Are you using a recent version of Photoshop? I'm real pleased with the results from AutoBlend myself and saw no reason to spend $30-$240 (depending on license) extra on more software.
Yes, I have CS6 and have tried the autoblend. One thing I noticed is that it requires a lot of artifact correction once it's done with the blending. I was wondering if Helicon Focus reduces the amount of artifact correction needed. I find it especially challenging when some of the subject matter has moved during the exposure like flowers or foliage.
I've used Autoblend, Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker. Of the three, I prefer Zerene. The work desktop is simple and easy to use. Once you get used to it, you can consistently get better results than with the other two. The only down side is that it will not work directly with RAW files. It is a separate, stand alone program and requires either TIFF or JPEG. if you use LR to process, you have to batch convert the RAW files, then go to Zerene and drag and drop a series of TIFF or JPEG files from Windows Explorer. The process would be similar with a Mac.
You cannot escape artifacts in focus stacks. Even with no movement, there is still shadow created by the the evolving cone of focus in separate parts of the subject. Most of these are editable. With Zerene I use the image created by the first method as an editing source for the second method image, which has both better detail and more artifacts. 90% of the artifacts can be corrected that way. The remaining artifacts can usually be caught by going to the separate images.
Posted by Jim Zablotny on July 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM
I use Helicon focus at work- and it works OK. At home, I use Zerene Stacker which has better algorithms and editing features...................Jim
Posted by Mark Seaver on August 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM
I've used Helicon Focus and Photoshop extensively. With PS using the Autoalign and Autoblend menus, I always gets softness in the middle of sharp areas due to the relatively crude masks that PS makes. PS does do a much better job in handling a soft background than Helicon.
With Helicon (I have the "Lite" version), I mostly use the B (depth mask) method with a smoothing parameter of 1. As you raise the smoothing parameter you can start getting some softness in the blend areas. If there's no movement and very limited brightness changes between the images, the C (pyramid) method does fine job of getting the sharp areas and a much better job of avoiding blotchy backgrounds than the B method, but it tends to blow out high value whites. I also see times when the C method results in dark rims around bright subjects. When I looked carefully, I could always see some softening in the stack relative to the individual images using the A (weighted average).
As Phil indicates, there are fundamental optical principles, which result in "artifacts" that have to be cleaned up in post processing regardless of the software. Although I don't do it, it's probably best if you can clean those up with the software that creates your original stack because of the alignment. I clean up in PS after using Helicon Focus and there are times where I have to use the auto-align command multiple times before I get "perfect" overlap between the stack and the image that I want to use for the clean up.
Discussion
6 repliesI came across this focus stacking software called Helicon Focus, which quite a few landscape photographers are using for their DOF blending.
Could you share your experiences with it. Is it worth investing in? what are the pros and cons of the software?
Thanks
Sairam
Yes, I have CS6 and have tried the autoblend. One thing I noticed is that it requires a lot of artifact correction once it's done with the blending. I was wondering if Helicon Focus reduces the amount of artifact correction needed. I find it especially challenging when some of the subject matter has moved during the exposure like flowers or foliage.
You cannot escape artifacts in focus stacks. Even with no movement, there is still shadow created by the the evolving cone of focus in separate parts of the subject. Most of these are editable. With Zerene I use the image created by the first method as an editing source for the second method image, which has both better detail and more artifacts. 90% of the artifacts can be corrected that way. The remaining artifacts can usually be caught by going to the separate images.
With Helicon (I have the "Lite" version), I mostly use the B (depth mask) method with a smoothing parameter of 1. As you raise the smoothing parameter you can start getting some softness in the blend areas. If there's no movement and very limited brightness changes between the images, the C (pyramid) method does fine job of getting the sharp areas and a much better job of avoiding blotchy backgrounds than the B method, but it tends to blow out high value whites. I also see times when the C method results in dark rims around bright subjects. When I looked carefully, I could always see some softening in the stack relative to the individual images using the A (weighted average).
As Phil indicates, there are fundamental optical principles, which result in "artifacts" that have to be cleaned up in post processing regardless of the software. Although I don't do it, it's probably best if you can clean those up with the software that creates your original stack because of the alignment. I clean up in PS after using Helicon Focus and there are times where I have to use the auto-align command multiple times before I get "perfect" overlap between the stack and the image that I want to use for the clean up.