Question about Steve's Focus Stacking Video Course

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

simplynature

simplynature

Bill Chambers
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I was going to send this question directly to Steve, but the website suggested there was a better chance of it being answered here.

I recently purchased Steve's Focus Stacking Video Course, and have a question about Video 5a (focus stacking in Helicon). In the video, Steve exports the selected images into Helicon Focus as TIFs, and I was wondering why. I don't use Lightroom, so perhaps that may be the reason. I use Capture One Pro, and I always open files into Helicon as NEF files and export them back to Capture One as DNGs to further process them in C1 Pro before exporting them (as TIFs) to PS.

My question - Why do you send files to Helicon Focus as TIFs instead of NEFs (or whatever RAW format your camera uses)?

Thanks in advance!
Bill
 
Member's gallery
simplynature said:
I don't use Lightroom, so perhaps that may be the reason.
Click to expand...
I believe that's it in a nutshell.

Using Lightroom's export capability you have to choose a file format and TIFF retains more original detail than JPEG. If you import directly into Helicon or via some other tool you can alter the workflow and use whatever file types you prefer.

If any major edits to exposure, white balance, highlight recovery and the like have already been handled for the entire sequence of photos then sending them to Helicon as TIFFs is fine but if you don't take care of major image adjustments prior to stacking I can see an advantage to sending them in RAW format though I'm not clear how Helicon handles RAW files as somehow Helicon has to de-mosaic the files before the stacking process.
 
It seems to make more sense at first blush not import raw into helicon, unless it has some very robust raw editing capabilities. You want to be able to exert control to choose the profile, check the white balance, exposure, maybe other adjustments like curves, etc. Helicon says it's DNG let's you do the adjustments after the stacking, so maybe it makes no difference. I guess I'd rather do my edits and paste them to every image first, but maybe it's equivalent.

 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
It seems to make more sense at first blush not import raw into helicon, unless it has some very robust raw editing capabilities. You want to be able to exert control to choose the profile, check the white balance, exposure, maybe other adjustments like curves, etc. Helicon says it's DNG let's you do the adjustments after the stacking, so maybe it makes no difference. I guess I'd rather do my edits and paste them to every image first, but maybe it's equivalent.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why it would make more sense to NOT bring RAW files into Helicon. Whatever Helicon's RAW editing capabilities are, they seem to be proficient as I've never had any issues doing it this way. The files come back into Capture One as DNGs so I still have the same adjustment possibilities that I had with the NEFs, except I perform them on a fully stacked image instead of performing them on a partially focused image and then copying the adjustments to all the other images. Copying adjustments to other images always seemed dangerous to me because of possible issues due to focus breathing (eg, applying adjustments from image 1 to image 80 in a stack, where image 80 is not exactly aligned with image 1). I would rather deal with a single image that has already been aligned and stacked. Just my preference...
 
Member's gallery
simplynature said:
I don't understand why it would make more sense to NOT bring RAW files into Helicon. Whatever Helicon's RAW editing capabilities are, they seem to be proficient as I've never had any issues doing it this way. The files come back into Capture One as DNGs so I still have the same adjustment possibilities that I had with the NEFs, except I perform them on a fully stacked image instead of performing them on a partially focused image and then copying the adjustments to all the other images. Copying adjustments to other images always seemed dangerous to me because of possible issues due to focus breathing (eg, applying adjustments from image 1 to image 80 in a stack, where image 80 is not exactly aligned with image 1). I would rather deal with a single image that has already been aligned and stacked. Just my preference...
Click to expand...
This also seems logical to me. I always thought TIFF’s were larger than dng’s so this would be my preferred workflow if I was doing it.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I believe that's it in a nutshell.

Using Lightroom's export capability you have to choose a file format and TIFF retains more original detail than JPEG. If you import directly into Helicon or via some other tool you can alter the workflow and use whatever file types you prefer.

If any major edits to exposure, white balance, highlight recovery and the like have already been handled for the entire sequence of photos then sending them to Helicon as TIFFs is fine but if you don't take care of major image adjustments prior to stacking I can see an advantage to sending them in RAW format though I'm not clear how Helicon handles RAW files as somehow Helicon has to de-mosaic the files before the stacking process.
Click to expand...
In my experience, if you’re using Nikon’s focus shift mode (or something similar with other brands) the exposure for images in the stack is likely to be very similar. It’s worked well when I used it.
 
Member's gallery
JAJohnson said:
In my experience, if you’re using Nikon’s focus shift mode (or something similar with other brands) the exposure for images in the stack is likely to be very similar. It’s worked well when I used it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that’s why you can make any adjustments to one and apply it to the rest. Very convenient when stacking or combining shots into a pano.
 
