Click image to open full

Click image to open full screen.

I am not familiar with 120.3 scale, and wonder...........

............if you could enlighten us as the Website says Sn3 which I believe is 1 to 64 Scale (3/16th inch to the foot).

Thanks,

Peter

Great depth of field

I am not familiar with Zerene Stacker, Darel. I have used Helicon Focus for the past ten years with good results. The depth of field in your photos is virtually impossible with that sharp focus, not even a pinhole lens adapter can bring such sharp photos with extreme depth of field.

On the other extreme of size, here is a photo I shot about 9 years ago using a 6 megapixel camera and Helicon Focus...this in my former N scale layout, 1:160:

 This scene is about five feet deep...and required about twelve exposures focused on points moving successively farther back until I was focused on the painted backdrop in the far distance. So, focus stacking works well, and it can work in any scale...

Thanks for the post

The pictures look good.  I am going to try it out.  

Thanks for the post,

Mike Lee

The problem with these kinds

The problem with these kinds of software is they sharpen the background objects so they don't look realistic. When we view a scene our eyes focus on front or rear and the opposite is blurry so a photo where both are sharp doesn't look right . Check out the real C&S photo on that website and notice how the boxcars down the tracks aways look less sharp than the loco up front while the model photo has a loco 14 feet away looking just as sharp as the turntable in front. If the photos are to document a layout for insurance purposes then the process might be useful but if it's to replicate prototype scenes it's probably better to skip it( unless it can be tweaked to simulate distance?) ......DaveB 

1:20.3

Peter,

1:20.3 scale is 3' gauge on "G" scale track 45mm, ie Garden Railway stuff. Although Scotts layout is obviously indoors.

Sn3 Scale is 1:64th running on 14.3mm gauge.

focus

When thinking about what you have posted above I thought of one other thing that might be worth consideration. In most of our photographs the depth is a few hundred feet generally. Granted that when one tends to look at the nearest object things outside of the normal field of view are not as sharp one also has the option to focus on something further into the photograph and that is in focus with other areas being less in focus. The nice thing on the stacked images is it allows the eye of the beholder to focus on the area he or she desires much like reality and get it into as clear an image as that persons vision is capable of.

I really like the stacked images and the clarity they provide as to my eyes the other photos tend to distort the images excessively. It also allows us to see all of the great detail that has been done by the modeler.

I will add that in this instance it really does come down to "the eye of the beholder" and that since I have corrective lenses my perspective maybe different than yours particularly if your vision is much better than mine.

1:20.3 vs O vs HO vs N depth of field

One of the biggest factors in determining depth of field is the distance of your camera from the subject. In N, the camera must be just about eating the subject to get any sort of close up shot. Ergo, N generally has the biggest depth of field issues of any scale (well there's always Z scale). HO has significantly fewer problems than N scale - the difference in size is roughly 2 to 1, but depth of field improvements (with the same focal length and f-stop) are significantly more. In O scale, the depth of field issues are significantly reduced over HO because again, the camera will be around 2x farther from the subject than HO, in which the camera is around 2x farther away than in N scale (for the same scene).

1:20.3 is more than 2x larger than O so depth of field issues dwindle even more. That being said, even 1:20.3 can have some depth of field issues. Focus stacking makes them go away entirely.

Charlie

Depth of field a matter of preference

Realism not withstanding to some people photos with everything in sharp focus are preferred over those with blurred areas.  I happen to be one of those guys.  A very good friend of mine just gave me (that's right - gave) a Nikon D5100 with lens.  I'm especially excited because this camera can be controlled using Helicon Remote and Helicon Focus to simplify focus stacking. 

Stacking vs Traditional photos

I think that the appeal of focus stacking is this: When we look at the real world, our eyes focus on different parts of a scene automatically. Stacked photos allow us to achieve the same thing... sort of.

With a traditional photo we are locked to the focus set by the photographer, with a stacked photo our eyes are free to focus on different parts of the photo, but when we look at the entire photo at once, it does not always feel right.

If the photo encompasses a larger scene, the ideal would be to have a vew layers in the distance remain out of focus, which would better simulate our eyes abilities. You can't really focus well on something that is 1000 ft. away.

