Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Zone focusing

Zone focusing

2009-07-19 by pr_roark

(I hope this is not too off-topic.)

I've been experimenting with Helicon focus, a program that will combine multiple images that were focused on different points of the subject.  I have combined frames manually in Photoshop to get better depth of field in my landscape images for some time.  I'd tried an earlier version of Helicon and had decided not to used it, but Luminous Landscape published a good review of the latest version.  There is a free trial period for Helicon software.  So, giving it a test drive is reasonably easy.

The image I tried today (and gave up on) was composed of 2 focus zones and taken with the Canon 5d2, 35 mm lens.   

The problems included artifacts in the sky and moving the detail of the image around such that the artifacts could not easily be cured by cloning in information from the original scenes.  The details were also noticeably softened at 100%.

Earlier, I'd tried a shot with moving water in it.  These types of programs usually have trouble with that too, and it did.

So, it's back to manual work.  While 2 images are not too bad to stitch together, more is a pain. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Zone focusing

2009-07-19 by StudioPBG@Gmail

Paul 
I have used the Helicon focus program for macro studio work where I wanted
the extra depth of field.  Of course I was on the tripod and there was no
artifacts just focus issue.    I am quite pleased with the results.    I
have taken as many as 20 images and merged them.

In any event I can certainly see how it would not work if anything was
moving.

Paul Grant
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: pr_roark <pr_roark@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:27:24 -0000
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Digital BW] Zone focusing

 
 
 

(I hope this is not too off-topic.)

I've been experimenting with Helicon focus, a program that will combine
multiple images that were focused on different points of the subject.  I
have combined frames manually in Photoshop to get better depth of field in
my landscape images for some time.  I'd tried an earlier version of Helicon
and had decided not to used it, but Luminous Landscape published a good
review of the latest version.  There is a free trial period for Helicon
software.  So, giving it a test drive is reasonably easy.

The image I tried today (and gave up on) was composed of 2 focus zones and
taken with the Canon 5d2, 35 mm lens.

The problems included artifacts in the sky and moving the detail of the
image around such that the artifacts could not easily be cured by cloning in
information from the original scenes.  The details were also noticeably
softened at 100%.

Earlier, I'd tried a shot with moving water in it.  These types of programs
usually have trouble with that too, and it did.

So, it's back to manual work.  While 2 images are not too bad to stitch
together, more is a pain.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com  

  
    





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-20 by grangermacy

Hi Paul
Here's a few more options.  Tufuse (http://www.tawbaware.com/) which works similarly to Helicon Focus.  Its also a free download so you might compare it to Helicon.  But I think if you've got artifacts from movement CS4 might be better.  When you do exposure blending in CS4 you get an image stack with masks.  This would allow you to go back and tinker with the image more.
Had a great time at Golden Trout.  Thanks
Granger
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> (I hope this is not too off-topic.)
> 
> I've been experimenting with Helicon focus, a program that will combine multiple images that were focused on different points of the subject.  I have combined frames manually in Photoshop to get better depth of field in my landscape images for some time.  I'd tried an earlier version of Helicon and had decided not to used it, but Luminous Landscape published a good review of the latest version.  There is a free trial period for Helicon software.  So, giving it a test drive is reasonably easy.
> 
> The image I tried today (and gave up on) was composed of 2 focus zones and taken with the Canon 5d2, 35 mm lens.   
> 
> The problems included artifacts in the sky and moving the detail of the image around such that the artifacts could not easily be cured by cloning in information from the original scenes.  The details were also noticeably softened at 100%.
> 
> Earlier, I'd tried a shot with moving water in it.  These types of programs usually have trouble with that too, and it did.
> 
> So, it's back to manual work.  While 2 images are not too bad to stitch together, more is a pain. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-21 by bertgf

Paul,
   I have been using Helicon Focus for years.  I commonly expose 6 and up to 30 frames.  I have been very pleased with the results.  I photograph flowers exclusively.
   Although I have ALWAYS used a tripod HF would not work acceptably when I was scanning film.  The registration was not good enough.  Using a digital camera it works fine most of the time.  There cannot be any movement in the subject (I work exclusively with macros of flowers where a slight breeze is a storm).  If the depth of field is too deep and/or steep HF loses control/ goes haywire or whatever.
   Compositing of pictures used to take me something like 6-20 hours.  Now with HF I can watch each composite taking place, see which exposure might be throwing it off and have the result in less than 30 seconds.  
   I have emailed with the developer in the Ukraine but do not have a personal relationship with him.  However I feel he has a tremendous product.

