Focus Stacking with 8x10 Large Format Film...Ben Horne

[Tin Can]

Focus Stacking with 8x10 Large Format Film (https://youtu.be/lXbaAqTmOE4)

Requires Digi and Film

Ben Horne project, I like everything Ben does

and this topic was on my mind

[j.e.simmons]

Isn’t that what camera movements are for?

[Greg]

Isn’t that what camera movements are for?

I don't think that focus stacking is related to camera movements. My take is that if he wanted everything in his image to be sharp, he would have to use f/128 or f/180, but then diffraction would nullify his resolution/sharpness. Or am I missing something here?

[Dan Fromm]

I wonder why he changed magnification to move the plane of best focus instead of moving the camera/lens assembly.

[B.S.Kumar]

Fiddling with rear focus just changed the actual magnification somewhat each time;

Changing rear focus won't change magnification. Changing front focus will change magnification.

Kumar

[Peter De Smidt]

I tried it once or twice with a macro image in 8x10. This would be about 10 years ago. At that time, my computer couldn't handle multiples of the large scans, and so I never ended up with a final image. For the right subject, it could be a very effective technique, but, obviously, it involves a lot of expense and work....but is that really something that LF photographers should object to?

[Dan Fromm]

Changing rear focus won't change magnification. Changing front focus will change magnification.

Kumar

Sorry, Kumar, focusing by moving the rear standard changes extension. Changing extension changes magnification. If you don't believe me and don't want to read a book on closeup work, try the experiment.

[Michael R]

It’s pretty cool if it works well. I certainly wouldn’t mind learning how to do it with 4x5 once I get up and running with hybrid.

On the other hand when I see things like this I’m tempted to say why not just go digital.

[sanking]

I have a friend who has used focus stacking with 5X7 film in a view camera and he has been able to create some images that would have been impossible to make with routine view camera adjustments such as focal length of the lens, size of aperture, and tilts and swings. Eventually he got the message some of you suggest and moved on to FF digital and still does some focus stacking.

When focus stacking with a digital camera focusing is typically with lens on the front of the camera. This also changes the size of the image, which is corrected in the stacking software when all image files in the stack are aligned to a common size. This of course involves some cropping of the image to fit in a given space.

Since this guy obviously knows how to focus stack with digital methodology I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he probably had a reason for using rear focus with his lens and subject distance, which is supported by the observation that he completed a very interesting personal adventure and produced what appears to be a nice image that is in many ways superior to his previous image made at this site.

Sandy

[Dan Fromm]

Since this guy obviously knows how to focus stack with digital methodology I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he probably had a reason for using rear focus with his lens and subject distance, which is supported by the observation that he completed a very interesting personal adventure and produced what appears to be a nice image is in many ways superior to his previous image made at this site.

Sandy

Sandy, the story he told about why he shifted the plane of best focus by moving the rear standard is nonsense. That said, he adjusted his images' sizes digitally to make stacking work. So, overall, whatever works .... works.

I can only speculate about why he used the rear standard, suspect that using a focusing rail to move the camera/lens assembly might have created worse problems of stability etc.

[Greg]

I can only speculate about why he used the rear standard, suspect that using a focusing rail to move the camera/lens assembly might have created worse problems of stability etc.

I think that you are right on with your post. Many years ago I tried to do some focus stacking with my 4x5 Sinar Norma. I was shooting between 1:1 and 1:2. On the first few tries, I ran into the problem of the rail rotating when I moved the whole camera back and forth. Solution was to use a custom fabricated Sinar rail clamp (image attached) which prevented the camera from rotating on the rail. Tried a few more times and just kept running into other equipment problems, and I was shooting only 4x5. I'm sure shooting 8x10 only exacerbates things. Gave up shooting film and shot digital images with my then Nikon D700 to focus stack with. My final print size was 8x10 so I rather doubt one could have seen any differences in the final prints.

This guy's technique to most would be overkill, but to him the technique is just his way of accomplishing to capture certain images. Have been there in the past, and there's an amazing feeling of satisfaction to completing something without taking the much easier "normal" way.

[B.S.Kumar]

Sorry, Kumar, focusing by moving the rear standard changes extension. Changing extension changes magnification. If you don't believe me and don't want to read a book on closeup work, try the experiment.

