpful for focus stacking in a landscape environment and isn’t needed at all with Nikon’s Focus Shift feature,

 

However in the agree to disagree column I can easily demonstrate image quality differences In multiple categories between a kit or low end lens and a high end one. The difference between cameras is mostly measured in features and control but there are quality differences there too.  Ship building and photography are both my hobbies, but photography pays me back in image sales on occasion. 
 

Acknowledging I’m being a bit critical, the street photo posted isn’t in focus at all, front to back.  Any image shot at a small aperture at a far enough distance can be in focus, but that’s hardly the point in discussing this method for ship models. 

 

Like you, mine is only an opinion formed from experience. 

[gsdpic]

2 hours ago, Justin P. said:

The rail we use in my studio at work is the same  I use at home...   $25, and about 10" long.  

That was exactly my point when I said that using a rail may not be practical at model ship sizes.  That 10 inch long rail would probably not allow you to take the photo that Dr PR showed which had a 22 inch range from front to back.   And that is not even a particularly large model.    Sure, there are times when a rail would be the best solution but there are also times when changing the focus point is the best solution.  Or maybe some other equipment or technique is better.   Just a matter of trying to figure out the best set of compromises to make to get the image you want (where those compromises potentially include the equipment you have or the skills you have or the software you own).

[Dr PR]

I take no offense either. The more opinions the better, and more facts are even better! Even after half a century of photography I am still learning and open to new ideas.

 

I agree that I wouldn't try to use a long focal length lens (telephoto) to photograph a ship model (or anything else) if I was using photo stacking.

 

Generally speaking, the best image magnification you can get on the photo sensor with most lenses not designed for close distance photography is about 0.25x (taken from Nikon lens data). So they aren't very useful for close-up photography.  You have to back out to the minimum focus distance for the lens, but that isn't a problem if you are photographing the whole model. In fact, you will probably want to back off even farther to get the entire thing in the image.

 

A macro lens can give you 1x magnification on the image sensor, so it is ideal for close up photography of small details.  Even so, with an excellent macro lens you may not have enough depth of field at the focus distance to get one clear image, so photo stacking is very useful. Here are some examples:

 

 

 

The image on the left is one of a series of photos of this cannon rigging, taken with the same lighting and f stop. Notice blurring of the far end of the port lid, the bulwark at the right and the close edge of the penny. The image on the right is the result of photo stacking several images shot with the camera at the same position relative to the cannon and different focus distances. All parts of the image are in sharp focus. So photo stacking is useful for small details shot close up with a macro lens.

 

As Charles Green said, depth of field is proportional to focus distance. Here is a graph I prepared for a photography lecture using a lens I have:

 

 

 

This lens has a very long minimum focus distance (about 15 feet or 4.5 meters) so it wouldn't be very useful for photographing ship models.  But the graph clearly shows the relationship between focus distance and depth of field, and the effect different f stops have on depth of field. Higher f numbers produce greater depth of field. These relationships are true of all lenses, but shorter focal length lenses have much better characteristics at shorter focus distances.

 

But the problem with backing out to longer focus distances to get a greater depth of field is that the photo subject becomes a smaller and smaller part of the field of view. So a longer focal length lens is needed (or longer zoom) to narrow the field to just fit the subject.

 

My experiments with long focal length lenses several decades ago were intended to take advantage of the greater depth of field at longer focus distances and large f numbers, and still get enough magnification to include the entire subject in the field of view. The problem with this approach is that the long focus distances cause the setup to be more sensitive to slight vibrations. If you try this method you must have a far more sturdy camera support than afforded by most tripods and bright lighting. In one case I discovered that my heartbeat was causing regular expansion and contraction of my chest, and this was sending out slight pressure waves that were moving the image in perfect sync with my heartbeat! I had to use a long cable release and step out of the room!

Edited October 25, 2021 by Dr PR

[bartley]

The definition DOF is not a simple matter since it is not a fixed optical parameter.  It depends ultimately on ones definition of the "circle of confusion" which is the amount of blur that the human eye will perceive as a sharp point when the image is viewed at normal viewing distance.  Since the eyes of different individuals vary, the circle of confusion is, in principal, a personal thing.  There is of course a definition of the circle of confusion - in fact there are several so I would call it a convention.  To further complicate matters, real lenses do not focus rays precisely anyway so that a point is  not focused as a point focused but as a small spot.  One of the advantages of focus stacking is ,that if we take enough images, each image has an area that is a sharp as the lens iis capable of so all of the above assumptions don't matter,  Incidentally, because of the graph shown by Dr PR  you need to take more images at closer distances.  Our rails are run under computer control and we program  to do this.  We use Nikon cameras and others and for the very close work we do the rail gives less artifacts than the Focus shift in camera method.  On this rail issue it would be ludicrous to try to use a rail on a landscape photo, for example and although we have used the rail technique to photograph some quite large objects focus shift is probably just as good.  One other thing about the rail technique for larger objects is that the perspective is somewhat unusual.  We often use tilt /shift techniques to avoid this.

