Drag to set position!
Share
Sticky
Focus stacking Tutorial
[EDIT] I've just done a more complete focus stacking tutorial with a better example here
www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=61316
Thought I'd knock up an example of this as there are always a few questions about it.
Focus stacking is simply used to increase the DOF in a picture which can be a major problem in taking macro shots. It is done by taking a series of picures of the subject from the same point of view but at different focus depths covering the area you want in focus. This is achieved either by moving the camera or by using the focus ring. It is best done on a tripod but can be done handholding as long as the FOV is reasonably consistent.
I use the freeware Programme combinez5 to do this available from here
<a www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZ5/combinez5.htm
Version above handles upti 8mps images version below handles 10mps images
www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/Manual/Install.htm
First a series of three pics to be stacked- notice how the focus point is slightly different in each shot- I tend to start with the nearest point and move in.



It is important you do not do any cropping before focus stacking as the programme will only accept pics of equal size.
Now the hard bit :)
Run combinez5 and open up the file load dialogue and choose the pics to be stacked

Once loaded Simply tell it to stack them

It then works away re-aligning, colour and contrast matching and resizing, picks the in Focus bits apparently on a pixel by pixel basis and hopefully will produce a clean focus stacked image.

Finally producing the stacked image

It's just then a matter of saving the file using the Save Frame/Picture As dialogue.
Sometimes if the pictures were not that well aligned you will get odd effects around the borders which obviously need cropping.
Brian V.
www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=61316
Thought I'd knock up an example of this as there are always a few questions about it.
Focus stacking is simply used to increase the DOF in a picture which can be a major problem in taking macro shots. It is done by taking a series of picures of the subject from the same point of view but at different focus depths covering the area you want in focus. This is achieved either by moving the camera or by using the focus ring. It is best done on a tripod but can be done handholding as long as the FOV is reasonably consistent.
I use the freeware Programme combinez5 to do this available from here
<a www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZ5/combinez5.htm
Version above handles upti 8mps images version below handles 10mps images
www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/Manual/Install.htm
First a series of three pics to be stacked- notice how the focus point is slightly different in each shot- I tend to start with the nearest point and move in.



It is important you do not do any cropping before focus stacking as the programme will only accept pics of equal size.
Now the hard bit :)
Run combinez5 and open up the file load dialogue and choose the pics to be stacked

Once loaded Simply tell it to stack them

It then works away re-aligning, colour and contrast matching and resizing, picks the in Focus bits apparently on a pixel by pixel basis and hopefully will produce a clean focus stacked image.

