Anyone use rendering for photos?

I just downloaded and tried out Combine ZM and after stumbling through my first photo stack I got pretty good results. I know with more focus points it would be phenomable. I pulled the shot for comparison from the middle of the 7 picture stack

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sounds like a pain to use (I just Googled it). Is it?

 

I downloaded it to try out. I think it'll come in handy for me. Here is a stack of 5 images turned into one.... WOW!

 

OK, I get it now. I didn't quite get the 'stacking' thingy. Now I understand. When you take the pictures do they all have to be perfect in their orientation or does the software compensate for photos that are a touch or so out of line?

 

Here is a rendering of 10 images. I use a copy stand to take the pictures. I change things like moving lighting between frames.

 

Interesting concept. I think you need decent images to start with. I think all it would do is combine my pictures into a bigger pile of poo. I still may have to try it.

 

You take a series of shots each at a slightly different focal point (near to far). They dont have to be perfectly alligned, that is actually why the edges on mine are skewed. The software matches them up and takes the parts of each image that are in focus and combines them to give you a perfectly focused shot even if shooting at an angle. It really helps if you are working with a digital microscope or something that has a verry narrow focus range.

 

I am running one that really shows what it can do, have it up in a sec

 

Ok, there are 2 renders. Both are a screw on it's side at an angle. I will show the center image for each stack and the full render.

 

Usually I change zoom features, angle and lighting. Flipping the coin back and forth with each setting. Sometimes I also change the back ground color - seems like some coins like white better than black or vice versa. I am going to have to give this a try to see what some of my gold or copper does. The gold is almost always washed out.

 

With the highly reflective coins that are easier to shoot at an angle you can get the whole thing in focus without a $1500 lense and DSLR. I think the Cannons have the feature built into the EOS options. Most of the newest high end DSLRs that support tethering have it hidden in there somewhere now.

 

On that one and the next post the texture really pops! I need to find some coins like that that aren't dated 2013, lol.

 

It don't work for me. I've been fiddling with the program all afternoon and I'm getting the message that the frames have to be all the same size. When I resize them I still get the same message. Might be due to the fact that I use a simple point and shoot and not a sophisticated DSLR. I have no ability to change the F stop.......

 

I m using a digital microscope, Just make sure all are taken the same distance and zoom setting and it should be ok. I am just starting to mess with the program too.

 

Rendering or photoshoping coins seems very similar to artificially toning coins. You are altering their appearance to make them appear better ( mostly for sale I am assuming). Such rendering has been used in gemmology for a while also, and while it is useful to determining appearance after faceting, it should not be used to demonstrate the appearance of a finished gem, nor coin. IMO.

 

I don't know what "rendering" is but I do use focus stacking extensively. It is only useful when the depth of field is too shallow to capture the entire field sharply. This is usually not an issue for modern coins that are flat with fairly low relief. For ancients, it can be quite useful. Also if you need to shoot the coin at an angle for lighting purposes, stacking can ensure the entire coin is sharp.

For higher magnification imaging, the situation is completely different. Depth of field drops rapidly as magnification increases, so focus stacking is almost universally required above 1:1 or 1x magnification. Ironically, the higher the "quality" of the objective or lens, the more stacking is needed. Here is an image of a 1955-S/S/S RPM#1 in EDS taken with a Nikon 4x PlanApo 0.2 objective that required 31 images to make the stack...Ray

 

Did you use one of CZP's "weighted average" macros for that? I've tried it in the past in order to ensure I captured luster, color and surfaces by taking multiple images and then doing an average (sort of a multiple exposure) of them It's an interesting technique and CZP makes it pretty easy to play around with...Ray

 

I prefer ZereneStacker to the CZP program. It's not "free" like CZP, but far more intuitive and user friendly. Nonetheless, this is not a new technique and has been used in the macro world for years.

It's primary use is to combine images with different focus regions and a very shallow depth of field. I hadn't thought to use it as a way of combining images that have been lit differently such that it take "multiple exposures" as Ray describes. While that's an interesting idea, I think it's somewhat misleading as the coin in hand could never look like a multiple exposure merged image, right?

I'm with Ray though, I'm not sure what you mean by "rendering". The term used everywhere is "focus stacking".

 

I was planning to use Zerene, but I ended up building my stacking stand with a Trinamic stepper, and at the time Zerene didn't support Trinamic for some reason. They may now, but I already bought Helicon and I really like it. The 55-S/S/S above was done with Helicon.

You're right about the multiple exposure technique being a bit removed from the in-hand look, but in reality most of our photographs are pretty far removed anyway. I've often challenged folks to hold a coin in-hand, using their normal techniques of magnification, lighting, etc, using only one eye, holding the coin still, and then imagine if what they are seeing was a photograph on a computer screen. It just doesn't look all that great! Contrast is usually very high and there are lots of bright highlights, some dark shadows, reflections off the slab surface, etc. No one who has seriously taken me up on the challenge has come back and told me they really liked the way their coins look in-hand within the constraints I've made. They usually need to move the coin around to ensure they can view the luster properly, light the whole coin to evaluate contact marks, color, etc. The one thing that in-hand viewing results in is more accurate color presentation than can usually be done in photographs because folks usually hold toned coins so that light shines directly off them. The equivalent in the photo world is axial lighting, which comes with all sorts of tradeoffs, especially for slabs. When viewing in-hand, you can tolerate the direct reflections from the slab in order to get a good look at the toning, but that would be intolerable in a photo. Ultimately, we coin photographers aren't really presenting the in-hand look but instead a view of the coin that shows it in the most revealing, most glamorous, and most artistic light, though not always in that order or priority...

 

If you're working this hard to post-process photos, there would certainly be a temptation to "improve" the appearance of the coin or conceal flaws. This stacking procedure, though, doesn't necessarily involve any deception -- it's just a way to get clear focus across the entire depth of the coin.

When you're examining the coin in-hand, your eyes focus on whatever part you're paying attention to, and you ignore the parts that are out of focus. In a static photo, your eyes can't do anything about parts that are out of focus. In that sense, this process produces an image that's actually much more "true to life" than a conventional photo.