Posted by Tony Siciliano on February 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM
I have been living with a Canon 24mm TS-E (tilt shift) lens for about a year. I bought it for increasing depth of field in my landscapes with close foregrounds. I just sold it. I found that it was just too much work for me, having not being suckled on the breast of old medium format cameras with tilt shift like my elders on this forum. I was spending too much time fiddling with the lens and my spontaneity in the field was drying up. Most of the time I can get good results focus stacking and blending the shots in Photoshop. What I have learned is this: three shots, one for foreground, one for mid ground, and one for background is usually enough. More shots stalls Photoshop and makes hand layering difficult. Sometimes Photoshop can auto blend, other times it can't. If it can't, then I blend by hand stacking layers and using masks. It's not hard when you limit yourself to three layers. I have Helicon Focus and have used it, but find it cumbersome for landscape work. I can eventually get a good blend with it, but usually get an equally good effect in less time hand layering in Photoshop.
On a related topic, I have joined the ranks of those who don't use UV filters on their lenses. I have retired all of mine and keep lens hoods on for protection. I do notice a slight increase in image quality.
This begs the question of "How important is image quality?" Most of Galen Rowell's images have terrible IQ but are great photos. My (our) obsession with image quality at times seems humorous to me.
Tony, I think the idea of shift tilt might have some merit on the smaller formats, even some MF cameras; however, trying to use the device properly with such a peep-hole-view would be tough IMO. Not having ever used one on my MF camera I cannot speak from authority. I will say I religiously used Hyper-focal adjustments with that camera and obtained some impressive results. I'm sure you'll hear from the rest of the LF guys on this subject, but using the ground-glass to view the adjustments provides a much larger viewing area to scope things out a bit better. Not to say that task is ever easy, but with time it becomes somewhat easier. The advantage of using a LF is to work all those available adjustments in conjunction with lens aperture for hopefully the best DOF results.
As far as stacking images to obtain better DOF results, why not, if it works keep doing it. With regard to the UV usage, I've never used a filter that was not needed for a specific task. I'm of the belief the more objects in the way the more chance for distortion. I try to work shots that do not require any filters, but will not hesitate to mount a Grad filter if required.
I take your point on image quality more of a thought of importance placed upon it that you've mentioned here more so then do we shoot each time with the thought of trying to obtain the best possible image.
I will say from my perspective and shooting LF there is only one approach and that is to obtain the best quality each and every shot, it's just too expensive to think otherwise.
The 24mm t&s is trick to use. I've found that the longer focal lengths (45 & 90 mm) are somewhat easier to use and their natural DoF is more limited. For the longer lenses, I am able to get two reference points (one near and one far) in sharp focus and guestimate DoF. I can create nice shots that would not otherwise work.
I was having trouble blending shots taken with a conventional lens and varying focus setting. My composite shots do not always line up in the foreground. Does the image magnification change with focus setting? Do you need to use fancy software to correct for misalignment?
Mike Schlansker
Posted by Tony Siciliano on February 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM
WARNING: Photoshop Geek Talk Alert
Sometimes that can be a difficult problem. My only trick is this: stack the images on top of each other, pick the top layer and reduce the opacity so that you can see both images. Then go to Edit/Transform/Scale and try scaling the image up or down to match the sizes. It's easy to scale incrementally if you go up to the tool bar and click on the symbol that looks like a chain link. This will link the Width and the Height which are to the left and rights that one you change one, the other changes in the correct proportion.. Then try typing in 101, which will change the image size to 101%, or to 99, etc, until you get the result you need. Another way to visualize how the layers are fitting together that I find easier to see instead of reducing opacity of one layer, is to go over to the Layers Pallete and change the Layer from Normal to Difference. When you are satisfied with your changes, don't forget to change back to normal.
Thanks a lot. I thought that there must be some trick to the foreground blending problem. I will have to try this out to completely understand the process.
Posted by John Cubit on February 15, 2012 at 1:24 AM
Regarding image quality, I think it's useful to analyze the classic photos of the greatest photographers according to the criteria used by commenters on the various online photo forums. Plenty of these classic photos lack sharpness, violate the rule of thirds, etc., however, these photos have connected with people for many decades. In the end, it's the art, not the perfect technique or minding the rules.
Posted by Anil Rao on February 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM
I have a dedicated UV filter for each of my lenses. They are multi-coated and of the best quality that I can find. If Pentax can stick several elements of glass between the subject and my film, then I am okay with placing one more piece of glass from the same manufacturer along this path. I have run several experiments of my own with and without the UV filter, and I have yet to see any (noticible) degradation in image quality. On the contrary, in many cases I seen slightly better contrast when the filter is in place.
Using the filter is very useful for me since I do a lot of my photography near the coast. I have also found it useful when working in the desert where there is often a lot of sand and dust flying around. When it comes to cleaning, it is definitely much easier to clean the flat surface of the filter (on the lens) then the actual curved front element. At least, that has been my experience.
Posted by John Mumaw on February 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM
" Does the image magnification change with focus setting? Do you need to use fancy software to correct for misalignment?"
When you use Auto-Blend in PS for focus stacking images, it should perform an automatic alignment of your images to compensate for mag. change.
Discussion
7 repliesOn a related topic, I have joined the ranks of those who don't use UV filters on their lenses. I have retired all of mine and keep lens hoods on for protection. I do notice a slight increase in image quality.
This begs the question of "How important is image quality?" Most of Galen Rowell's images have terrible IQ but are great photos. My (our) obsession with image quality at times seems humorous to me.
End of musings.
As far as stacking images to obtain better DOF results, why not, if it works keep doing it. With regard to the UV usage, I've never used a filter that was not needed for a specific task. I'm of the belief the more objects in the way the more chance for distortion. I try to work shots that do not require any filters, but will not hesitate to mount a Grad filter if required.
I take your point on image quality more of a thought of importance placed upon it that you've mentioned here more so then do we shoot each time with the thought of trying to obtain the best possible image.
I will say from my perspective and shooting LF there is only one approach and that is to obtain the best quality each and every shot, it's just too expensive to think otherwise.
The 24mm t&s is trick to use. I've found that the longer focal lengths (45 & 90 mm) are somewhat easier to use and their natural DoF is more limited. For the longer lenses, I am able to get two reference points (one near and one far) in sharp focus and guestimate DoF. I can create nice shots that would not otherwise work.
I was having trouble blending shots taken with a conventional lens and varying focus setting. My composite shots do not always line up in the foreground. Does the image magnification change with focus setting? Do you need to use fancy software to correct for misalignment?
Mike Schlansker
Sometimes that can be a difficult problem. My only trick is this: stack the images on top of each other, pick the top layer and reduce the opacity so that you can see both images. Then go to Edit/Transform/Scale and try scaling the image up or down to match the sizes. It's easy to scale incrementally if you go up to the tool bar and click on the symbol that looks like a chain link. This will link the Width and the Height which are to the left and rights that one you change one, the other changes in the correct proportion.. Then try typing in 101, which will change the image size to 101%, or to 99, etc, until you get the result you need. Another way to visualize how the layers are fitting together that I find easier to see instead of reducing opacity of one layer, is to go over to the Layers Pallete and change the Layer from Normal to Difference. When you are satisfied with your changes, don't forget to change back to normal.
Thanks a lot. I thought that there must be some trick to the foreground blending problem. I will have to try this out to completely understand the process.
Using the filter is very useful for me since I do a lot of my photography near the coast. I have also found it useful when working in the desert where there is often a lot of sand and dust flying around. When it comes to cleaning, it is definitely much easier to clean the flat surface of the filter (on the lens) then the actual curved front element. At least, that has been my experience.