# Focus stacks with Affinity



## scyrene (Feb 14, 2017)

Some of you may know that Affinity Photo 1.5 included a focus stacking feature. I was looking forward to this very much, because my copy of HeliconFocus, which I'd used for a year, was coming to the end of the rental period, and because I prefer to integrate as many features into as few programs as possible.

After about six months, I can report that Affinity's focus stacking is very good, albeit not perfect. It doesn't offer different types of stacking (unlike e.g. Helicon), but the post-stacking-retouching is very good, and the overall integration is smooth and crisp.

Here are a couple of pics to start with; I did more before, but I just got a focus rail, so these are better, and I will post more soon. Please share any focus stacks you have done with Affinity here.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 14, 2017)

I should add, the biggest problem so far encountered is 'bloom', i.e. very bright/reflective areas bleeding across (see the right hand edge of the coin in the first image above). This can be manually removed but is painstaking.

Second, the process takes a lot of processing power - the above images were stacked from 64 and ~34 full 50MP sub images respectively, and took my middling laptop a good 10-20 minutes to complete, although I was running other programs at the same time.


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 14, 2017)

I tried stacking with AP. It may be ok for simple stacks, but more demanding shots is not for it. It has trouble with alignment of bushy structures, which Zerene Stacker nails. The tonality of AP is also inferior (IMHO) to Zerene. Re retouching, I have not found a way to do that layer by layer in AP as you can do in Zerene (and I think also HF, though have not used it in a while). 

I posted some comparison between AP and ZS here
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31459.0

Great if it works for your purposes, but for mine AP is not there yet. Otherwise, very happy with AP.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 15, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> I tried stacking with AP. It may be ok for simple stacks, but more demanding shots is not for it. It has trouble with alignment of bushy structures, which Zerene Stacker nails. The tonality of AP is also inferior (IMHO) to Zerene. Re retouching, I have not found a way to do that layer by layer in AP as you can do in Zerene (and I think also HF, though have not used it in a while).
> 
> I posted some comparison between AP and ZS here
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31459.0
> ...



Oh, I didn't see that topic - thanks! I didn't realise Zerene supported Macs, so I may look into that.

You can edit by layer in Affinity Photo. When the stacking is done, it brings up a dialog box with all the layers. You can use it to view individual layers, and the selected layer acts as the source for a close/heal brushes, so you can touch up light flares etc. This is covered in the tutorial video on their website.

As for more complex stacks, I haven't tried any yet, but I'm not surprised by your assessment. I agree dedicated focus stacking software offers greater flexibility and power, but some people may not wish to spend the extra money. Affinity is about the same price as a year's subscription to Helicon Focus; Zerene is considerably more expensive still.

It's akin to panorama stitching, and other things, I suppose - dedicated software gives you the most options, but it's nice that an all-round image editor is offering basic versions of these things for free (I got Affinity before they added this feature, so it was a free add-on from my perspective!).


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 16, 2017)

Thanks for the info on editing stacks on AP. Good to know. I've been using AP also for over a year, also very happy to get this free add on, plus batch processing, and HDR and noise-reduction stacking. Lots of good stuff in AP.

I bought ZS and HF a few years ago, so no subscription cost. I do it quite a bit, so the pro versions are totally worth it for me. My typical stacks are 50-100 images, but as high as 200. PS fell flat completely back when I attempted it in CS5.5. AP is leagues better. ZS still has the edge. Our entomologist uses HF, so may give it a new round of comparison. About 3-4 years ago, I got fewer artifacts with ZS than HF for the images that I do.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 16, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> Thanks for the info on editing stacks on AP. Good to know. I've been using AP also for over a year, also very happy to get this free add on, plus batch processing, and HDR and noise-reduction stacking. Lots of good stuff in AP.
> 
> I bought ZS and HF a few years ago, so no subscription cost. I do it quite a bit, so the pro versions are totally worth it for me. My typical stacks are 50-100 images, but as high as 200. PS fell flat completely back when I attempted it in CS5.5. AP is leagues better. ZS still has the edge. Our entomologist uses HF, so may give it a new round of comparison. About 3-4 years ago, I got fewer artifacts with ZS than HF for the images that I do.



Hmm, artifacts can be a problem, although in general I've not found it egregious - and the intelligent clone tool can clean up most problems, although it can be fiddly and take a while. In HeliconFocus you can load in a dust map and have it apply that to the frames before it stacks them, and it is effective but I found it led to more posterisation than not bothering. I had a year's subscription and it's pretty effective, but erene is definitely the one people talk about. For some reason I'd assumed it was Windows-only, but I was wrong. Still, that price tag makes my eyes water! I'll get the trial version and see though. Thanks again!


----------



## cayenne (Feb 16, 2017)

Hey, thanks for starting this thread.

