Dogwood

[Diane Miller]

The neighbor's dogwoods are doing their thing again, and she had the foresight to plant them on their "back 40" adjoining our property where I can get through a gate. They are in the dappled shade of some large oaks in a grassy field. This morning I caught the early light with clearing fog, and the grass is beginning to get a blush of gold. (It turns brown for the summer.)

Canon 7D Mk II, 100-400 II, tripod, stack (but only 6). ISO 200, f/6.3, 1/500. Some quick stacking here by advancing the focus rind in the smallest increments I could manage. There was some very slight air movement so I had to hurry.

Zerene, with PMax, as I wanted to emphasize the subtle texture. Will try Dmap for comparison when I get time.

[John Robinson]

Lovely image Diane
Great background too. Ireckon 6 stacks is about enough for most things.
Cheers
John

[Ron Conlon]

Lovely background and nicely captured bloom. You might like the DMap version, it will give a little less contrast, which you can then boost to taste.
I agree that 8 is enough frames in most circumstances, John and my crazy numbers of frames are more due to laziness rather than a belief that they are doing anyone any good. The software does the work, electrons are cheap, and I hate to have to redo a stack. I believe there are calculations one can do to determine the minimum number of frames given all the details and a given overlap, but that would require thinking.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Nicely detailed image and I like the composition.
There seems to be a certain structure to the image that I am finding difficulty in defining. It is almost as if I am looking at the image through very finely ground glass. It isn't noise as you would usually describe it but there is a type of fine grain. The background appears to have dark pixels and the ridges on the flower seem to have dark edges. Is this something to do with the stacking I wonder?

[Ron Conlon]

Zerene PMax aligns and stacks and then does what the documentation calls "a type of HDR". You can save a version prior to the "HDR" if you go into into the preferences and check "Retain UDR Image" at Stacking>PMax Settings>Retain UDR image. It is this UDR version which I always use if I do use PMax, because I have found the other too extreme--the amplification of local contrast is pretty strong for both. Also, because of this increase in local contrast, I try to keep the input files lower contrast than I would normally (camera neutral, no sharpening). I think that it is Zerene "finding structure" by local contrast enhancement which Jon has pointed out. The more viewers see these stacks, the more they and we will be aware of the artifacts.

While initially I did almost all my stacks with PMax, my awareness of this sort of extreme local contrast has caused me to shift to largely the DMap stacks, which don't have this issue. In practice, I stack by both methods (which results in three composites, two for PMax--UDR and regular PMax--and one for DMap). I usually use the DMap, but it also can have issues which I can correct by retouching in some areas from the original frames or from the PMax UDR or both.

Sorry for the welter of Zerene jargon and detail for those that don't use it, but thought I would share for those that are interested.

[Diane Miller]

Thanks everyone! Good point, Jonathan. There is quite a bit of texture in those petals and I was pleased to be able to bring it out, but I do think it is a bit overdone.

I was hoping Ron would check in on this -- I haven't used Zerene (or any stacking) in a while and need to master the details further. I'll check that preference and run the image again. I didn't do any sharpening (except the LR default) on the exported TIFFs that went into Zerene. Added a small amount of Clarity and did the usual tweaks with Exposure, Shadows, Highlights, Whites and Blacks, to give a pleasing tonal range. The raw was quite flat in the lighting I had. I could back off of those adjustments some, too.

I've mostly used PMax because I can rarely get the slider in DMap the way I want it. I processed another flower with both and wound up layer masking as each had some artifacts.

I'll post a few more as I have time. Thanks for all comments!

[Ron Conlon]

Often times the parts that DMap screws up, PMax does fine, so if you do both and retouch one into the other, or from a frame from the stack, it works out. The usual problems I encounter are the stacking program trying to make something out of an oof background, which is easy to retouch. The retouching tools intuitive to use.

[Ron Conlon]

Another point, I don't know how critical, but with the DMap slider, I move it until the background is masked. This frequently results in parts of the subject being masked, but the most frequent screw up seems to be the background. I have just always done it that way. Of course, my studio set up may pose different issues than photos taken in the field.

[Diane Miller]

I did both methods and stacked and masked with some cloning touchup on both. DMap did make a difference in the gritty feel. Thanks for the continuing advice -- it's a program worth knowing how to use!

With this one, I didn't get enough separation between flower and BG with the DMap slider, so just went halfway.

[Ron Conlon]

Wonderful!

[MiroslavMaric]

Not easy to take such outdoor frame with focus stacking. Like the composition and flower. If mine I would add in PP some soft blur and some tone adjustment to BG. TFS.

Cheers,
Miro

[Anita Bower]

Beautiful. I liked the first image, but the second one is even better. Beautiful flower, beautiful composition, beautiful bg. Well done.

[Randy Stout]

#2 for me Diane. Too 'gritty' on #1 for the dogwoods I see, esp in the very soft light you had.

Cheers

Randy

[Steve Maxson]

Another vote for the repost. Some good tips on stacking in the discussion above! Beautiful image!

[Diane Miller]

Thanks, everyone! (And thanks to the neighbor who planed these trees. I think she regards me as a little strange but probably harmless.)