Skip to main content

Focus Stacking

Not currently planned

Comments

70 comments

  • Official comment
    Christian G
    Product Manager

    Thank You for Your request. 

    Can You elaborate on how you apply the Focus Stacking in your photography? Please include details on your current workflow, how it could be improved, and also what works well in the Focus Stacking workflow You are using right now. 

  • Josh Journey

    +1 Nearly as important as panorama stitching

    4
  • Keith Holt

    +1 Please!

    2
  • František Hulec

    +1 That would be great.

     

    2
  • Luís Filipe da Cunha

    Please!!! Thanks a lot.

    2
  • Peter Ekström

    +1 Please!

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    The OR asks for a "fully integrated" FS tool.

    Does that mean that the current options to connect to an external specialist application for FS with its own full control over the process, is not considered satisfactory in any way?

    0
  • Last name First name

    Christian G 

    We use focus stacking to ensure the entire field is in focus. For us this can range from documenting sculpture, interiors to macro details of objects. We currently use HeliconFocus and are always thrilled with the results. It is fast, user friendly and more importantly, accurate. However, it would be ideal to have this tool within Capture One to cut down on a round trip to an external app, as well as have the resulting stacked image as a raw file for further processing. 

    4
  • Keith Holt

    I use focus stacking for flower photography with a studio setup. I currently use Helicon Focus. At least for me, I’m not looking for an abundance of “features”, just a basic tool that does an excellent job of merging to create the final result. I would prefer to do this all within CaptureOne because it simplifies the workflow and provides a much better history of processing edits when I want to go back and change something at a layer date.

    3
  • Hans van de Laar

    +1

    0
  • Jan Skýpala

    +1. Focus Stacking in C1 would be great. While I use Affinity Photo for it now, I consider it as a workaround, as I have to export photos out of C1, do the work in AP and then get the result back into C1. Having native stacking right in C1 would simplify my workflow and hopefully have the result still as RAW.

    5
  • Scott Hutchinson

    +1

    0
  • Stanley L. Green

    It might be easier to "fix" C1 so that it would be able to pano stitch with TIFFs instead of requiring RAW images. If the pano stitch with TIFFS were implemented, it would then be possible to use Helicon Focus to perform the focus stack operation and then round trip back to C1 for the pano stitching.

    0
  • JoJu

    Jan Skýpala and Stanley L. Green

    I don't get what C1 would do more or better than Affinity (or Helicon) stacking? The latter is out for quite a while now and does - like other apps -  a good job on it. And while the panoramic function of C1 got better - I end up with DNG files easily double the size of included RAW files. After all a panostitcher like PTGui can cost more than a C1 license. And has a ton of features C1 hasn't.

    As soon as I combine images together, they are no longer RAWs but demosaïced RGB files. C1 can't even do a context-sensitive fill (or I haven't found that button yet). I also would like to keep the RAWs undestructed for as long as possible but there are limits to that concept.

    0
  • Stanley L. Green

    I guess that I didn't make my self clear, Affinity does a fine job for stacking but I prefer C1 or Hugin for stitching. 

     

    0
  • JoJu

    Stanley L. Green It's difficult here to relate a post to other posts. In other forums one can reply to posts which were made a couple of posts before. And this thread here is ongoing since 1 year. Sorry if I got confused because of that.

    0
  • Osphotography

    I tried Helicon Focus and I'm not a fan. It probably does a good job of stitching if the object doesnt move any but in the real world, there will be slight movements, even focus breathing while taking a shot... even on a tripod. Helicon Focus lacked the first step of aligning the photo first. A good focus stacker needs to first align the photo then stack it in order for it to be worthwhile.

    1
  • Stanley L. Green

    I agree

    0
  • Luke Bennett

    I can't believe this isn't a feature yet. Would be super useful for landscapes, macro, product photography... The list goes on and on.

    1
  • Stanley L. Green

    They are to busy building tools for better culling (the wedding photogarper market).

    0
  • David Woodcock

    Adding focus stacking into C1 would be much more appreciated by users than a lot of the useless features they have been pushing lately.

    1
  • Stanley L. Green

    I agree!

     

    0
  • Raymond Harrison

    Both Helicon and Zerene do alignment of images, so not clear where the above assessment came from. In fact, when I stack, I only use Helicon, for me it works fabulously well and is head and shoulders better than what I can get in Photoshop and it allows me as much control as I could possibly want. While it could be a convenience function to do stacking in C1, it’s unlikely to be the best at it, similar to HDR and Pano today. I feel neutral on this request. It would take a lot of resources to add capabilities that other tools have been doing for decades and which will likely always do better, yet, of course, there’s the convenience factor for certain situations and for the folks who like “all in one” tools (not my preference, personally).