BertGF

P.S. On my website www.cameraflora.com the lower galleries are all done with a digital camera and HF.
    

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> (I hope this is not too off-topic.)
> 
> I've been experimenting with Helicon focus, a program that will combine multiple images that were focused on different points of the subject.  I have combined frames manually in Photoshop to get better depth of field in my landscape images for some time.  I'd tried an earlier version of Helicon and had decided not to used it, but Luminous Landscape published a good review of the latest version.  There is a free trial period for Helicon software.  So, giving it a test drive is reasonably easy.
> 
> The image I tried today (and gave up on) was composed of 2 focus zones and taken with the Canon 5d2, 35 mm lens.   
> 
> The problems included artifacts in the sky and moving the detail of the image around such that the artifacts could not easily be cured by cloning in information from the original scenes.  The details were also noticeably softened at 100%.
> 
> Earlier, I'd tried a shot with moving water in it.  These types of programs usually have trouble with that too, and it did.
> 
> So, it's back to manual work.  While 2 images are not too bad to stitch together, more is a pain. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-21 by pr_roark

"bertgf" <bertgf@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>    I have been using Helicon Focus for years.  I commonly expose 6 and up to 30 frames.  I have been very pleased with the results.  I photograph flowers exclusively.
>    Although I have ALWAYS used a tripod HF ...

I used a tripod with the Canon 5d2.  I think the sky artifacts were probably due to there not being any detail on any frame.  There were vertical streaks above some bright clouds.

The lack of sharpness in some of the image surprised me, but there is one of the settings in Helicon that seems to suggest some softening may be normal.  

The 5d2 is at the edge of what I consider necessary for the large display prints I target.  So, I have very little room for any source of resolution loss. The open question I'm trying to answer with the 5d2 at this point is whether it's adequate.  So, I'm doing all I can to eliminate sources of image softness aside from the limits of the 21 mp sensor and the best prime lenses I can find.  I have no doubt that Helicon is a great program for its intended uses and within its limits.

I think Granger may be right that if I used the CS4 system of matching layers, I might be able to go back and correct some of the problems more easily.  I don't have CS4 now, but it's near the top of the wish list, along with a new computer with the horsepower to handle these programs.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-21 by Tom Baker

Paul  -
 
Have you looked at the layer capabilities built into HF?
 
Tom Baker


--- On Mon, 7/20/09, pr_roark <pr_roark@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: pr_roark <pr_roark@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Zone focusing
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 7:53 PM


  



"bertgf" <bertgf@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> I have been using Helicon Focus for years. I commonly expose 6 and up to 30 frames. I have been very pleased with the results. I photograph flowers exclusively.
> Although I have ALWAYS used a tripod HF ...

I used a tripod with the Canon 5d2. I think the sky artifacts were probably due to there not being any detail on any frame. There were vertical streaks above some bright clouds.

The lack of sharpness in some of the image surprised me, but there is one of the settings in Helicon that seems to suggest some softening may be normal. 

The 5d2 is at the edge of what I consider necessary for the large display prints I target. So, I have very little room for any source of resolution loss. The open question I'm trying to answer with the 5d2 at this point is whether it's adequate. So, I'm doing all I can to eliminate sources of image softness aside from the limits of the 21 mp sensor and the best prime lenses I can find. I have no doubt that Helicon is a great program for its intended uses and within its limits.

I think Granger may be right that if I used the CS4 system of matching layers, I might be able to go back and correct some of the problems more easily. I don't have CS4 now, but it's near the top of the wish list, along with a new computer with the horsepower to handle these programs.