 "but when we look at the

Yes, a photo with everything in sharp focus destroys the depth and makes it look like a collage of unconnected images glued to the paper (which I guess is what it really digitally is?) Image stacking works the best if the distance between the foreground and the background is not very far, the image of the inside of a building at the linked website looks a lot more convincing than the image heading this discussion because a building is small enough that we can view details on the far wall much clearer than a loco at the far end of a yard.........DaveB 

To a point

Dave, it's a matter of taste. You are certainly entitled to express your opinion, and I have mine. Everyone sees and perceives a bit differently. But let's not make a judgments based on our individual perception and state them as facts. I think you meant to say "they don't look realistic to my eye".

There's no question that depth of field in model photos is a constant problem...even with cameras stopped down to their minimum aperture and lots of light, it is difficult to get good depth of field for deep scenes. Lens astigmatism, haze, and other factors can cause the far distance in proto photographs to be less clear, but that depends on the camera and light conditions too. So, put in prototype terms, model photographs have an 'unprotoypically short' depth of field compared to the 1:1 world.

It's possible to select which focal planes you want in your stack, and which you don't want...you could deselect the most distant plane or two and perhaps get the effect you mention. Bear in mind, you are doing this to simulate imperfections in the photography equipment or an individual's eyesight, that's not the same as making things look more 'real'.

Image stacking has opened a whole field of possibilities for model photography. The following photo of my On30 layout could never have been taken without it, it required about 20 exposures. 

I like the effect. Realism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is also in the eye of the editor, and photos that are fuzzy in the background and/or foreground are often rejected by editors for publication.

Dave, As I understand it,

Dave,

As I understand it, your problem with image stacking is that it isn't an accurate replication of how we would view the prototype in real life with our eyes.  I agree with that, but would say that's not the point - the idea is to generate an accurate replication of a photo of the prototype.  And for that, I would argue, image stacking is very effective - it essentially artificially increases depth of field to a distance which is more representative of a prototype photograph.

Still, I see where you're coming from.  I think the difference is what goal we are referencing in model photography - either to reproduce the effect of actually seeing the prototype, or to reproduce the effect of actually photographing it.

 "And for that, I would

I think backdrop softness is one of the most important visual clues to depth of scene so if we sharpen the background to be the same as the foreground we get the wrong message. These focus stacked images remind me of cubism where the goal is to flatten the image to the plane of the canvas. This is mostly a problem on low angle photos with large distance difference between front subjects and far subjects. High up views don't have as great a difference between front and rear so they look better sharp all over. I think the average model railroader just thinks "hey I can get all my modeling in focus with this gimmick" so that's what they do without thinking about the other communicative aspects of a good photograph. For things like documenting items for insurance coverage these stacked photos would be useful however...DaveB

Simples

Selectively add blur, sharpen other areas, and add haze in post production.  It takes a bit of work but it can be done.

Andrew

In my opinion...

Andrew creates some of the best photos of models seen every week here on MRH. His model photography is excellent.

This is a photo I spotted online the other day, when I first saw it, I thought it might be one of Andrews photos, but then I realized it was from the RailsMBSK prototype photo group I belong to on facebook.

( Photo by Jack Hykaway )

A stacked photo of Andrew's for comparison:

( Photo by AnEntropyBubble )

The real giveaway was the ballast.

"A stacked photo of Andrew's

   The big difference is the real one is much sharper up front and more soft in the rear, which makes sense with the last visible car about 700 feet behind the loco.....DaveB 

A stacked photo of Andrew's

In the prototype photo, the softness begins noticeably around the 5th or 6th car.
I notice the same in Andrews photo.

Without stacking, this would be a difficult effect to achieve. The 1st or 2nd car out of focus would just not be right.

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind comments Bill.  My evil plan of not having any ballast has worked by drawing your eye away from the other tells -- the kaydee front and center, and the 2 suns  - the trees have the sun coming from the right whereas the light on the train is from the left. (bwahahaha)

The trees in the background of my picture are untouched and about 500 ft from me when I took the source picture. Jack was likely using a lower f-stop to get the blurred trees in his picture. There is some heat ripple in there also adding to the blurred effect. 

The lack of sharpness at the front is likely due to the motion in the lens.  At that scale I think Im fighting limitations of the lens and camera (and my skill) I used at the time.  

Andrew

"The lack of sharpness at the

    I think the big difference is the natural sunlight of the prototype photo makes it easier to get a sharp image. If your layout was outside you'd probably see  different results in that photo......DaveB