You're right. For focus stacking, is front focusing better or rear focusing, given that both approaches would change magnification?

Kumar

[Tin Can]

Here, my expandable Horseman Optical Bench, which features worm carriage drive on bottom and top

It is way more sturdy than any other rail camera, very heavy

I use it all the time for various tasks

I will try 4X5 and Digi focus stack with it, when I get around to it...maybe 8X10

I have fixed custom Horsemen rear standard 8X10 and normal

Not climbing any mountains ever again :cool:

It all locks down very well
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51573451382_e04f38d5c5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mznqiC)Horseman Optical Bench (https://flic.kr/p/2mznqiC) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[letchhausen]

Nothing says "welcome to large format" like a bunch of old curmudgeons saying that someone should go digital because they're not doing it "right." Even if that person attains their goal of making a better image, they're wrong. Ben started out as a digital photographer so his focus stacking video is hardly bait, it's just someone taking what they know and applying it to their current workflow. Though I find focus stacking as onerous sounding as, say, pin registration, I don't feel the need to shame someone for doing either.

[alan_b]

Arguments about practicality, cost, PR, etc. aside... rear focussing in this case serves a purpose. He's relatively close to the subject, so any fore-aft movement of the lens will result in significant parallax errors between shots. By keeping the the lens fixed, viewpoint/perspective remains the same, and he only has to deal with changes in magnification which is easily handled in Photoshop.

[Tin Can]

I am also thinking the subject shape is a consideration

What if I studio shoot the inside rings of a round cup or saucer

or basketball

why 3 negs? shoot 3 times on one film build by 1/3 exposures

I don't want DIGI salvation

[Ben Horne]

That's what I guessed. I don't think 15,000 views makes much money on Youtube, probably not enough to cover the film cost alone. I wish these Youtubers well though. Are there any youtube channels dedicated to LF photography on the cheap? With beaten up cameras and x-ray film? Most (not all) of the photo stuff I've seen on youtube is high on expensive gear, low on inspiration.

A while back I met a couple of youtubers trying to build a Youtube channel related to life in South Korea. Their aim was to make enough to support their lifestyle, so they had to wander all over looking for any and every "interesting" thing to get enthusiastic and wide eyed about. I wondered how they made any money - turned out they didn't really, or not enough. They relied on the bank of mum & dad.

Hi PJD! If a youtube channel is monetized, you are correct that 15,000 views makes very little money at all. I don't monetize my channel though, so I receive nothing from Youtube. I also turn down all commercial sponsorships to keep it entirely ad-free. I do this so I can focus just on can be true to myself and focus on the photography side of things.

[Ben Horne]

He's sure doing things the hard way .... and the slow way, which means he can't be all that intelligent, up there on the summit road just below a bare knoll in a lightning storm (I know the exact spot). Could have well been the last thing he ever did. I'd be getting out of Dodge City as fast as I could under those conditions. Did he even notice that practically every tree around there bears lightning scars? ... Or maybe the lightning front had moved away enough, and he just had to contend with the wind? I dunno. He's obviously still alive. But that's exactly the kind of conditions where a nice solid heavy Ries wooden tripod makes way more sense than a carbon fiber one. One rogue gust and his expensive camera could have become ancient history itself.

He had to gamble 3 sheets of 8x10 Velvia (a hundred bucks worth of film) for one garden variety shot, and still had to resort to PS it to make it work? Not my cup of tea. Maybe it was just a stunt shot for sake of his web audience, and he had to use the expression "focus stacking" to get attention from the younger set. Sorry, Tin Can. I'm totally unimpressed. He went through a "counterproductive convoluted contortions" - you could probably make a poem out that, not me.

With a 240 lens, that shot should have been a piece of cake in terms of depth of field management. Fiddling with rear focus just changed the actual magnification somewhat each time; so that's one reason I call it counterproductive. His setup was hardly stable enough for it not to move a bit between exposures, plus the wind issue, another minus. Obviously, not much of a high altitude veteran yet in terms of wind technique. But if he was having fun and can actually afford to use film as if it was as cheap as toilet paper, so be it. Or maybe toilet paper is more expensive these days.

