The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Question for the DMF landscape masters
- Thread starter richieboone
- Start date
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I use Helicon as well. It's also very fast.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Helicon Focus for most situations. As Jack mentioned, the masking functions really make this very efficient for more complex stacking situations to fine tune the image where there might be movement in various component layers. For the very modest investment I think that it's an excellent solution.
There are times also where using Photoshop along with either manual or luminosity masks works well to blend images for stacking. I prefer Helicon overall because it accommodates focus breathing better if you use a wide focus stack range.
There are times also where using Photoshop along with either manual or luminosity masks works well to blend images for stacking. I prefer Helicon overall because it accommodates focus breathing better if you use a wide focus stack range.
schuster
Active member
Any ideas about how David Clapp achieves images like these?:
Porth Nanven - David Clapp Photography
Hemsworthy Gate - David Clapp Photography
Porth Nanven - David Clapp Photography
Porth Nanven - David Clapp Photography
Hemsworthy Gate - David Clapp Photography
Porth Nanven - David Clapp Photography
stephengilbert
Active member
He uses a Canon DSLR and Canon lenses: Equipment - David Clapp Photography
What is it about the images that you're asking about?
What is it about the images that you're asking about?
schuster
Active member
My question is in reference to richieboone's question that began this thread, i.e., "Are most using stacked focus shots?"
Since getting the Pentax 645D, which was my first ever digital camera, I am indeed using focus stacking quite a bit. Perhaps a little background. I shot for 7 or 8 years using a 4x5 field camera where I could use movements to accomplish critical focus. I was usually in the f/22 range on lenses that went to f/45 and used 50 or 100 Velvia film. After a back injury, I took a photographic break for a few years and when I began shooting again I never returned to the 4x5. I shot with my two Pentax 6x7's and simply shot everything using hyperfocal techniques. I did this for a good 5 years or so. Now with the new Pentax, I could experiment more. What a difference focusing all the way to the background made. It was amazing compared to what I had been doing. But of course, then the foreground often goes out of focus, even if stopped down to f/22. A lot of shots these days are at f/11 or f/13 and 4,5,6 shots, sometimes more depending on the lens, and later combing them in Helicon, Zyreen Stacker, or photoshop. I find it doesn't really hinder creativity and it allows me to capture photos that would otherwise have to be taken using movements on another platform. It is a lot of fussing and with some scenes it will not work. A lot of my shots are of water and the wave movement can be very challenging to blend. I have become more adept at recognizing the conditions where using f/16 or f/22 and using a hyper focal technique will actually give a better final image. I finally got to the photo I'm including, having passed it up in Lightroom because of all that it would entail. Just finished it. It's nine separate exposures at f/11. One focused on the background and exposed darker for the sky. Then a series at the best general exposure. Another series for the foreground and trees that were quite dark, and I wanted better IQ in those areas. All put in a pot and blended together to get the photo included. Not sure it was worth all that effort, but that's the way I approach many of the landscapes that I take. It all depends on each photographer and what style will work best for them. This got quite long-winded. Please forgive.
Last edited:
Hi Schuster - we've interviewed David about focus stacking for aurora photography recently (in "On Landscape") and he uses focus stacking quite a lot - mostly uses photoshop for blending.
We didn't really mention the low frequency effects too much, rather we mentioned a loss of overall contrast. We haven't quantified this but for our particular images, a small amount of 'clarity' (larger radius unsharp mask) and a small increase in contrast worked fine with the only problem being a small loss in shadow separation. This was mainly noticeable on f/22 but with f/16 the problem was hardly visible and our 'real world' test subjects couldn't tell the difference.
Have this test changed your view on which apertures you use when shooting digital? Ie do you use smaller apertures now?
f/22 on a 135 system corresponds to ~f/32 on digital medium format and f/160 on 8x10"
, so it's quite powerful in terms of depth of field to be able to shoot at these apertures.
etrump
Well-known member
It is easy to get caught up in the technical details of aperture and stacking. I think before you can make appropriate decisions you need to give yourself some time to adjust to DMF.
While you can simply stop down a stop compared to 35mm you sacrifice the additional resolution in almost every case. That's not a big problem if you print smaller than 40" but as the print size increases you lose resolution and micro contrast that makes DMF prints so special. An IQ180 exposure should be clean enough to print 8' wide if your technique is good. To do that, your file has to look good at 100%.
Just like switching from APSC to 35mm the transition will require a more precise technique. Tilt and focus stacking are fantastic tools but it's hard to connect with your subject when you are in left-brain tech mode. At first you should concentrate on learning the capabilities of your sensor and glass at the optimum aperture of around f/11 and stop down only as required.
I always laugh when I look at "famous" photographers wall size prints and notice they routinely shoot at apertures a couple stops smaller than they should have and it shows in the print.
While you can simply stop down a stop compared to 35mm you sacrifice the additional resolution in almost every case. That's not a big problem if you print smaller than 40" but as the print size increases you lose resolution and micro contrast that makes DMF prints so special. An IQ180 exposure should be clean enough to print 8' wide if your technique is good. To do that, your file has to look good at 100%.
Just like switching from APSC to 35mm the transition will require a more precise technique. Tilt and focus stacking are fantastic tools but it's hard to connect with your subject when you are in left-brain tech mode. At first you should concentrate on learning the capabilities of your sensor and glass at the optimum aperture of around f/11 and stop down only as required.
I always laugh when I look at "famous" photographers wall size prints and notice they routinely shoot at apertures a couple stops smaller than they should have and it shows in the print.
schuster
Active member
I'd like to read what he has to say. Could you provide a link?
Hi,Have this test changed your view on which apertures you use when shooting digital? Ie do you use smaller apertures now?
f/22 on a 135 system corresponds to ~f/32 on digital medium format and f/160 on 8x10"
I haven't tested apertures on the IQ180 we have access to but from what I've seen there is very little degradation. I wouldn't use f/22 unless pushed into a corner on my D800 but f/16 is fine.
From what I've played with I'd also then be happy to use f/22 on the IQ180 if pushed, f/32 on 6x7, f/45 on 4x5 and f/90 on 8x10
Of course this all depends on the subject matter
Also a file has to be very smooth and clean to take lots of sharpening so it doesn't work as well on film as it does on a clean digital file.
Tim