Focus Stacking for better model photographs

[Smithers66]

Hi all, new here to the forums and looking to contribute before I start peppering y'all with questions. 

 

Below is a link to a brief tutorial I created for using the technique of FOCUS STACKING for making sure all parts of the model/image are in sharp focus.

 

I am happy to discuss further and answer any questions.

 

https://imgur.com/a/WPQ2rn7

Edited January 19, 2022 by Smithers66
bad link

[LSP_Kevin]

Welcome aboard!

 

 

Would love to read your article, but unfortunately the link you posted is badly broken. Here's the corrected one:

 

https://imgur.com/a/WPQ2rn7

 

Kev

[Out2gtcha]

Weird, 

I cant get to the URL for either. Not found

[James Rademaker]

Me to, nothing when I open the link.

Jim

[Jeff T]

Welcome Smithers!...and thanks a lot for the article.

 

My modelling friend does this now, and his images look just superb!....he has tried to explain to me how to do it, but I still haven't tried it yet, your article will come in very handy for me to try and understand the process.

 

Cheer's,

Jeff.

[Greif8]

Welcome again to the forums.  Thank you much the the tips.  I do a lot of macro photography, and while I have gotten fairly good at managing depth of field issues, I think this program is worth a try.  Thank you again!

 

Ernest

[Woody V]

You mean like this?

BTW, it's the Revell kit.

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Archer Fine Transfers

[Smithers66]

9 hours ago, Archer Fine Transfers said:

You mean like this?

BTW, it's the Revell kit.

 

I would say YES! Looks great, love the totally "gone" background as well. I couldn't quite get that look on some of mine.

[brahman104]

Hi Smithers! Welcome!

 

Great post. I'm keen to try this with my current project as it's rather large.

 

Thanks for the tip. 

 

Cheers,

 

Craig

[Woody V]

I’ve been an avid photographer most of my adult life. I know my way around Photoshop, consider myself a camera enthusiast, and even had a photo studio for several years. 

 

In the past if I wanted everything in focus I simply got far enough away from the model and shot at f16 so the depth of field was deep enough so that everything was in focus. The problem with this approach is that the subject only occupies a relatively small portion of the frame, so you had to crop out a large number of pixels to isolate the model. This works great if you have a 16+ megapixel camera and only intend to post your picture on line at 800-1000 ppi. More on this later.

 

A few months ago I learned about focus stacking and thought it would be the ultimate solution to getting everything in focus and a frame filled with the model, but it’s not. The concept is flawed by Photoshop's AI and the laws of optics - allow me to explain.

 

As you begin by focusing on the nearest part of the model like the wingtip with the model at an angle and work your way back to the vertical stabilizer the laws of optics make it impossible to get the entire visible part of the vertical stabilizer to appear in focus because the blur on the edge of the wingtip obscures part of the the vertical stabilizer. This is unavoidable unless you remove the wingtip from the model and ain't nobody doing that.

 

There is no perfect fix for this phenomenon. The best you can hope for (after hours of editing in Photoshop) is to minimize the effect by going through your series of images, finding one of the vertical stabilizer that looks best, pasting it over the area to be fixed and then cloning, painting and healing the seam. You will need impressive PS skills to pull this off.

 

And the problems don't end there.

 

Photoshop focus stacking AI has SERIOUS flaws, not the least of which is its tendency to leave portions of your model completely missing and/or random blurred areas for no apparent reason. What I do is load all of individual images into Lightroom and then scrutinize the finished image for these flaws. When I find a flaw I go through the files in Lightroom and copy/paste the correct parts onto the finished image. Expect to find a LOT of such instances and to say this is frustrating, mind numbing and extremely time consuming would be a gross understatement.

 

Unless you're hell bent on focus stacking, use a 16+ megapixel camera, get far enough away from the model so that the depth-of-field covers the entire model, shoot at f16+ and crop your image. If all you want to do is post on-line, it works just fine.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Archer Fine Transfers

[quang]

2 hours ago, Archer Fine Transfers said:

Unless you're hell bent on focus stacking, use a 16+ megapixel camera, get far enough away from the model so that the depth-of-field covers the entire model, shoot at f16+ and crop your image. If all you want to do is post on-line, it works just fine.

I agree. The ‘traditional’ way works best. Stacked focus often look bland and lacking of depth. Just like other computer-generated ‘improvements’ like auto-tune in music recording and HDR in digital,photography.

 

It may be harder to do it the old way but at least you’re keeping the true nature of things intact.

[Greif8]

Thank you for the insights Woody.  I do a lot of macro photography and agree with you concerning using the largest f-stop to get the most defined image and then cropping the photo.  I shoot most of my macro images in manual mode (My camera is a Canon Rebel EOS T6, decent but not top of the line) using either a standard 18-55mm lens or a dedicated EF-S 60mm macro lens.  The camera is 18 MP capable, so is well suited for the technique you describe.   

 

I use a pretty basic photo editing program and am by no means an expert in manipulating photos using an editor such as PS.  I have never been interested enough in photo editing to spend hours manipulating photos to get super crisp images - just not my cup of tea.  I thought focus stacking might be an interesting concept to explore, and I'll probably try it out, but I appreciate your insights into the limitations of the software.

 

Ernest 

[Woody V]

1 hour ago, Greif8 said:

I have never been interested enough in photo editing to spend hours manipulating photos

 

You sir, have made wise decisions with your life. 

[Woody V]

On 1/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, Smithers66 said:

I would say YES! Looks great, love the totally "gone" background as well. I couldn't quite get that look on some of mine.

 

You need a LOT of light.

 

After years of farting around with cheap clamp lights and underpowered LED heads, etc I recently broke down and built a table top setup with three 3,000 lumen shop lights, white seamless and white plastic ends in an effort to get an evenly lit "box of light". I added two LED heads with diffused "snoots" that I made from sheet styrene to add some fill from the sides.

With this setup I can shoot ISO 100, f5.6 (my lens sweet spot), 1/80 second, white balance 5,000k(IIRC). My camera allows me to save my settings so whenever I'm shooting my models I just select my saved setting. 

 

Ideally, I'd prefer 3 strobes with soft boxes but I just don't have enough room.

 

 

[quang]

You also need a LOT of exposure. You’ll need a tripod like on the above photos  … and better still a remote control.