I'll also expand on the technical side of things to clear up a few things you mentioned. I first photographed this scene back in 2012 with a 300mm lens and even when stopped down a ton, the DOF was extremely narrow. This was partially due to a front-focusing camera that was at its limits. When you focus closer, you change the distance between the lens and the camera, and it's tough to get a sharp photo because you can easily overshoot your focus. When I returned to this scene, I photographed it with a 240 lens to allow a bit more flexibility. This lens is also known for having a very flat field. I used rear focus so the distance between the lens and the subject doesn't change, and marked on the rail the focus positions for the three shots. You wrote that with a 240mm lens, the depth of field should have been a "piece of cake", but if that was the case, I could have used just one of those transparencies... but that WASN'T the case. Just as I had planned, each of those transparencies has key parts of the subject in focus. The depth of that scene is quite significant, and there was no way to get it all in focus with a single photo. Heck, it would have even been difficult with a digital kit. It was a rather straightforward process stacking the three images and getting all the necessary parts of the subject in focus.

It's very easy to denigrate other people on an internet forum, and to call them unintelligent, or to claim they don't know how to do things properly, but doing so is not beneficial to anyone, including yourself. There is a multitude of ways of approaching photography. Just because my method isn't what you would have done doesn't make it any less valid. I think the results speak for themselves, especially for such a mundane and garden variety subject. :-) Please know that what you say has an impact on others, especially when you put it out there for the whole world to read it. Please be kind to others.

[Tin Can]

Thank you Ben



I'll also expand on the technical side of things to clear up a few things you mentioned. I first photographed this scene back in 2012 with a 300mm lens and even when stopped down a ton, the DOF was extremely narrow. This was partially due to a front-focusing camera that was at its limits. When you focus closer, you change the distance between the lens and the camera, and it's tough to get a sharp photo because you can easily overshoot your focus. When I returned to this scene, I photographed it with a 240 lens to allow a bit more flexibility. This lens is also known for having a very flat field. I used rear focus so the distance between the lens and the subject doesn't change, and marked on the rail the focus positions for the three shots. You wrote that with a 240mm lens, the depth of field should have been a "piece of cake", but if that was the case, I could have used just one of those transparencies... but that WASN'T the case. Just as I had planned, each of those transparencies has key parts of the subject in focus. The depth of that scene is quite significant, and there was no way to get it all in focus with a single photo. Heck, it would have even been difficult with a digital kit. It was a rather straightforward process stacking the three images and getting all the necessary parts of the subject in focus.

It's very easy to denigrate other people on an internet forum, and to call them unintelligent, or to claim they don't know how to do things properly, but doing so is not beneficial to anyone, including yourself. There is a multitude of ways of approaching photography. Just because my method isn't what you would have done doesn't make it any less valid. I think the results speak for themselves, especially for such a mundane and garden variety subject. :-) Please know that what you say has an impact on others, especially when you put it out there for the whole world to read it. Please be kind to others.

[Ben Horne]

I, and others, might sound old and grumpy to you, but I'm still alive. And it's certainly not because I started out smart. I've learned a lot of things the hard way myself. Atop a ridge in those conditions (at least as perceived, over the web), a hundred feet away from the truck might as well be ten miles. The lightning doesn't care where you are parked. And even if one hypothetically survives by being in a truck, it's questionable if the electronics in all these newer vehicles, that they depend on, would equally survive. Practically every tree or tree remnant around there has signs of lighting strikes over the past. It's a very susceptible zone in inclement weather. One person died this summer up there; not in that exact area, but elsewhere on the ridge crest.

You keep going back to that and making it seem more dramatic than it was Drew. There was a cloud approaching a long way out from the south and you could hear an occasional rumble. I kept an eye on it, and when I saw it was heading my direction, I did the responsible thing and got out of there. Once it was gone, I went back. That's it. It was blue skies before and after that. This was on my visit in 2012, not the visit in 2020. You're painting the picture to be far more dramatic than it actually was.