Finally producing the stacked image

It's just then a matter of saving the file using the Save Frame/Picture As dialogue.
Sometimes if the pictures were not that well aligned you will get odd effects around the borders which obviously need cropping.
Brian V.
Thank you posting this tutorial, Brian.....MUCH appreciated by those of us who would like to give the focus stacking a try.....but did not know how to get started.
Very cool, I've never heard of focus stacking until today, but the possibility of doing something like this had occurred to me. Kind of like HDR except with focus instead of exposure. Using both techniques together could get very interesting.
I use a Mac, so cominez5 won't work for me. I did a search on Version Tracker and didn't find anything similar for the Mac OS. If anyone in the group knows of such a program, or has any experience focus stacking manually in PhotoShop, I'd be interested.
I use a Mac, so cominez5 won't work for me. I did a search on Version Tracker and didn't find anything similar for the Mac OS. If anyone in the group knows of such a program, or has any experience focus stacking manually in PhotoShop, I'd be interested.
Hi Finistr
Helicon have released focus stacking prog on a MAC- 30 day free trial $30 after
www.myzips.com/software/Helicon-Focus-Mac.phtml
There is some other freeware software for the mac- I'll see if I can locate it.
Think the freeware one is this- bigwww.epfl.ch/demo/edf/
Brian V.
Helicon have released focus stacking prog on a MAC- 30 day free trial $30 after
www.myzips.com/software/Helicon-Focus-Mac.phtml
There is some other freeware software for the mac- I'll see if I can locate it.
Think the freeware one is this- bigwww.epfl.ch/demo/edf/
Brian V.
Jon D Law
14 years ago
awesome programme, and well explained!! i have tried it and you really do need to keep the subject in the same position, as if its only a fraction out you get lines and stuff round some the edges.
tr33lo
Yes you do sometimes get halo effects- I just remove them with the clone tool. Think this mainly occurs if there are rotational differences between the pics which combinez5 does not check for.
Brian V.
Yes you do sometimes get halo effects- I just remove them with the clone tool. Think this mainly occurs if there are rotational differences between the pics which combinez5 does not check for.
Brian V.
jason044
14 years ago
Thank you so much. I followed the link here from your 100% fly crop. I have never heard of focus stacking and I've been taking tons of Dragonfly macros lately and I can't wait to have a moment to see if I can pull off a dragonfly focus stack.
Pedro Ivo Hudson
14 years ago
I´ve asked this to you in another picture, but then I found this tutorial!!
Thanks Brian! ^^
Thanks Brian! ^^
This is much easier than photoshop because the prog does the alignment, resizing, colour matching etc for you. I do use photoshop to tidy up after if necessary.
Brian V.
Brian V.
Thanks for this very helpful tutorial. I've just referred a great flickr friend to focus stacking and really appreciated someone had already done such a nice guide.
frankeys creation
13 years ago
I regretted why I havn't discovered this a long time ago. Thanks a lot Lord V for this tutorial. I'm bit fan of your macro work.
Zozo Calypso
Posted 12 years ago. Edited by Zozo Calypso (member) 12 years ago
Another focus stacking program for Mac is Photo Acute Studio. It also has a number of other functions for stacked images, such as noise reduction, elimination of moving objects, etc
photoacute.com/studio/index.html
photoacute.com/studio/index.html
paulchubbuck
11 years ago
I have Photoshop CS4, but can find nothing about how to use it to do focus stacking. I see that LordV uses CombineMZ. I have tried Helicon Focus, with pretty good initial results, but am wondering whether anyone has made a comparison of these three software options for doing focus stacking.
Anyone?
Anyone?
urgyen_76
11 years ago
Hi Lord V and all
The other day i was trying to take a series of pics of a watch with focus stacking. But at the end i noticed that with the change of focus point the subjects also moves a little. i tried to auto blend it in ps4 but the result is not as perfect as i wanted it to be. I heard that one has to move the camera according focus point. Can u pl! tell me what should i do to solve this issue .
Thank You
The other day i was trying to take a series of pics of a watch with focus stacking. But at the end i noticed that with the change of focus point the subjects also moves a little. i tried to auto blend it in ps4 but the result is not as perfect as i wanted it to be. I heard that one has to move the camera according focus point. Can u pl! tell me what should i do to solve this issue .
Thank You
I've seen excellent stacks doen with both the combine series (combine z5, combinezm and combinezp) as well as helicon focus. Not really seen much done with cs4 yet.
urgyen.- how are you changing the focus point ?
The FOV will change slightly as you move in - this means that each image slice has slightly different sizes which are automatically re-sized when you use stacking software. Not sure if you are suffering from too much movement but often when doing manual focus stacking you may need to re-size the images and perhaps rotate them a bit to get them to align before trying to overlay them.
brian V.
The FOV will change slightly as you move in - this means that each image slice has slightly different sizes which are automatically re-sized when you use stacking software. Not sure if you are suffering from too much movement but often when doing manual focus stacking you may need to re-size the images and perhaps rotate them a bit to get them to align before trying to overlay them.