 

John

Edited October 27, 2021 by bartley

[Dziadeczek]

This was my very first attempt at focus stacking, using my old Nikon d200, standard kit zoom lens 18-70, a tripod, no rails. Merging on Photoshop.

I am quite satisfied with the result.  What do you think, guys?

Thomas

[Dr PR]

DZ,

 

I don't see how anyone could find fault with that picture. It is a great photo of a very nice model. I still have my D200 body but I quite literally wore out the 18-70 mm lens. It had a rough life and I disassembled and repaired it three times over the years before getting a new 16-80 mm f/2.8 lens for newer camera bodies.

 

John is right about depth of field being in the eye of the beholder. For the graph I posted above I just used the depth of field settings on the lens depth of field display. That will tell you it is an old (1970s) lens because the new auto everything lenses no longer have a depth of field display. The graph is by no means super accurate, but it serves well to illustrate the relationship between depth of field, focus distance and f stop.

[Rik Thistle]

After reading this thread I discovered my (2016) Panasonic DX80 had a Firmware update available that added focus stacking. The update means the camera can take a very short 4K movie and (in-camera) stack the frames together.

 

The first image below was taken on a 50mm lens at f8, 1/160th, ISO800, tripod mounted, camera lens about 12" (300mm) from the front of the model... f8 was the smallest usable aperture I could select without the pic becoming too grainy. As you can see the middle is in focus but the front and back isn't.

 

I then used the focus stacking feature to take another pic.  And now the whole ship is in focus. The focus stacking procedure took about a minute.

 

As I mentioned, all this was done in-camera...no PS involved. For a free firmware update I think it's not too bad.

 

Richard

[bartley]

A good result and a pretty good model too boot!

 

John

[hollowneck]

Focus stacking is a lot of work, even with Nikon's "Focus Shift." The Helicon software is sweet...but...as Glenn has explained earlier in this thread, the overhead is also substantial (especially with a full frame camera); one will end up with multiple huge data files to process in order to obtain a single shot. It's a similar scenario with "non-automated" focus shifting (multiple shots, blended together).

 

The basic consideration in this thread is to take high-quality shots of ship models, attempting to achieve good depth-of-field where most of the subject is in good if not, critical focus.

 

I use an old school system that gets a decent photo of my models in a single exposure - no post-production overhead with having to diddle with software, just a clean single frame. I can shoot a couple dozen photos with only one lighting set-up and get good quality results pretty quickly.

 

Here's the specs for my model photography (see the photo here): I use my old Nikon D5100 with an AFS-DX 40mm (prime) lens. I shoot at f22 typically with long exposures with a low ISO setting (100 usually). The photo here was taken this way with no post-production Photoshop. This arrangement gives me a decent-sized file of about 10 Mb; I've been able to enlarge this base file to a 20" X 40" canvas image and it holds up reasonably well.

---------

There is another route to excellent "single shot" results. I have also taken photos with a TS (tilt/shift) lens on a newer Nikon D620 (full frame) which allows me to shift the focal plane of the lens thus allowing me to capture a sharp image over a deep focal plane. With good tabletop lighting (3 sources- hot or strobe), I can stop down to f32 (the TS lens approaches large format camera lens capability) and then I let the magic (good depth-of-field) hit the camera's sensor on a much longer 2-3 second exposure typically. A long exposure also permits me also to "paint with light" in some circumstances for achieving good lighting effects. In this case, I shoot most of my studio photos of my models with either the 45mm or 85mm TS depending on the shot composition. TS lens' are also available for Canon. The TS range for Nikon (or Canon) can be rented by the day at reasonable prices since they are indeed, pricey ($1,500- $2,200). I am not aware of TS lenses for other digital camera models.

 

For those on the thread who are not professional photographers, a TS lens mimics the movements of large view cameras. There are still view cameras (and high-quality, large image circle lenses) being used in photo studios that simultaneously employ large sensor arrays mounted to the rear of these "old school" view cameras where large format film holders used to go. The digital sensor array feeds its signal to a video monitor and a tethered computer.

 

I hope some of this (inexpensive) technique and tech info can help non-pro shooters in our hobby shoot better photos,

 

Ron

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by hollowneck
Grammar error

[hollowneck]

Oops. I forgot to caption the pic of the lens: this is an 85mm, f1.28 Nikon PC/E micro Tilt/Shift lens. This lens is great for composing tight close-up shots that have crisp DOF (depth-of-field). By definition it also demands to be used with a full frame Nikon digital camera. Normally, I'll choose the 45mm TS lens version for most photo work with my models - when I choose to use my full frame camera and spend the additional time required with these specialized lenses. Both are fiddly, but create near view camera excellence. Needless to say, there is no auto focus with these lenses; manual only. In practice, the most efficient way to check one's focus is to snap a pic, enlarge it (in camera software) and make sure your focus is tack sharp across the frame.