Paul
www.PaulRoark. com 
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-21 by Michael King

Bert,

How do you deal with the ghosting problems that result from the image size
changing slightly as you change focus?
This is the big problem I found with Helicon macro work. Maybe its dependent
on the type of lens focusing (IF or whatever)?
I know they now support masks but fiddling with masks starts to get much
more work.

Mike

2009/7/21 bertgf <bertgf@...>

>
>
> Paul,
> I have been using Helicon Focus for years. I commonly expose 6 and up to 30
> frames. I have been very pleased with the results. I photograph flowers
> exclusively.
> Although I have ALWAYS used a tripod HF would not work acceptably when I
> was scanning film. The registration was not good enough. Using a digital
> camera it works fine most of the time. There cannot be any movement in the
> subject (I work exclusively with macros of flowers where a slight breeze is
> a storm). If the depth of field is too deep and/or steep HF loses control/
> goes haywire or whatever.
> Compositing of pictures used to take me something like 6-20 hours. Now with
> HF I can watch each composite taking place, see which exposure might be
> throwing it off and have the result in less than 30 seconds.
> I have emailed with the developer in the Ukraine but do not have a personal
> relationship with him. However I feel he has a tremendous product.
>
> BertGF
>
> P.S. On my website www.cameraflora.com the lower galleries are all done
> with a digital camera and HF.
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:
> >
> > (I hope this is not too off-topic.)
> >
> > I've been experimenting with Helicon focus, a program that will combine
> multiple images that were focused on different points of the subject. I have
> combined frames manually in Photoshop to get better depth of field in my
> landscape images for some time. I'd tried an earlier version of Helicon and
> had decided not to used it, but Luminous Landscape published a good review
> of the latest version. There is a free trial period for Helicon software.
> So, giving it a test drive is reasonably easy.
> >
> > The image I tried today (and gave up on) was composed of 2 focus zones
> and taken with the Canon 5d2, 35 mm lens.
> >
> > The problems included artifacts in the sky and moving the detail of the
> image around such that the artifacts could not easily be cured by cloning in
> information from the original scenes. The details were also noticeably
> softened at 100%.
> >
> > Earlier, I'd tried a shot with moving water in it. These types of
> programs usually have trouble with that too, and it did.
> >
> > So, it's back to manual work. While 2 images are not too bad to stitch
> together, more is a pain.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
> >
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-22 by bertgf

Ah, the ghosting problem.  Yes it appears occasionally.  Sometimes, in PS CS4, I look over the final composited result and drag an exposure that has that ghosted area clear and sharpas a layer into the composite, set up a mask and paint the needed pixels into the composite.  That works some of the time.  Sometimes I just composite in HF 2 or 3 exposures at the problem point.  If that works then I drag the result into the master composite, mask it and paint.  If nothing seems to work I throw it away.  I look at the process as getting a picture that I never would have gotten anyway so if I lose a picture I feel sad but I don't cry a lot.
   HF has a Pro version which I don't have.  It's twice as much.  That is supposed to help with touch-ups.  CS4 has a blending focus facility which I have never used.  I have seen a review comparing HF to CS4 where the reviewer felt that HF was better but the review was preliminary and an in-depth review has not been published.  If you or anyone else has info on 'blending focus' in CS4 please pass it along.