brian V.
urgyen_76
11 years ago
Hi Lord V
Thank you very much for ur time. I had some other issues so i couldn't answers ur question earlier. Mean while i tried to stack photos with helicon and it worked really good.
Thank you once again for sharing ur knowledge with us.
Thank you very much for ur time. I had some other issues so i couldn't answers ur question earlier. Mean while i tried to stack photos with helicon and it worked really good.
Thank you once again for sharing ur knowledge with us.
Hi Brian
I'm finding CS4 much more forgiving than Combine ZM with respect to frame to frame alignment and halos.
Linden
I'm finding CS4 much more forgiving than Combine ZM with respect to frame to frame alignment and halos.
Linden
riosundoro
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by riosundoro (member) 11 years ago
Hi Lord V,
I have been having issues with stacking using Combine ZM. The output is not as sharp as I expected. Should I use more frames? When I used more than 3 frames, artifacts showed up. Secondly, when I try to stack a straight object, the output seems to "bend" to one side. How can I resolve this? And lastly, I have tried using Helicon Focus, but the output seems like it's been rotated on the axis. Can you help me with my issues? Thank you for sharing. Rio.
I have been having issues with stacking using Combine ZM. The output is not as sharp as I expected. Should I use more frames? When I used more than 3 frames, artifacts showed up. Secondly, when I try to stack a straight object, the output seems to "bend" to one side. How can I resolve this? And lastly, I have tried using Helicon Focus, but the output seems like it's been rotated on the axis. Can you help me with my issues? Thank you for sharing. Rio.
Hi Rio - must admit I don't use CZM- I tend to use the older CZ5 (it's better at not having artifacts). Interestingly I took the sharpening routines out of the stack macro as I didn't like the results (oversharpened) so I sharpen after in PS. WRT not getting sharp images- are the individual slices sharp in the first place ?
One thing none of the stacking progs are good at is handling low contrast detail.
What magnification and aperture are you using for the shots ?
Brian V.
One thing none of the stacking progs are good at is handling low contrast detail.
What magnification and aperture are you using for the shots ?
Brian V.
riosundoro
11 years ago
Hi Lord V,
Thank you, I will try to use the older CZ5 instead. I use EF 100mm for the lens, at 1:1 magnification and f/11. I have recently read somewhere, that with that lens, I shouldn't be setting aperture lower than f/5.6 due to diffraction, Is it true? Thank you again for your guidance.
Thank you, I will try to use the older CZ5 instead. I use EF 100mm for the lens, at 1:1 magnification and f/11. I have recently read somewhere, that with that lens, I shouldn't be setting aperture lower than f/5.6 due to diffraction, Is it true? Thank you again for your guidance.
Hi R10,
re the aperture and diffraction, The real answer is you should use whatever aperture you need to get the effect you want. It's true especially with macro that images suffer from diffraction softening, but they also suffer often from lack of DOF and you just need to balance the two effects.
I'm a bit of detail junkie but still take most of my 1:1 shots at F11, true they will be slightly sharper at F8 but I don't like the DOF loss. You start seeing very significant sharpness loss at 1:1 at about F16 or smaller.
Brian V.
re the aperture and diffraction, The real answer is you should use whatever aperture you need to get the effect you want. It's true especially with macro that images suffer from diffraction softening, but they also suffer often from lack of DOF and you just need to balance the two effects.
I'm a bit of detail junkie but still take most of my 1:1 shots at F11, true they will be slightly sharper at F8 but I don't like the DOF loss. You start seeing very significant sharpness loss at 1:1 at about F16 or smaller.
Brian V.
I tried both, and found the Helicon focus interesting.
i am only trying, there were few movements due to focus adjustments and movement of subject.
helicon did well to sort it, but costs $200.
i am only trying, there were few movements due to focus adjustments and movement of subject.
helicon did well to sort it, but costs $200.
There is another new software prog around now that is getting good reports - think the beta is free. Zerene stacker
here zerenesystems.com/stacker/
here zerenesystems.com/stacker/
ProDigi
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by ProDigi (member) 11 years ago
Here's my first attempt on Photoshop CS4: www.flickr.com/photos/prodigi/3780568746/
MyMacroLens
11 years ago
I've installed a newer version, the combine ZP. It won't handle full size images for me because it says there's insufficient memory. Is the 500 MB of my computer not enough? How much memory does it require? I have windows XP. What's the problem?
Maikki - can only say I use 2GB of memory in my machine- you do need a lot for full size focus stacking.
Brian V.
Brian V.
Mark Q Photography
11 years ago
Thanks Lord V!! Great tutorial.
I tried the combinez5 software but I got way better results using CS4 and the following steps:
1) File>>scripts>>Load files into stack, making sure you check "attempt to align layers" box
2)Once loaded, Edit>> auto blend layers
It did a great job, quick & easy.
My original unstacked file from yesterday:

and my Focus Stacked (6 frames) image from today:

Cheers and thanks heaps,
Mark
I tried the combinez5 software but I got way better results using CS4 and the following steps:
1) File>>scripts>>Load files into stack, making sure you check "attempt to align layers" box
2)Once loaded, Edit>> auto blend layers
It did a great job, quick & easy.
My original unstacked file from yesterday:

and my Focus Stacked (6 frames) image from today:

Cheers and thanks heaps,
Mark
Mark looks good !
Doesn't matter how you do the stacking really- it's just the idea, however I have found zerene stacker (google it) is very good.
Brian v.
Doesn't matter how you do the stacking really- it's just the idea, however I have found zerene stacker (google it) is very good.
Brian v.
nicolamarini79
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by nicolamarini79 (member) 11 years ago
I d usually done this without know that there are programs that do this ...

and quite the same but made as usual by hand and in a more artistic way...

now I have to try it with macro...

and quite the same but made as usual by hand and in a more artistic way...

now I have to try it with macro...
Thank you for this terrific information! I've been having a focus problem with my new Raynox DCR-250. Now I can try to focus stack my macro photos to make a super photo! Thanks for the links!
marikeño [everydayISphotographyDAYsomewhere]
10 years ago
lordV i have a question, how come some of the aperture in macro photography is F0.0, is there a special tool to obtain that aperture?
thanks
thanks
Casseris
10 years ago
I think f/0.0 is caused by the camera not been able to read the lens settings due to reversal of lens of some other attachment ?
Casseris
10 years ago
Just wanted to add a few things.
I have used CombineZM enough times now to become half decent with the software but I have found that if you are using CZM that the stack & alignment within PS CS4 seems to be a lot more capable in my view.
Generally I now stack my photos within PS CS 4 first and crop the photo so that CZM doesnt end up having to work with non-existant edges. I then re order the layers in PS in order and then save them out individually, all as TIFFs.
CZM then seems to produce better results.
Secondly, I have been in touch with the Zerene people because I had issues re installing a trial, as I wanted to re-evaluate the software and make a final decision between this and CZM. They are VERY helpful. I had issues after reinstalling it that Zerene tending to cause errors which is more than likely due to the fact that I am running a 64 bit machine with Vista. Emailed the error and DXdiagnostics to him and he said he'd get back to me.
Very good customer support by the look of it, if this is how Zerene handles its customers I'd be very happy to pay for the software (Once its working on my PC). Plus then theres the fact that it seems to produce better results than CZM from what I have seen of other peoples work.
I have used CombineZM enough times now to become half decent with the software but I have found that if you are using CZM that the stack & alignment within PS CS4 seems to be a lot more capable in my view.
Generally I now stack my photos within PS CS 4 first and crop the photo so that CZM doesnt end up having to work with non-existant edges. I then re order the layers in PS in order and then save them out individually, all as TIFFs.
CZM then seems to produce better results.
Secondly, I have been in touch with the Zerene people because I had issues re installing a trial, as I wanted to re-evaluate the software and make a final decision between this and CZM. They are VERY helpful. I had issues after reinstalling it that Zerene tending to cause errors which is more than likely due to the fact that I am running a 64 bit machine with Vista. Emailed the error and DXdiagnostics to him and he said he'd get back to me.
Very good customer support by the look of it, if this is how Zerene handles its customers I'd be very happy to pay for the software (Once its working on my PC). Plus then theres the fact that it seems to produce better results than CZM from what I have seen of other peoples work.
Have to admit I really did not get on with CZM and reverted to using CZ5 before going onto zerene stacker.
The author of zerene stacker can be found hanging about on this forum photomacrography.net/forum/
The author of zerene stacker can be found hanging about on this forum photomacrography.net/forum/
StanfordSumi
10 years ago
Thank for such a great insight into how to get sharp and clear shots in macro! I will try both the CombineZP and also in CS4 the same. Just one comment in case someone got stuck in CS4 doing this, I just tried it out with 2 unrelated pictures and I could not see the command "auto blend" in Edit until I selected both layers at once.
SixFootTwo
Posted 10 years ago. Edited by SixFootTwo (member) 10 years ago
So a question for all on stacking and fringing.
When taking the images and focussing across the DoF of the object I find that the images taken grows/shrinks as you change the focus and you get a number of images each with the sharpness at a different depth (desirable) but they are of differing sizes. Subsequently when stacking this creates a fringe effect where a feint ghost of the largest image surrounds the stacked image.