Member's gallery
gnpToday said:
This also seems logical to me. I always thought TIFF’s were larger than dng’s so this would be my preferred workflow if I was doing it.
Click to expand...
I don't know right off the top of my head if TIFs are larger or not. I wouldn't think so since DNG is a RAW format and should have a lot more information than a TIF. You can still adjust DNGs just as you would an NEF, where a TIF would not have that capability.
 
Member's gallery
There is a Helicon Focus Plug in for Capture One. https://www.heliconsoft.com/capture-one-plugin/ I select all the images in Capture One, then I do "Edit With" and select "Stack with Helicon Focus". The images are brought directly into Helicon Focus as tiff images. When done in Helicon Focus, I save the image. I close Helicon Focus and the resulting saved tiff file is back in Capture One.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Exactly, that’s why you can make any adjustments to one and apply it to the rest. Very convenient when stacking or combining shots into a pano.
Click to expand...
Exposure isn't the problem, especially if you have Exposure Lock turned to ON in Focus Shift menu. The foreseeable problem I worry about when it comes to correcting one image and then copying those adjustments to all the other images in a stack is FOCUS BREATHING. Say you have a large stack of 130 images; image # 1 is focused extremely close to the lens and image # 130 is focused a far distance from the lens. If you compare image 1 with image 130 there can be quite a difference in the two images due to focus breathing. I don't want to copy adjustments that are done to image 1 and copy them to image 130, when the two images are slightly different sizes. Copying adjustments would be fine if you make sure to align the 130 images first, but if you go to that trouble, why not just go ahead and stack them as well, export them back to (in my case) Capture One Pro as a DNG and then do your post processing just like you would on any normal image. You're still making adjustments to the RAW image and don't have to worry about stacking, etc.
 
Member's gallery
simplynature said:
Exposure isn't the problem, especially if you have Exposure Lock turned to ON in Focus Shift menu. The foreseeable problem I worry about when it comes to correcting one image and then copying those adjustments to all the other images in a stack is FOCUS BREATHING. Say you have a large stack of 130 images; image # 1 is focused extremely close to the lens and image # 130 is focused a far distance from the lens. If you compare image 1 with image 130 there can be quite a difference in the two images due to focus breathing. I don't want to copy adjustments that are done to image 1 and copy them to image 130, when the two images are slightly different sizes. Copying adjustments would be fine if you make sure to align the 130 images first, but if you go to that trouble, why not just go ahead and stack them as well, export them back to (in my case) Capture One Pro as a DNG and then do your post processing just like you would on any normal image. You're still making adjustments to the RAW image and don't have to worry about stacking, etc.
Click to expand...
Lots of good approaches but personally I check exposure, especially highlights and then white balance and correct the set prior to stacking.

Yes, exposure and optionally white balance is locked for the set. If that’s all great and exposure and white balance were nailed in-camera then all is good but if not a correction on the worst problem and bulk correction can be very helpful.

But many workflow approaches if you prefer a different method.
 
Member's gallery
aolander said:
So what basic adjustments would you be making where focus breathing would be an issue?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that would depend on what you consider as "basic". If you're just setting exposure and color, then focus breathing isn't an issue at all, but I don't work that way. I've used the same basic workflow since the 90's; Obviously, it has evolved with improvements in software, new programs for noise control, sharpening, etc., but I proceed in the same fashion. My "basic" adjustments include all work in the RAW Processor (in my case, that is Capture One Pro). Originally, that consists of only very basic adjustments since that's all the very first RAW Processors offered, but today I do most of my processing in the RAW Processor, including healing/cloning, masking layers, limited burning & dodging, everything. I will normally have anywhere between 5 to 10 layers by the time I'm through with my "basic" adjustments. Hence my concerns about possible issues with focus breathing.

I use Focus Shift a lot, and the process I prefer is to select the good images during the culling process, and then Open them up in Helicon as RAW images, allow Helicon to align & stack them, and then export them back into Capture One as DNGs. Then, I can use my "usual" workflow on a single image (that has been aligned & stacked) that includes all the stuff I listed above. After I'm finished in Capture One, I send it to PS to continue my process.

That said, none of that has anything to do with my initial question. My question to Steve was simply why he chooses to send TIFs into Helicon and export TIFs out of Helicon, instead of bringing NEFs (or some other RAW format) into Helicon and export DNGs out. Steve being Steve, I'm certain he probably has a good reason, and I just wanted to understand his reasoning.
 
Member's gallery
simplynature said:
I use Focus Shift a lot, and the process I prefer is to select the good images during the culling process, and then Open them up in Helicon as RAW images, allow Helicon to align & stack them, and then export them back into Capture One as DNGs. Then, I can use my "usual" workflow on a single image (that has been aligned & stacked) that includes all the stuff I listed above. After I'm finished in Capture One, I send it to PS to continue my process.

