I've tried both, Helicon and Zerene. Zerene was clunky and temperamental when trying to process my bracketed image series, almost to the point of being maddening, and never producing acceptable images. Helicon, on the other hand, handled my bracketed series of images without a hiccup and did a fine job of stacking them. Helicon, hands down choice in my book.
Thanks for putting in all the hard work it took to make this gold standard video on the comparison between the two major stacking programs macrophotographers use. I have used the prosumer version for some time and agree it is excellent. I would like to see some of the basic dodge and burn type tools in Zerene so I could change the tonal range in one slab or one source image temporarily so I could make a structure” more defined” in the retouching portion of Zerene. The Darken and Lighten brushes do a great job but do not allow me to increase or decrease the tone of a small important structure such as a hair during the retouch process. I look forward to advances in the stacking technology and believe that competition helps drive those changes. Well done!
Thanks: Great video again! When I tried to evaluate both Zerene and Helicon (some years ago), I failed with Helicon, because I did not manage to install Helicon (including the trial license key) on my offline PC. Zerene simply worked, so it was my choice. Now I am happy with it, especially because of the Slabbing and Retouching features. So from that perspective I can fully understand your review, Allan!
The articles with full size photos are amazing. I have never seen better I am really only interested in close up photography, but since finding your channel I really like your take on this aspect of photography. Worth watching even if you don't go to these extremes. And your sense of humor suits me to a "T" :)
Great Video. The only point why I am using HF is it is able to use your GPU. I hope ZS will have this feature in the feature as well. I tried ZS and yes, the quality is much more crispy the HF. ;)
I used Zerene for >15 years. I have Helicon too, but only used it for a couple of the 3d features because Zerene always did a better job with deep, hi-mag stacks of insects and the like. Zerene's retouching was faster and more accurate in use too, so it accounted for 98%+ of all my focus stacking work to date. But I recently fired up Helicon and found I could upgrade to the latest version very cheaply, so I did. OMG! I was super-surprised at how fast Helicon is now, and how much the stacking and retouching have improved. It's an order of magnitude faster than Zerene and the end results are every bit as good. Needless to say, as of a month ago, I use Helicon for 98%+ of my stacking work now. I definitely didn't expect that outcome.
I don't do deep macro with objectives but I do shoot a lot of small objects with a macro lens. I originally used Photoshop which did an ok job so long as there were not too many images to stack. If there was 15+ images Photoshop would simply crash. I moved to Affinity for stacking and found it much more stable however the output was riddled with halo's and required a ton of retouching in PS later. Needless to say I realised that a purpose made stacking software was my only option going forward. I spent 2 months researching both Zerene and Helicon, reading multiple reviews and comparison videos on RUclips. Ironically, Helicon's ability to accept RAW files wasn't a plus feature for me. I was aware the program just converted them to TIFFs internally and frankly I'd far rather let Lightroom do the TIFF conversion anyway. I always apply a linear profile to my RAW files before exporting them as TIFFs so Zerene's lack of RAW support was moot for me. I won't lie, Zerene's " 1980's Sinclair Spectrum " GUI didn't inspire me with much confidence when put against the much more modern looking Helicon. Price wise both were very similar all be it Zerene was a bit cheaper. I really couldn't decide between the two....until I came to your channel. It was on the strength of your incredible work that I decided to try the trial version of Zerene. I figured if it's good enough for Allan Walls then it's plenty good enough for me! 😊 Colour me impressed with the results, I was sold and soon purchased a full licence. I did consider looking at the trail version of Helicon also but to be honest I was so happy with Zerene I never got round to it. I'm sure, to be fair, had I opted for Helicon I'd have been perfectly happy with it as I'm not doing super deep high magnification stacks. On average I stack between 30 and 100 images per photo. All in all I'm pleased I made a good choice and that should I venture into much higher magnification photography, I'll have a stacking software that I can grow with ( I've already started slabbing some of my projects ). Thanks for your time and effort reviewing these programs alongside each other Allan, keep up the great work! 👍
Thank you! What a great comment! It is always a great pleasure to discover that something I have done has been useful to someone. Someone else who would be please to see it, I think, would be Mr. Littlefield. I'll send it to him.