    2
  • Stanley L. Green

    I do not agree that the only advantage of doing focus stacking in C1 is convenience; doing it in C1 allows you to stay in RAW/dng. And, BTW, when Hugin was getting confused while stitching multi-row panos, C1 was working like a champ.

    1
  • JoJu

    @Raymond Harrison I agree fully with your post. There are quite a few issues within Capture One which leave some things to be desired. Especially catalog functions which are standard elsewhere like a fulltext search for album names are treated like an unwanted stepchild. Starting with focus stacking and considering the sort of half finshed pano functions lead me to believe, focus stacking would also become half finsihed. So why bother? Panoramas as DNG are big files - trying to imagine 50+ files for a single focusstack with a modern 60 MP sensor would cross the GB border fairly easily.

    1
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    I would love to know how many photographers, as a percentage of all photographers, may regularly (whatever one might mean by regularly) make use of focus stacking.

    Also, of that percentage, how many feel a real need for a "DNG based RAW" approach.

     

    I find the subject of Focus Stacking fascinating and applaud the techniques and results of those who work with the concept, but I very much doubt that there would prove to be a high number of regular practitioners. Almost certainly not enough for a commercial development justification based on attracting new paying clients in high enough numbers to support the development and continuing support costs.

    I would be delighted to see numbers that would prove me wrong.

    In the past I have seen developers in small teams who may have specific interests, perhaps something as niche as focus stacking, add the functionality and end up with the demise of the product as a commercial entity.

    If one is an Adobe, the simple solution is to buy such a developer and then integrate their product with all of the other purchases and development. Catching such a wide catalogue of product markets means that niche functions may be able to stand up financially within the corporate software rental market.

    Any company with a smaller, more limited market may not be in a viable position to justify such a development. Unless, of course, they have a leader with a passion for the functionality who may force things through no matter what the outcome.

    Since, for example, HeliconSoft seems to have a comprehensive solution with a long history, a relatively low price and RAW to DNG output one has to wonder whether making the same functionality in C1 (or any other application) that does not currently offer it, is a bit like re-inventing the wheel.

    Might there be better, more cost effective solutions to investigate? Like tightly integrated Plug-ins for example?

     

    -1
  • Stanley L. Green

    SFA, your comment, “Unless, of course, they have a leader with a passion for the functionality who may force things through no matter what the outcome”, hits the nail on the head. It appears to me that since C1 was bought out by venture capital guys, there is no longer any room for Steve Jobs.

    While I can’t argue with the need for “return on investment”, I am not obligated to buy an "update" that does not deliver the functionality that I desire.

     

    1
  • JoJu

    To me this thread is rather interesting in it's chronology:

    Gerald Senesac makes a feature request one year ago

    Christian-G makes 10 months later not only an official statement afterwards (which gets pinned above 8 other posters using the 10 month time span in between), but also asks the thread opener about his workflow, what Gerald likes about it and what he likes to become improved. As this happened 2 months ago, Gerald now calls himself Last name First name when replying and stating he'd like to do focusstacking within C1 and get a RAW file as a result. First and foremost: Why a RAW? You also could generate a 16 bit TIFF in Helicon and work from there? I think, any DNG from that point on would also only contain the TIF, but no RAW data. Also, as soon as Helicon does its magic, it's not doing it on RAW but on demosaïced files = no longer RAW. So why not try how to get better exports for Helicon?

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Stanley,

    I don't necessarily think it's a venture capitalist thing, although in many cases the transition of a business from startup to marketplace commercial operation does eventually require some sort of nod to fiscal matters rather than (or as well as) personal passions.

    Normally (and often wisely) entrepreneurial founders will accept a buy out, full or partial, because their personal passions and strengths are about creating new things and new businesses rather than running established operations with all the baggage they carry. 

    Even then there may still be leading managers within the business who are prepared to push the directors towards supporting pet projects. Some may pay off, many do not. Worst case is that the pet project creates a perpetual cost base for the future that is not justifiable and becomes a resource overhead and financial drain that impedes the availability of resources for other developments that may be more widely requested and cannot be satisfied by external plug-ins.

     

    Or something like that.

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    JoJu,

    Reading the Helicon web site I get the impression that the approach they have taken to creating a single file DNG from a RAW "stack" is probably similar to the way C1 treats DNG merged files.

    How similar and how compatible in terms of the ability to "share" any embedded RAW data adjustment potential in the newly created DNG file, would be interesting knowledge.

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.