That said, none of that has anything to do with my initial question. My question to Steve was simply why he chooses to send TIFs into Helicon and export TIFs out of Helicon, instead of bringing NEFs (or some other RAW format) into Helicon and export DNGs out. Steve being Steve, I'm certain he probably has a good reason, and I just wanted to understand his reasoning.
Click to expand...
I also select the images this way, using FastRawViewer , open them in Helicon and save the results as .tif. Then I import this file to Lightroom and process it as needed.
Is there a disadvantage with this method?
 
simplynature said:
I don't understand why it would make more sense to NOT bring RAW files into Helicon. Whatever Helicon's RAW editing capabilities are, they seem to be proficient as I've never had any issues doing it this way. The files come back into Capture One as DNGs so I still have the same adjustment possibilities that I had with the NEFs, except I perform them on a fully stacked image instead of performing them on a partially focused image and then copying the adjustments to all the other images. Copying adjustments to other images always seemed dangerous to me because of possible issues due to focus breathing (eg, applying adjustments from image 1 to image 80 in a stack, where image 80 is not exactly aligned with image 1). I would rather deal with a single image that has already been aligned and stacked. Just my preference...
Click to expand...

I agree it sounds like either way works as long as the resulting Helicon dng still gives access to the full range of raw adjustments. Using lightroom it's easy to adjust one and snyc the rest, so maybe just a matter of which demosaicing you like better.
 
Member's gallery
pochito said:
I also select the images this way, using FastRawViewer , open them in Helicon and save the results as .tif. Then I import this file to Lightroom and process it as needed.
Is there a disadvantage with this method?
Click to expand...
I would think saving them and adjusting them as TIFs would be a disadvantage. To be sure, I am NO expert in all thing having to do with post processing, but it seems to me that working on a RAW format would allow a better or a more full range of adjustments, would it not? I have always understood (perhaps incorrectly?) that RAW format offers the highest range of adjustments since it contains ALL of the information that was captured, as it was captured. Please correct me if this is not correct.
 
Member's gallery
simplynature said:
I don't understand why it would make more sense to NOT bring RAW files into Helicon.
Click to expand...
Two questions :
Q1 : Is helicon as good as demosaicing/denoising than specialized softwares - I don't think so (if i'm wrong tell me) - (of course it depends how far you like to adjust your raw processing).
Q2 : is helicon dng export a true raw file (so result suffer no loss of information and can be demosaiced as raw out of camera) ? I don't think so neither (if I'm wrong tell me).

So my guess is that to be able to obtain the best from your raw files (Steeve Perry seems to always aim best possible quality - from shoot to post-process) you have to demosaice your raws first with a good raw processing software.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
So helicon is able to check sharpness on a raw file without demosaicing it ? And keep "sharpest raw datas" to compose resulting file ?
Maybe. But sounds strange to me.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
It couldn't run a focus stack without demosaicing.
Click to expand...
So dng generated with it from raw sequence is probably not a real raw file ? But an already demosaiced file ?
This would confirm that for optimum quality (when relevant - for example = very high dynamic range in images, noisy images), it would be preferable to demosaice raw files first with a "powerfull" demosaicer/denoiser and then send this demosaiced sequence into helicon.
 
Last edited:
JoPoV said:
So dng generated with it from raw sequence is probably not a real raw file ? But an already demosaiced file ?
This would confirm that for optimum quality (when relevant - for example = very high dynamic range in images, noisy images), it would be preferable to demosaice raw files first with a "powerfull" demosaicer/denoiser and then send this demosaiced sequence into helicon.
Click to expand...

I don't know that Helicon isn't powerful, maybe more a matter of preference if one can even detect a difference. For example I use dxo photolab because I like their noise reduction, but the dng it sends back to lightroom is demosaiced. I can still use all the other Lightroom tools on it. I suspect Helicon is similar. Folks say they prefer the way dxo does it better than lightroom. I hear some Nikon users prefer the way NX Studio does it, others prefer capture one, etc. My eyes don't detect much difference amongst the different programs as far as the initial demosaicing. I think there are only 3 of 4 basic methods to convert a raw file's data to RGB, so more like what flavor vanilla do you prefer.
 
Member's gallery
JoPoV said:
Two questions :
Q1 : Is helicon as good as demosaicing/denoising than specialized softwares - I don't think so (if i'm wrong tell me) - (of course it depends how far you like to adjust your raw processing).
Q2 : is helicon dng export a true raw file (so result suffer no loss of information and can be demosaiced as raw out of camera) ? I don't think so neither (if I'm wrong tell me).

So my guess is that to be able to obtain the best from your raw files (Steeve Perry seems to always aim best possible quality - from shoot to post-process) you have to demosaice your raws first with a good raw processing software.
Click to expand...
For your Q1 - Helicon uses Adobe DNG Converter, the exact same demosaicing engine that Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom uses, so it's as good as any engine out there.
For your Q2 - The DNG export is indeed a true RAW file.

Blierer posted this Helicon note earlier - it should answer all of your questions. Helicon - RAW in - DNG out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top