On 6/25/2022 1:30 PM, DZDub wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:57 AM Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .
Not true for Focus Bracketing, only stacking.
I still don't know what the difference is because I have no function
related to focus under "Bracketing" other than "Focus Stacking".
PP 148-149 of your manual. Both are available, within the FB sub-menu. They have been separated into different places in
the revised OM-1 menus.
But it's OK, as I can't figure out what focus bracketing would be for.
For lenses that aren't compatible with FS? I start getting interested, then re-realize this limitation. I've never been
interested in their short FL range, fast, constant aperture zooms. I didn't like the 12-100 when I had one. I don't
carry the 60/2.8 Macro traveling/in the field.
So FS is only available to me with the 100-400. I do do a lot of focus bracketing with that lens, so I'm likely to play
with FS on it. I've just put FS on a Fn button.
All of the exposures in the stack are available to me on the EM-1, so I could
treat a
selection of them as focus brackets if I wanted to try to outsmart the
camera.
My old version of PS (old to most people, still current for me) used to be
able to stack ORFs, if I'm not mistaken, but the output would be a 16-bit
file to be saved as PSD or TIFF.
Still true. And it still makes artifacts when one part of the subject, say petal(s) moves relative to other parts. There
is a PS work flow for correcting that, but it's a big, slow pain. That's the biggest reason I have switched to Helicon
focus. Touching up those problems is MUCH easier.
I presume the camera works with the JPGs,
because even if you shoot raw only, it creates jpgs as well as ORFs and
outputs a jpg as a result of the stack.
I'm a little concerned with an 8 bit, lossy compression work flow, but it's probably fine most of the time. And as you
say, the ORFs are still there.
I was surprised that the guy set the interval at "10", up from the default
"5". When I have strayed from the default, I've gone to smaller
intervals. It makes me believe that if he had taken a single shot at f11,
his background might not have been much worse, bokeh-wise.
I didn't notice what he set, only how he set it. 😁 When I did (overly?) careful tests when FB and FS first came
available, a setting of five was too high. It gave waves of sharpness with focal distance. Unless something has changed,
I'd not go above 2.
The problem with saying it's OK unless one views at 100% is that it's not uncommon for me to end up cropping that far.
The big, beautiful yellow Ranunculus I just used as an example of translucency? Cropped to 100%.
There's another reason for the lowest setting - for me. I shoot hand held. I am not a tripod. The camera has been known
to move slightly fore and aft. 😉 The more slices over any given focal range, the greater the likelihood that all depths
will be covered.
When I do focus stacks "manually" in PS, I rarely need more than 4-5 shots to
get the
effect I want.
Mine are all over the place, 4 or 5 on one, then 31 is slightly less than full coverage, and all in between. But then,
I've been shooting @ Focus Differential of 1.
I have to say that so far the EM-1 defaults (8/5) have
worked as well as I could wish, but I don't have a telephoto that will work
with in-camera focus stacking to push that envelope. But the day is coming.
Sounds like fun!
Scatter Shot Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|