BertGF



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Bert,
> 
> How do you deal with the ghosting problems that result from the image size
> changing slightly as you change focus?
> This is the big problem I found with Helicon macro work. Maybe its dependent
> on the type of lens focusing (IF or whatever)?
> I know they now support masks but fiddling with masks starts to get much
> more work.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 2009/7/21 bertgf <bertgf@...>
> 
> >
> >
> > Paul,
> > I have been using Helicon Focus for years. I commonly expose 6 and up to 30
> > frames. I have been very pleased with the results. I photograph flowers
> > exclusively.
> > Although I have ALWAYS used a tripod HF would not work acceptably when I
> > was scanning film. The registration was not good enough. Using a digital
> > camera it works fine most of the time. There cannot be any movement in the
> > subject (I work exclusively with macros of flowers where a slight breeze is
> > a storm). If the depth of field is too deep and/or steep HF loses control/
> > goes haywire or whatever.
> > Compositing of pictures used to take me something like 6-20 hours. Now with
> > HF I can watch each composite taking place, see which exposure might be
> > throwing it off and have the result in less than 30 seconds.
> > I have emailed with the developer in the Ukraine but do not have a personal
> > relationship with him. However I feel he has a tremendous product.
> >
> > BertGF
> >
> > P.S. On my website www.cameraflora.com the lower galleries are all done
> > with a digital camera and HF.
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "pr_roark" <pr_roark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > (I hope this is not too off-topic.)
> > >
> > > I've been experimenting with Helicon focus, a program that will combine
> > multiple images that were focused on different points of the subject. I have
> > combined frames manually in Photoshop to get better depth of field in my
> > landscape images for some time. I'd tried an earlier version of Helicon and
> > had decided not to used it, but Luminous Landscape published a good review
> > of the latest version. There is a free trial period for Helicon software.
> > So, giving it a test drive is reasonably easy.
> > >
> > > The image I tried today (and gave up on) was composed of 2 focus zones
> > and taken with the Canon 5d2, 35 mm lens.
> > >
> > > The problems included artifacts in the sky and moving the detail of the
> > image around such that the artifacts could not easily be cured by cloning in
> > information from the original scenes. The details were also noticeably
> > softened at 100%.
> > >
> > > Earlier, I'd tried a shot with moving water in it. These types of
> > programs usually have trouble with that too, and it did.
> > >
> > > So, it's back to manual work. While 2 images are not too bad to stitch
> > together, more is a pain.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Digital BW] Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-22 by grangermacy

The ghosting problem is a great question.  Someone should check out the effect of different lens designs.  My guess is that IF lenses should have an advantage as the front element isn't getting closer in focusing.  But certainly the more recent Nikon macros that change focal length while focusing would be a very bad choice.
Granger
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Bert,
> 
> How do you deal with the ghosting problems that result from the image size
> changing slightly as you change focus?
> This is the big problem I found with Helicon macro work. Maybe its dependent
> on the type of lens focusing (IF or whatever)?
> I know they now support masks but fiddling with masks starts to get much
> more work.
> 
> Mike
>

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-22 by Bob Geoghegan

Yes, I'm very interested in this thread and plan to give HF a try soon.  The
lens design issue is a good one, too.  My counter-guess is that a focusing
rail could help as a workaround if the macro lens's focusing motions cause
ghosting.  That guess is based on not one iota of empirical evidence ;-)

 

Bob G
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
grangermacy
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:35 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Zone focusing

 

  

The ghosting problem is a great question. Someone should check out the
effect of different lens designs. My guess is that IF lenses should have an
advantage as the front element isn't getting closer in focusing. But
certainly the more recent Nikon macros that change focal length while
focusing would be a very bad choice.
Granger
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Michael King
<drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> Bert,
> 
> How do you deal with the ghosting problems that result from the image size
> changing slightly as you change focus?
> This is the big problem I found with Helicon macro work. Maybe its
dependent
> on the type of lens focusing (IF or whatever)?
> I know they now support masks but fiddling with masks starts to get much
> more work.
> 
> Mike
> 

_,_._,___



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Zone focusing

2009-07-22 by Mark Savoia

I keep seeing this thread running and wondering why it is on the  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint group? Was the original post concerning  
printing at all?

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Bob Geoghegan wrote:

> Yes, I'm very interested in this thread and plan to give HF a try  
> soon.  The
> lens design issue is a good one, too.  My counter-guess is that a  
> focusing
> rail could help as a workaround if the macro lens's focusing motions  
> cause
> ghosting.  That guess is based on not one iota of empirical  
> evidence ;-)
>
>
>
> Bob G
>
>
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.