Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Making a stack with Vivitar 100mm macro
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:40 am    Post subject: Making a stack with Vivitar 100mm macro Reply with quote

I've been playing with Zerene and learning how to stack images. This is my first experiment using the Kiron made Vivitar 100mm f2.8 macro lens. It's really a great lens for sharpness and fine adjustment, but I don't quite know how to stack a bunch of images and get rid of all the halos. Still I thought this might interest some people.

First shot is just a typical single image taken with the macro on an A7ii. The next shot shows what I was able to put out with a 15 pic stack. Even then I didn't have enough in between images to really handle some of the areas between different chess pieces.




PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you moving the camera to stack, or refocusing for each shot?
Refocusing will change the FOV, what you need is a macro rail and use that to "Focus".
This site has a wealth of knowledge on stacking: http://photomacrography.net/forum/index.php


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
Are you moving the camera to stack, or refocusing for each shot?
Refocusing will change the FOV, what you need is a macro rail and use that to "Focus".
This site has a wealth of knowledge on stacking: http://photomacrography.net/forum/index.php


Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
Are you moving the camera to stack, or refocusing for each shot?
Refocusing will change the FOV, what you need is a macro rail and use that to "Focus".
This site has a wealth of knowledge on stacking: http://photomacrography.net/forum/index.php


I use an inexpensive focusing rail where I can manually adjust. Not going to pay for one of those automated ones.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried to register on this site and was insulted by being accused as a spammer,their up tight attitude is too close to Pentax Forum Octergenarien attitude to even allow them the pleasure of my company.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kryss wrote:
I tried to register on this site and was insulted by being accused as a spammer,their up tight attitude is too close to Pentax Forum Octergenarien attitude to even allow them the pleasure of my company.


I'm a member since decades and have no issues at all there, so I wonder.... Wink


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not a Spammer and answered all of their questions,have never been accused either.I am not bothered as there are enough great Photographers(including yourself} on MF to satisfy my needs and a great return of investment of $25/year. Like 1


PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:53 pm    Post subject: Looks like a decent first go... Something I want to try.... Reply with quote

Looks like a good start. I definitely will follow this thread....


PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What aperture were you using on the 100/2.8 for your stack individual images ?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3dpan wrote:
What aperture were you using on the 100/2.8 for your stack individual images ?


I was shooting it at too wide an aperture and I think for close up shots at home, the shorter focal lengths are better.

Here's a newer stack with the A6000 and a 55mm Vivitar macro shot at f11. I think it works out better here.



PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you shoot with a lens capable of going 1:1 it doesn't mean you'll end up with macro pictures. Neither of your examples fall into that category. Macro that is. Zerene is more macro/micro oriented software.
And I'm a member on that forum for a few good years. I wouldn't dare to say decades as Klaus did - he's very old, Mathusalem related Wink - but I never had problems with them. Freackingly knowledgeable those guys.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an amateur in image stacking I found Helicon Focus more user friendly. I'm not saying it's better or worse than Zerene.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Himself wrote:
If you shoot with a lens capable of going 1:1 it doesn't mean you'll end up with macro pictures. Neither of your examples fall into that category. Macro that is. Zerene is more macro/micro oriented software.
And I'm a member on that forum for a few good years. I wouldn't dare to say decades as Klaus did - he's very old, Mathusalem related Wink - but I never had problems with them. Freackingly knowledgeable those guys.


The definition of "macro" is not set in stone. Some folks like to say it's at least 1:1, but for quite some time it was considered 1:2, and many folks consider 1:4 macro. Don't get so hung up on such a definition. I personally look at watch and similar photos as "macro" and many others do as well. There are of course folks who stick with an artificial definition of macro as 1:1 and above, and more power to them, but they should not impose this artificial limit upon others.

Now, what would have been much more informative would be to say that as the magnification increases, depth of field decreases, and a stacking program like Zerene is then required to get reasonable depth of field. For photos such as this watch, where the magnification is high enough, and object large enough, that it cannot all be made in sharp focus, then focus stacking is indeed required, and Zerene is completely appropriate for such application.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Ray. It's what I would have said had I seen the response earlier.

