Pam's orchid

[Jonathan Ashton]

This orchid won't die! My sister bought it for us about 4 years ago maybe more, my wife keeps it watered and prunes it once per year and it comes into bloom mid September and it lasts until mid November!
Tripod Canon 1DX 40 stacked images focused initially at closest point then stacked 40 images using a focusing rack approx 1.5mm between each image. ISO 100 manual mode 0.8 sec f8. Processed in ACR and Photoshop CS6. My first attempt, your comments are eagerly awaited - be as critical as you want!

[John Robinson]

Hi Jonathon
Picture wise fine but the stacking is a little out .Why 40 images !!! Iam never happy with rails as I think I mentioned earlier some time back. There is some softness in the centre and the back bud is way out. Maybe at f8 you are loosing some of the hi def advantage of open apertures like f4 or 5 which is the main point of stacking really.
Cheers
John

[Ron Conlon]

Jon, I really like this photo. I like it because Phalaenopsis scape photos are very common yet this photo somehow seems a fresh look. I can't indentify why it appears a fresh look to me, but perhaps that is part of the allure. It is high key, which I find very technically challenging, and which I think you pulled off very well, perhaps by not having the white background completely white. And there is a softness not typical either of stacks (the way most of us do them, at least) or typical of orchids.
Not having the background completely off the scale then reveals a slight uneveness in the background with the right side a little darker. John noted some of the stacking peculiarities. 40 images at that aperture should be enough to get 2 scapes front-to-back and yet there are parts that are soft. I suspect you had the entire scape in focus somewhere in that set, so perhaps it is a software problem. To be sure, I look carefully at the subject to determine what my closest and farthest points are, and then shoot and examine frames (while tethered to a laptop) to make sure I got the start and end points. My guess is it is PS that is responsible for the oof bits. Zerene and Helicon are much better in my opnion, and when they do make a mistake, they have tools to correct them--fixing problems in a 40 shot PS stack would be impossible.

[Diane Miller]

I love the detailed look into the open mouth! I like the high key look but wish for just a little more definition on the petals from the BG. I don't mind the near petal edges and back bud being soft -- it looks natural to me. The bottom of the stem needs a little cloning but that's really the only glitch I see.

For a soft subject like a flower I prefer a slightly looser crop, especially top and right. This one feels a little crowded. But overall, a different and very nice shot! Look forward to seeing more!

[Jonathan Ashton]

Thanks very much you have given me some points to consider.
1 I must admit I haven't done any research on the technique and maybe fewer images at wider apertures may be better when using Photoshop.
2 I added a little canvas - careless of me I should have taken a looser image in the first place - this explains the stem being fuzzy.
3 I made the background a little less than fully exposed because the flower blended into the background too much when the exposure was increased.
4 Meanwhile I will have a look at the alternative stacking programmes

[Diane Miller]

You'll find Zerene Stacker is far superior to PS when it comes to handling the fuzzy areas around overlapping objects. (I can't vouch for Helicon -- the last time i tried it, a couple of years ago, it was no better than PS. May be a better version now?

It sounds difficult but isn't, really. It was designed for extremely high-end macro work.

[John Robinson]

I,ve sid before - Try CZM
JohnR

[Ron Conlon]

I've not been able to try CZM because it is Windows-only. After stacking the same files with Helicon and Zerene, Zerene gives a really sharpened look with the pyramid method (Pmax). Helicon also can stack by the pyramid method and stacks faster, but the result doesn't have as sharpened a look--presumably it works at a lower resolution. Both make similar crossing errors and both have good retouching tools to correct the errors. Both do depth method stacks, which seem to be similar to what photoshop does. Both have adjustments for depth map parameters (which photoshop does not). Zerene's method for setting the parameters is more visual and intuitive. Helicon has a more polished look to it, but had a tendency to crash on me. What images Zerene will align is phenomenal--the default settings allow for 20% offset, and these settings can be adjusted. Both are silly easy to use, and are a huge improvement over Photoshop. The sharper final output and the unparalleled alignment power of Zerene makes it the winner in my mind.