[Ben Horne]

I was referring to perceived conditions over the web, Ben. I obviously wasn't there at the same time. The public takes these kinds of things carelessly. I could cite many examples of various flavors, like someone running out into the middle of a dry wash in the desert to get a cellphone video of an approaching flashflood front, barely getting out of the channel in time, and then some copycat who saw that flick getting killed instead. Or someone posts a video of them and their pals throwing rocks off some cliff; and the next time someone does the same thing, a climber down below gets killed (it's happened several time). Well, in the first instance, let's say one used a telephoto lens from a safe spot a distance away and above the streambed to video the flashflood, but that it appeared that he had taken it from within the channel itself - wouldn't it make sense to clearly spell that out on a public flick, given just how contagious certain activities can be? It's a different era. In the past it was guidebooks written by climbers about secret passes and so forth that got inexperienced people in trouble, who didn't understand just how variable conditions can be, or the level of physical conditioning requisite. Now that kind of risk has mushroomed exponentially due to the web. There's a real need for more specific explanation, or someone will take things wrong. Hope that clarifies the issue as you proceed along.

...and those are things I discuss in the videos while out in the wilderness and while on backpacking trips. But I'm sure you already know that too. ;-) Kidding of course. Have a lovely day Drew.

[Ben Horne]

I'm sorry this had to go this way Ben. This is why I rarely spend time on this forum. There is definitely great information to be had here, but there is also (like the rest of the internet) too much of what Drew calls "spice" and what I call trolling. Old so-called experts doing their Cliff Clavin routine of how everyone is wrong but them. I'm glad that I came up with a large format crowd here in Seattle so I had real people being generous with their time, insights and critique. Since I don't find this forum to be the best place to find community. It is an awesome resource to research a specific thing and there are good people here that will help with a question. But too often the derailing is too irritating. You know like how when people are done beating someone up for their photographic strategies they'll move on to attacking their hiking practices....ugh...



I really appreciate the comment letchhausen. In all honestly, I find it's best to treat gear forums like a dictionary. Get in, get your answer, then get out. I've never understood the desire to denigrate other people because they approach things differently. What purpose does that serve? If we all did things the same way, it would be a very boring place.

I do find it amusing how there are several people on this forum that denigrated me for being "young and dumb", yet I'm seen as a dinosaur to a whole new generation of large format photographers in their twenties. I'm not exactly a spring chicken. I'm north of 40 years old and I've been shooting 8x10 for over 12 years now. Photography is my full-time career—not a hobby. Rather than disparaging other photographers who are keeping a medium alive, why not embrace them for continuing to carry the torch. If not for the latest generation of film users, specifically those in their twenties, would the film companies continue to produce the film stocks that are currently available? Perhaps not. I'm all for it.

Yes, there are things I can learn from people who have been doing this longer than I have, but there is also so much I can learn from people who are starting with fresh eyes and fresh ideas. I don't go on photography forums and berate those who are in their twenties for their lack of experience. I enjoy their work and their perspective. When people stop learning, they stop improving.

[Oren Grad]

OK, as will be obvious to those logged in, I've deleted a whole bunch of bickering and negativity-for-the-sake-of-negativity and reactions to it all - some of it having to do with stacking and some of it a tangential gripe-fest about the video-links thread. I've allowed a few of the deleted posts to remain as quotations in Ben's responses, so the result is still going to be a bit choppy. Sorry about that, but in this case I felt it was important to let Ben have his say and to preserve the context for his comments.

It's OK to question whether a given technique makes sense to pursue with large format film. But as with any other topic, please approach it with a bit of charity. Start by assuming that the person posting the topic is well-intentioned and might know something that you don't about why it might be worth pursuing. Even if it turns out that there isn't a strong technical rationale or the poster is mistaken about a key technical point, please just state your reasoning politely and then let it be - there's no need to keep hammering on it. And when the poster responds politely and substantively to your criticism, accept it with some grace - it's utterly rude and inappropriate to follow up by fishing for some other imagined sin you can pin on the poster just so you can feel vindicated in being critical. These should all be obvious points of etiquette.

Apologies for not getting on top of this one sooner, and thanks to the members who reported the thread. A certain amount of friction is inevitable on a discussion board; it helps to have at least a slightly thick skin. But this was ridiculous.

Please do carry on if you'd like to continue discussing the stacking technique.