[leekil]

Photography is a 2-D limited medium for reproducing a 3-D view. You can't have it all in terms of reproducing the scene; you're going have to put up with some compromises in order to "capture" the scene and translate the feeling of it in a photograph. I am not really a landscape photographer, but a few years ago I was photographing a dell with a pond at the bottom of a lot of high trees. I wasn't really able to get the feel of what you experience there with a wide-angle lens; it was not translating the towering quality of the trees, and I don't think a massive photograph like 20 feet high would have done it either. The point of an artistic photograph is not to duplicate the scene you see, but to create an artistic photograph with what you focus on -- "focus" in the attention sense, not specifically the "turning-the-lens" sense. If you are looking at a scene in person, you are experiencing it a little bit at at time by looking around it, and focusing on different details at different depths; plus, you are immersed in it in a way that you would not be even in front of a very large image -- this is not how you experience viewing a photo. Eventually my solution in capturing the scene I described above was that the key was in the depth of the woods, and looking through the trees was the key rather than the height of the trees, which couldn't be well-translated in a photo.

---------- Post added 04-24-20 at 02:57 AM ----------

True, but I'm not talking about failed stacks. Here's a focus stack (7 exposures) I did 6 years ago. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the composition is any good, looking at the image as a whole I find the lack of differentiation in sharpness from front to back to detract from the image rather than add to it. It makes it look flat, and, to me, unnatural.

This is a very interesting photograph. I'm not sure it is specifically the focus that does it, but the statically of it, which might be affected by the focus. Looking at some of the other all-in-focus examples posted or linked in this thread, those do look unnatural, but I am not sure if it is because of the all-in-focus aspect of *the photo*, which is not what we are used to seeing *in photos*, or if it is the all-in-focus aspect of the photos compared to the real world. Your photo is more abstract than representation, and I think it succeeds or fails on that, rather than the focus being unnatural. The abstract nature is in the lines of the trees and the lines in the water/ice, but the reason it might fail is that the tones are all pretty similar and there is not enough visual contrast or differentiation between the trees and the water. Or, on the other hand, that could be considered a strength in making a very different type of landscape photo than we are used to! I know a guy who has photographed dense thickets where the fine texture of the branches is the interesting and unique subject of the photo.

[biz-engineer]

If you are looking at a scene in person, you are experiencing it a little bit at at time by looking around it, and focusing on different details at different depths; plus, you are immersed in it in a way that you would not be even in front of a very large image -- this is not how you experience viewing a photo.

It's a good point. Clyde Butcher, however, says that he is printing large so that to give the viewer's experience of scanning the scene as if the viewer would be in the actually field where the photograph was captured. I had that experience when looking in front of prints taller than me, that I would never get when looking at the same but small sized photograph. Of course the immersion in front of a large print will never be the same as the one in the field, yet a large print can be immersive. Canvas as been a popular way to display big, because it's light weight and image resolution (lack of it) is camouflaged by the texture of canvas. The issue with paper prints, is that a soft image in a large photo paper doesn't quite look good, and while not even noticeable on a canvas. Sometimes , some out of focus is beneficial to focus viewer's attention on sharper areas of the image, so when this is the case there is no need to stop down aperture that much, however blurring part of the image isn't always appropriate.

[baro-nite]

I know a guy who has photographed dense thickets where the fine texture of the branches is the interesting and unique subject of the photo.

I'm one of those guys too. Partly out of desperation for finding things to photograph in winter, but also because I am interested by the use of texture as a primary element in an image.

Back to the main topic:

Of course the immersion in front of a large print will never be the same as the one in the field, yet a large print can be immersive.

There is indeed something awe-inspiring about an enormous print (or painting), for the right kind of image. I'm a Clyde Butcher fan and I really must stop in at his gallery in Venice FL next time I am in that part of the country. Anyway, even though I'm currently in more of a minimal PP mode, I'm always interested in these efforts to push the technical boundaries and I look forward to seeing what conclusions you draw from all of this.

[swanlefitte]

A friend of mine had a small basement room with forest wall paper. It had a feel other than the claustrophobia it should have had. It was a cross between a clearing in the woods and a blanket fort.

[fehknt]

Nikon's setup is a little weird

It may be weird, but the results I've seen from my friend's Z mount that will automatically step through the full stack in a fraction of a second for simple applications where a low number of images are needed is frankly jealously-inducing when I'm the one who introduced him to focus stacking!

[biz-engineer]

I'm always interested in these efforts to push the technical boundaries and I look forward to seeing what conclusions you draw from all of this.

I've done some trials for stacking, stacking of aperture bracketed images and stitching, and it works, although the technique still is much more restrictive compared to a single exposure. The technique is there. Now, finding the subject in the right condition still remains key to making of a compelling large print.

---------- Post added 25-04-20 at 16:57 ----------

It may be weird, but the results I've seen from my friend's Z mount that will automatically step through the full stack in a fraction of a second for simple applications where a low number of images are needed is frankly jealously-inducing when I'm the one who introduced him to focus stacking!

I have to read Z7 manual to see how it works. I tried stacking for a 3x3 panorama. Taking 3 images stacks gives me 27 files to post process. The Nikon would shooting 20 frames or more, I'd end up with 180 files to be stacked and stitched, that's a bit too much, also especially is each exposure last 10 seconds (long exposure). Do we have the choice to take only a few focus stacked images on the Z7 ?

[fehknt]

Do we have the choice to take only a few focus stacked images on the Z7 ?

I have no idea, I haven't personally used his camera, sorry, just heard him describe it. He isn't shooting panos with it, so the post-processing is a lot simpler.

[biz-engineer]

I have no idea, I haven't personally used his camera, sorry, just heard him describe it. He isn't shooting panos with it, so the post-processing is a lot simpler.

I've read the manual, and can now answer my own question. One of the focus shift setting is the number of exposures. Pretty good.

[biz-engineer]

Printing large and sharp has a steep photo technique curve, we get diffraction that was invisible at small size, front & back out of focus that wasn't visible at small size, and not enough pixels. A steep learning curve but great opportunity to improve the shooting technique, even benefiting smaller size prints. I had never tried layering of aperture bracketed frames, but it turns out to be very good, having much more smooth transitions than focusing stacking, and zero focus breathing from the lens. In camera aperture bracketing (K-5 feature) would be nice to have back, much more simple than focus stacking.

[MJKoski]

Sir, printing digital images large requires sharp lens, lots of resolution and stable support. That is about it. GigaPixel takes care of the rest for going beyond and acceptable native DPI values.

[biz-engineer]

Sir, printing digital images large requires sharp lens, lots of resolution and stable support. That is about it. GigaPixel takes care of the rest for going beyond and acceptable native DPI values.

Sharp primes, the ones that I don't have, would contribute. From what I've seen with some of the best primes, I'd say primes are even better than using a mediocre lens on a larger sensor.... things like chromatic aberrations that can never be corrected fully.