You can see it here easily because of the white petals on the darker background just hover to see the notes and then if you go to the larger image it's very obvious.
I've tried combinezm and zerene stacker and both seem to do this to a differing degree and wondered if anyone had encountered this and knew of a work around that didn't involve going in and manually correcting the fringe?
When taking the images and focussing across the DoF of the object I find that the images taken grows/shrinks as you change the focus and you get a number of images each with the sharpness at a different depth (desirable) but they are of differing sizes. Subsequently when stacking this creates a fringe effect where a feint ghost of the largest image surrounds the stacked image.
You can see it here easily because of the white petals on the darker background just hover to see the notes and then if you go to the larger image it's very obvious.
I've tried combinezm and zerene stacker and both seem to do this to a differing degree and wondered if anyone had encountered this and knew of a work around that didn't involve going in and manually correcting the fringe?
i too have had these issues as (Magical Trevor).... i mean SixFootTwo mentions....i thought it was just me and my lac of knowledge with the apps.
Not sure this is fringing. Probably artifacts, most likely caused by some kind of movement. Must have no wind, use tripod, mirror lock-up and cable release.
The "grows/shrink" phenomena is normal. Alignment should take care of that.
The "grows/shrink" phenomena is normal. Alignment should take care of that.
SixFootTwo
Posted 10 years ago. Edited by SixFootTwo (member) 10 years ago
Yep was indoor, tripod weighted, mirror locked and on remote.
EDIT I would have thought alignment would have been more capable of movement than resizing the image as you're dealing with the same amount of pixels in a different position as opposed to a larger number of pixels?
Going to give cs4 a run at it too!
EDIT I would have thought alignment would have been more capable of movement than resizing the image as you're dealing with the same amount of pixels in a different position as opposed to a larger number of pixels?
Going to give cs4 a run at it too!
Stacking progs do resize the individual frames appropriately however you can get a problem with high contrast eges where the OOF edge is actually larger than the in focus edge but may be still considered detail by the stacking prog thus giving a halo around a high contrast edges.
Zerene stacker is very good at minimising these but they do still occur and need manual editing to remove them.
Brian v.
Zerene stacker is very good at minimising these but they do still occur and need manual editing to remove them.
Brian v.
SixFootTwo
Posted 10 years ago. Edited by SixFootTwo (member) 10 years ago
that makes sense given the subject had a hard white edge on a darker background and was quite a deep image so the oof edge was pretty soft. So in effect there's a fairly thin line between a hard edge and what the programme considers oof background hence the halo and maybe part of what makes the programme work as it has to differentiate?
Thanks fella much appreciated and makes total sense.
Thanks fella much appreciated and makes total sense.
breic
10 years ago
Do you have any Photoshop advice on how to eliminate those high-contrast-edge halos? Using Helicon, I found this to be quite a problem.
Dr.p.K.Roy
10 years ago
Thanks Brian, for such a nice tutorial.
Now, as of today,please suggest a free focus stacker programme with its link. The link at the beginning of this page looks outdated.
Now, as of today,please suggest a free focus stacker programme with its link. The link at the beginning of this page looks outdated.
tom.bielecki
10 years ago
breic,
I recommend using the photoshop method to align and crop your shots, then exporting them to a directory where you run it through Helicon.
After it has gone through the focus stacking, I believe Helicon alows you to manually 'paint' and edit the masks.
If it doesn't, don't sweat it. Open up the 'final' exported image, and using masks in photoshop, 'paint' the bokeh from teh background of near-focus shots onto the area where you see the halos.
I hope this helps
I recommend using the photoshop method to align and crop your shots, then exporting them to a directory where you run it through Helicon.
After it has gone through the focus stacking, I believe Helicon alows you to manually 'paint' and edit the masks.
If it doesn't, don't sweat it. Open up the 'final' exported image, and using masks in photoshop, 'paint' the bokeh from teh background of near-focus shots onto the area where you see the halos.
I hope this helps
Dr p K Roy
Link for latest combinezp package
www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZP/Installation.htm
Brian V.
Link for latest combinezp package
www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZP/Installation.htm
Brian V.
Peggy Collins
10 years ago
