[GeneV]

I have not used it for that. I have heard that Helicon Focus is the gold standard for focus stacking...

I downloaded it for a trial, and Helicon is very efficient and produces a nice quality result for focus stacking. I'm not sure about the price for that one function, but I will keep using it for the 30 days and see.

[vonBaloney]

I downloaded it for a trial, and Helicon is very efficient and produces a nice quality result for focus stacking. I'm not sure about the price for that one function, but I will keep using it for the 30 days and see.

Zerene (mentioned above) looks cool also.

[GeneV]

Having now tried a few with both the Photoshop and the Photoacute methods, I can make the following observations:

1. Even a seemingly still person moves a bit and causes unsharpness unless the shutter speed is fast. Be sure not to include blurry images.
2. This works best with a camera with a very fast multiframe capability. The Sony A6000 (11 fps) works better than most Pentax DSLRs, though the K3 is getting close.
3. There is no significant savings in convenience or significant difference in quality between Photoshop and Photoacute. I see no reason to buy the latter.

The benefits are strongest with high ISO, as this method does an excellent job of noise reduction. I took a shot at ISO 25,000 which had noise no worse than I often get at ISO 3200. This difference is amazing. I'm not saying the sharpness at ISO 25,000 is great, but the huge chunks of noise are gone, and it is light years ahead of anything PS noise reduction can do.

Directly below is one of a stack of 9 jpegs from the camera at ISO 25000 (max possible in the A6000) and the bottom shot is the result of the method described in the OP. The A6000 has this multi-exposure NR built in, but the quality of the Photoshop method is a bit better.

[GeneV]

Unless I totally misunderstand the purpose of this technique I agree.

Why not just a single properly exposed (ETTR) RAW file and some PP in PS?
After all taking multiple frames is a little hard on spontaneity.

Am I missing something?

It is not always possible to take a properly exposed shot. The shot I took was basically in the dark, underexposed at ISO 25,600, and probably more like 51,200 or worse, and the example is a crop from the full shot below. Gatling gun multiple exposures to get this done take less about a half second.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by GeneV; 02-24-2015 at 05:01 AM.

[GeneV]

Here are some examples, properly exposed at ISO 3200. The first is the full, not so artistic composition and the last two are crops from the original, with NR applied in the A6000, and the multiple exposures (5). The multiple exposure version does not show the full benefits of super resolution, since its resolution was reduced to match that of the original. It only shows the NR benefit. Some bodies, like the A6000, will do this in the body and only output the combined jpeg. The downside is no raw file can be produced so you are stuck with whatever the camera created.

[wildman]

It is not always possible to take a properly exposed shot. The shot I took was basically in the dark, underexposed at ISO 25,600, and probably more like 51,200 or worse, and the example is a crop from the full shot below. Gatling gun multiple exposures to get this done take less about a half second.

I guess for now I'll just have to take your word for it that it has some practical purpose.
Likely it's a shooting situation I rarely, if ever, had to deal with given my photo interests.

[GeneV]

I thought the difference in noise was pretty striking, and in the case of the cup, either result could have been used, but the stack had much less noise. I'm thinking nightscapes and posed shots at an indoor party, among other uses.

[stevebrot]

What I found interesting about the tutorial was that the author used the A7ii hand held apparently with IBIS turned off. I would be curious as to how it works on tripod with IBIS turned ON. The IBIS on-tripod "noise" that usually produces blurring might be work to the photographer's advantage in this case.


Steve

[GeneV]

What I found interesting about the tutorial was that the author used the A7ii hand held apparently with IBIS turned off. I would be curious as to how it works on tripod with IBIS turned ON. The IBIS on-tripod "noise" that usually produces blurring might be work to the photographer's advantage in this case.


Steve

Good point. It would probably be true of Pentax bodies as well.

[vonBaloney]

What I found interesting about the tutorial was that the author used the A7ii hand held apparently with IBIS turned off. I would be curious as to how it works on tripod with IBIS turned ON. The IBIS on-tripod "noise" that usually produces blurring might be work to the photographer's advantage in this case.

I have tried that but you do get blur when you really just want slightly different registration (not perfectly aligned images shot-to-shot). It only needs be a few pixels so even on the tripod that tends to happen when shooting multi-shots. I would shoot as normal -- SR on for handheld, off for tripod. If you still have your hand on the shutter to trip it or are shooting in rapid bursts the vibrations will be enough. You still want each individual shot to be crisp.

[stevebrot]

I would shoot as normal -- SR on for handheld, off for tripod.

Ok...that makes sense now as I think about it further. Thanks.


Steve

[vonBaloney]

If you want to be slow and methodical about it on the tripod, use the composition adjust feature to move the image around slightly as you take different shots. For a wide-angle that might be good practice, but handheld would work there too.