I just recently got a set of rails myself, and the canon 100L macro lens. After I get a couple of projects I'm doing finished, I plan next to delve into macro.

I have AP and have enjoyed it so far....so, will enjoy working with it as I begin on this.

May I ask what lenses ya'll prefer to work with?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## scyrene (Feb 16, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Hey, thanks for starting this thread.
> 
> I just recently got a set of rails myself, and the canon 100L macro lens. After I get a couple of projects I'm doing finished, I plan next to delve into macro.
> 
> ...



The 100L is a stalwart, and I use it for larger subjects - in the summer I do a fair amount of handheld stacking of large insects etc. That lens would work on a rail with flowers, butterflies, larger moths and suchlike. I use the MP-E for most indoor work, which is great for smaller things down to extremes like pollen grains, and is ideally paired with a rail, although it can be used in other ways (up till now I mostly used a fixed camera and altered the magnification to cover a range, but this has limitations). The 100L + extension tubes helps bridge the gap if you want to do quite small subjects without spending a lot.

Good luck! I look forward to seeing your results


----------



## scyrene (Feb 16, 2017)

One last pound coin shot, this is at 5x on the MP-E. 20 shots at 1/60, f/5.6, ISO 400, ambient light source, and a 1:1 crop.


----------



## zim (Feb 16, 2017)

Hi scyrene are you pre-processing your cr2's and then stacking in AP or directly importing cr2's into AP?
This is making me want to have a go at a part of the program I've never tried.

I've been using stitching quite a lot and I've been very impressed with the results comparing with PTGUI which surprised me.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 16, 2017)

zim said:


> Hi scyrene are you pre-processing your cr2's and then stacking in AP or directly importing cr2's into AP?
> This is making me want to have a go at a part of the program I've never tried.
> 
> I've been using stitching quite a lot and I've been very impressed with the results comparing with PTGUI which surprised me.



I tried the PTGui evaluation version, and it certainly offers a lot of options, but I didn't find it a pleasant program to use...

Yes, I pre-process in Lightroom. I've never used Affinity for processing raw images, and have no idea how it works, really. I just get them to look how I want, then stack the jpegs (or tiffs if I'm being fancy). With HeliconFocus I also did this, as I didn't like the results when stacking raws - and there didn't seem much customisability in that regard. Also in that program, stacking sometimes led to blown highlights, so I got used to creating low contrast, muted jpegs so the ultimate result was balanced.

Also, stacking jpegs must be quicker and less processor-intensive.


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 17, 2017)

Re lenses for stacking, Zeiss 100 MP, MP-E 65. Nikkor EL80/5.6 for UV reflectance.

Re stitching, was VERY impressed with the ease and quality of AP stitching. Just did some simple ones, but even a poorly aligned 2x2 came out perfectly straight from CR2.

Re pre-processing, I convert in DxO to tif, then in to ZS. ZS currently does not accept RAW images (HF does).


----------



## zim (Feb 19, 2017)

Thanks for the info both,
Raw import in AP needs some refining IMO, too slow and doesn't have batch processing amongst other things, but has a lot of potential.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 27, 2017)

Here's an example of a handheld stack of a moderately complex-shaped subject. The camera was held as still as possible with IS on, AF off, and focus was racked through the flower twice as I took a burst of shots (13 in total). I chose this, shooting at f/2.8, over using a narrower aperture in order to retain the smooth out of focus background. There's a bit of haloing around the edge, but this is not egregious and could easily be removed (see close crop).


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 28, 2017)

Quite impressive for handheld. Re halos, that is the area where different apps and algorithms distinguish themselves. AP has a single mode, while ZereneStacker and HeliconFocus have multiple modes with various parameters that can be adjusted. If you are getting more into this, I would strongly recommend to check both packages out. Both can be downloaded as trial software.
With respect to complexity, the sunflower is still on the easier side, as you do not have overlapping elements in very different focal planes. This is another area where software packages differ.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 29, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> Quite impressive for handheld. Re halos, that is the area where different apps and algorithms distinguish themselves. AP has a single mode, while ZereneStacker and HeliconFocus have multiple modes with various parameters that can be adjusted. If you are getting more into this, I would strongly recommend to check both packages out. Both can be downloaded as trial software.
> With respect to complexity, the sunflower is still on the easier side, as you do not have overlapping elements in very different focal planes. This is another area where software packages differ.



Absolutely. If and when I get the trial for other software, I'll do a comparison. Haloes are at least fairly easy to remove, if a little laborious sometimes - I suppose it's a matter of whether a user prefers to spend money to save time  And this is a touch more complex than a sunflower, whose petals are in a plane; many of the ray florets of this coltsfoot (Tussilago) did overlap, but the result was quite clean.


----------