Excellent tutorial...was sent here by Fort Photo, btw. Can't wait to try it out!
bcaravitis
10 years ago
Only this morning I read about focus stacking, on Brian's gallery on the Camel site. I think it is as interesting as the panorama stitching technique, at the other side of the spectrum! So far I have experimented with stitching panoramas. I have shot macros the traditional way. Brian has set my mind on a new road. Sincere thanks Brian.
Thank you so much for all these info/tutorial. I appreciate your time and effort.
Thanks for the comments :)
bcaravitis - I somwtimes do focus stacked panormas as well. Do the focus stacks first and then stitch them together :)
Brian v.
bcaravitis - I somwtimes do focus stacked panormas as well. Do the focus stacks first and then stitch them together :)
Brian v.
Steve Sheehan
9 years ago
Just wanted to thank Brian for this tutorial. I have returned to macro photography after a break of far too many years, and am having a whale of a time with it. Using CombineZP is something new though, and this tutorial has proved invaluable. First successful result below:
mpgoodey pro (No flashing AWARDS PLEASE!)
9 years ago
If you want to know the answer to the universe or maybe just the maths behind Depth of Field. Take a look here-
nzphoto.tripod.com/stereo/3dtake/fdof.htm
I'm afraid gave up at D = 2fC(M+1)/M2) !! LOL
nzphoto.tripod.com/stereo/3dtake/fdof.htm
I'm afraid gave up at D = 2fC(M+1)/M2) !! LOL
mpgoodey pro (No flashing AWARDS PLEASE!)
Posted 9 years ago. Edited by mpgoodey pro (No flashing AWARDS PLEASE!) (member) 9 years ago
During a focus stack
I assume one thing which must surely be fundamental but is rarely mentioned is this. During the photographic stage when you might take up to fifty exposures and have to occasionally wait for flashes to recycle. The subject must have to remain "frozen" any waving antennae or twitching wing would be troublesome would it not ???
I assume one thing which must surely be fundamental but is rarely mentioned is this. During the photographic stage when you might take up to fifty exposures and have to occasionally wait for flashes to recycle. The subject must have to remain "frozen" any waving antennae or twitching wing would be troublesome would it not ???
BernardoSegura
8 years ago
having the camera fixed with a tripod and just ajust de focus manually is a good idea? or is it better buying a focus rail and let the focus fixed and move the entire camera?
maybe moving the focus ring can result in different perpectives of the frame and in problems in the stacking process later.
maybe moving the focus ring can result in different perpectives of the frame and in problems in the stacking process later.
ComputerHotline
8 years ago
> "having the camera fixed with a tripod and just ajust de focus manually is a good idea?"
I use this method.
I use this method.
Couple of points raised.
Yes it is a lot better if the subject is stationary whilst taking the shots. Waving antennae etc result in duplications in the stacked result. They can however be edited out afterwards.
It does not seem to make much difference to stack quality whether you use fixed camera/move focus ring or fixed focus /move camera or indeed fixedcamera/fixed focus/move subject.
Brian v.
Yes it is a lot better if the subject is stationary whilst taking the shots. Waving antennae etc result in duplications in the stacked result. They can however be edited out afterwards.
It does not seem to make much difference to stack quality whether you use fixed camera/move focus ring or fixed focus /move camera or indeed fixedcamera/fixed focus/move subject.
Brian v.
Teresa Trimm
8 years ago
Well done!!! I am going to use it as a basis for an article! I will be sure to site you. Would you rather I use THIS link or the one with the bugs?
ali_noorani
8 years ago
This is how my 'first' macro stacking results look like in Combine ZM and Photoshop Cs5!
I feel that Combine ZM has done sharpening to the image.
I liked PS better (though I had a few other software open and ran out of my 2GB RAM with 5 CR2 files!), however, there was one very weird thing in PS:
I cropped the stacked and aligned layers only to find visible cracks and lines in the image! I thought it's a preview rendering problem but zooming in and out didn't solve the problem. It was like layers had been cropped a few millimeters off (at the edges)!
Any way, I hope this helps,
and thanks for the article Lord V
I feel that Combine ZM has done sharpening to the image.
I liked PS better (though I had a few other software open and ran out of my 2GB RAM with 5 CR2 files!), however, there was one very weird thing in PS:
I cropped the stacked and aligned layers only to find visible cracks and lines in the image! I thought it's a preview rendering problem but zooming in and out didn't solve the problem. It was like layers had been cropped a few millimeters off (at the edges)!
Any way, I hope this helps,
and thanks for the article Lord V
JohnT2012
7 years ago
I find that PS CS4 is more forgiving when images are less than perfectly aligned but even with 4gb of RAM it will not handle the high number of images that Zerene does.