It was indeed larger than 1:2 but not 1:1. So in my mind it is appropriate to think of it as macro and useful for stacking.

Another way to put it is simple: if a macro lens works better for such a pic (in the case of greater than 1:2) or is not obtainable with a normal lens, then it's macro to me, however others may define it.

Besides, in my original post I was focussed on learning to stack, not on macro per se.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will call it macro when you can see details that you can't see with the eye alone.

Did you figure out how to remove the halos?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
I will call it macro when you can see details that you can't see with the eye alone.

Did you figure out how to remove the halos?


The title of my post was "Making a stack" I didn't even emphasize macro so you can call it what you want and I'll call it what I want.

As for the halos, they improved with greater depth of field in each shot and using a shorter focal length lens.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Image stacking, or Focus Stacking to be more precise, is usually associated with close-up/macro/micro photography but I don't see why it cannot be applied creatively to any image maybe even a landscape for example (assuming no subject movement) to increase the depth of field of a foreground object but still retaining a diminishing focus on the background to also ideally give a dreamy bokeh.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ray Parkhurst wrote:
Himself wrote:
If you shoot with a lens capable of going 1:1 it doesn't mean you'll end up with macro pictures. Neither of your examples fall into that category. Macro that is. Zerene is more macro/micro oriented software.
And I'm a member on that forum for a few good years. I wouldn't dare to say decades as Klaus did - he's very old, Mathusalem related Wink - but I never had problems with them. Freackingly knowledgeable those guys.


The definition of "macro" is not set in stone. Some folks like to say it's at least 1:1, but for quite some time it was considered 1:2, and many folks consider 1:4 macro. Don't get so hung up on such a definition. I personally look at watch and similar photos as "macro" and many others do as well. There are of course folks who stick with an artificial definition of macro as 1:1 and above, and more power to them, but they should not impose this artificial limit upon others.



Nothing is set in stone Ray.
But I do wonder whether your coins are macro 1:1 or 1:4? Or some macro in between? Just rhetorical, thinking out loud.
As for the watch, it's a close up all the way. Looks good, no glare, it's expensive, a Vacheron Constantin after all, but it's a close up.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Himself wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
Himself wrote:
If you shoot with a lens capable of going 1:1 it doesn't mean you'll end up with macro pictures. Neither of your examples fall into that category. Macro that is. Zerene is more macro/micro oriented software.
And I'm a member on that forum for a few good years. I wouldn't dare to say decades as Klaus did - he's very old, Mathusalem related Wink - but I never had problems with them. Freackingly knowledgeable those guys.


The definition of "macro" is not set in stone. Some folks like to say it's at least 1:1, but for quite some time it was considered 1:2, and many folks consider 1:4 macro. Don't get so hung up on such a definition. I personally look at watch and similar photos as "macro" and many others do as well. There are of course folks who stick with an artificial definition of macro as 1:1 and above, and more power to them, but they should not impose this artificial limit upon others.



Nothing is set in stone Ray.
But I do wonder whether your coins are macro 1:1 or 1:4? Or some macro in between? Just rhetorical, thinking out loud.
As for the watch, it's a close up all the way. Looks good, no glare, it's expensive, a Vacheron Constantin after all, but it's a close up.


My coin shots vary a lot in magnification. Some are around 0.33:1 for the larger coins like Dollars or Crowns. Cents are around 0.7:1. I shoot variety detail shots typically at 3x, 5x or 10x, and occasionally do some small detail shots at 20x. All of these shots are macros. There is no magical "cutoff" that defines whether a shot is a macro or a closeup or a "normal" shot. What matters is whether the shot is of an object that has details smaller than can be seen with the naked eye.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freackingly????? only in Canada eh? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kryss wrote:
Freackingly????? only in Canada eh? Rolling Eyes


No sir!
Only in Québec Laugh 1


PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 small Touche.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kryss wrote:
Freackingly????? only in Canada eh? Rolling Eyes

"Pity" Very Happy