 

The above adds more "tech talk" detail, but some members may want to try this lens for their models if they're not inclined to spend hours in post-production computer jockeying and rather get back to their benches...😁

Ron

[bartley]

On 10/27/2021 at 1:29 PM, hollowneck said:

Focus stacking is a lot of work, even with Nikon's "Focus Shift." The Helicon software is sweet...but...as Glenn has explained earlier in this thread, the overhead is also substantial (especially with a full frame camera); one will end up with multiple huge data files to process in order to obtain a single shot. It's a similar scenario with "non-automated" focus shifting (multiple shots, blended together).

 

The basic consideration in this thread is to take high-quality shots of ship models, attempting to achieve good depth-of-field where most of the subject is in good if not, critical focus.

 

I use an old school system that gets a decent photo of my models in a single exposure - no post-production overhead with having to diddle with software, just a clean single frame. I can shoot a couple dozen photos with only one lighting set-up and get good quality results pretty quickly.

 

Here's the specs for my model photography (see the photo here): I use my old Nikon D5100 with an AFS-DX 40mm (prime) lens. I shoot at f22 typically with long exposures with a low ISO setting (100 usually). The photo here was taken this way with no post-production Photoshop. This arrangement gives me a decent-sized file of about 10 Mb; I've been able to enlarge this base file to a 20" X 40" canvas image and it holds up reasonably well.

---------

There is another route to excellent "single shot" results. I have also taken photos with a TS (tilt/shift) lens on a newer Nikon D620 (full frame) which allows me to shift the focal plane of the lens thus allowing me to capture a sharp image over a deep focal plane. With good tabletop lighting (3 sources- hot or strobe), I can stop down to f32 (the TS lens approaches large format camera lens capability) and then I let the magic (good depth-of-field) hit the camera's sensor on a much longer 2-3 second exposure typically. A long exposure also permits me also to "paint with light" in some circumstances for achieving good lighting effects. In this case, I shoot most of my studio photos of my models with either the 45mm or 85mm TS depending on the shot composition. TS lens' are also available for Canon. The TS range for Nikon (or Canon) can be rented by the day at reasonable prices since they are indeed, pricey ($1,500- $2,200). I am not aware of TS lenses for other digital camera models.

 

For those on the thread who are not professional photographers, a TS lens mimics the movements of large view cameras. There are still view cameras (and high-quality, large image circle lenses) being used in photo studios that simultaneously employ large sensor arrays mounted to the rear of these "old school" view cameras where large format film holders used to go. The digital sensor array feeds its signal to a video monitor and a tethered computer.

 

I hope some of this (inexpensive) technique and tech info can help non-pro shooters in our hobby shoot better photos,

 

Ron

 

 

If you look at my post # 21 above you will see that I refer to this technique to avoid the strange perspective that arises from using rails on larger objects..

 

John

 

[Gregory]

On 10/26/2021 at 8:55 AM, Rik Thistle said:

After reading this thread I discovered my (2016) Panasonic DX80 had a Firmware update available that added focus stacking. The update means the camera can take a very short 4K movie and (in-camera) stack the frames together.

After reading your post,  I took a closer look at a Panasonic FZ80 I had my sights on for a camera upgrade.  Turns out it has 'focus stacking' and calls it 'post focus'..

It has two different modes that I haven't fully explored, plus I have a lot to learn about optimizing all the features on this camera, but for now, I'm pretty much going with the automatic basic settings..

 

Anyway, here is my first experiment in ' focus stacking ..

 

 

This is a shot using the auto-focus feature of the camera.. I think the 2nd gun from the front was what the camera focused on.

 

 

Here is a shot using the " post focus " feature. 

Rick mentioned it takes a ' short movie'.  One second of 30 frames to be exact, where it shifts the focus from front to back, then merges them into one image.  Processing only takes a few seconds.

 

I have a lot to learn about using the camera, but this feature shows some promise for taking better pictures of model ships.

[Rik Thistle]

Gregory,

 

After reading your post, I took a closer look at a Panasonic FZ80 I had my sights on for a camera upgrade. Turns out it has 'focus stacking' and calls it 'post focus'.

 

Your images show that the focus stacking feature works well.... certainly good enough for showing our work here.

 

I'm quite impressed that all of it is done 'in camera' and that the camera processing has enough headroom to take on such a task. All in all, it's a very neat and free feature from Panasonic.

 

Richard

 

PS: Wouldn't it be nice if all camera manufacturers standardised on a common camera OS, menu system and terminology.  I know there is absolutely zero chance of that happening.  Some of the menu systems are a nightmare...looking at you Sony.