Great video! I've been using Helicon for my landscapes for years, and the retouching from images works extremely well. But virtually never more than 5 frames. My true macro stuff just can't be handled in Helicon. I'm looking at Zerene again! Thanks!
I'm doing a LOT of microscopic work focusing on Algae cells. I'm very happy with Zerene (Trial). I'm stacking from a video usually between 200-500 frames at a SS 100+ as I need a bit more light for a faster SS. I use all frames because Zerene is so quick & can handle everything I throw at it rather then selecting every 2,3,4 (importing frames as layers in Photoshop - Export sequences as TIF using action keys - so pressing an assigned action key such as F2 exports the layers as a TIF so the process is a few seconds, save in a designated folder).... Stacking 400 images in D map with Zerene with a 3070 Graphics Card & latest CPU takes about 3mins & produces excellent results! I also made an action to stack with Photoshop (by recording my previous inputs), Photoshop stacking quality looks very poor by comparison and is extremely heavy on my system taking sometimes more then 10x longer then Zerene.
I don't know whether you read comments about this but this was very well-considered and extremely informative. Have you any new updates on your comparison as both products have had updates. OK Helicon's statements appear to be about the GUI or glossy look but they may have listened to your constructive comments. I'm sure you have better things to do than go to this depth again? I confess I'm about to purchase and this video makes me stop and think. Thank you.
My experience is a bit different. I used Zerene for probably ten years and swapped to Helicon about two years ago. I photograph minerals using a super macro lens (4x) plus extension tubes. For me the benefits are the speed to process and the dust map feature. I find that I need far less retouching now than I used to with Zerene, So probably end to end, take about half the time. My stacks are anything from 20 to 200 images.
Hi Steve, thanks for this comment and it raises an important point - I should have been more deliberate when I stated that there are styles of photography, and technical methods, that result in images that are inherently easier to stack in a program like Helicon. I have a number of colleagues whose work fits in this category. They stack in Helicon and retouch in PS. I have a very different set of circumstances where most of my stacks are very deep and packed with crossing detail at high magnification. These images really need a powerful compositing retouch tool with the ability to customize the retouching source images. So they are two distinctly different tools for two different jobs, and that is good , I'm glad we have options. I use both programs in my workflow and that is probably the best of both worlds. Thanks for your insight!
Thanks for a comprehensive video. What would you recommend for someone who wants to use stacks of 15-50 images, specifically for flower photography? I note that this video was made a few years back, since that time both the softwares would have introduced improved versions ...specially the big update that you mentioned the H was to be coming out with. In 2024, do you still recommend Z over H ? On a separate note, I observe that the Zerene requires one to buy their most expensive version if one is to use their software for doing paid work. While one may not doing paid work today, you would not want to limit your options for the future. And therefore if one compares the Pro versions for Z and H, Z is infact a bit more expensive. :)
Hi Allan, this represents a lot of research and hard work. We appreciate it and I have watched it throughout the whole thing . I only nodded off momentarily and that’s just due to my age.
28:42 "he just hung up on me; he does that when i call him at 3 o'clock in the morning..." the way you delivered this nonchalantly had me dying of laughter.
That was a very compelling discussion Alan. I think you've made my mind up for me but I am off next, to your website, to view the articles you referred to. BTW I had no idea that affiliate links worked in the way you describe - I'll bear you in mind in my future Amazon transactions!
if you are using a not too old PC and turn on the OpenCL hardware acceleration, you will realize Helicon Focus is not 3x, but more than 20x faster than the Zerene. the later one really decades behind.
I think it is essential to watch your this video, read all the three articles you wrote then only we will be benefited by watching your video,'Focus stacking with Zerene...' Stacking NEFs in photoshop gave only 60% success when I used 12 files re-sequenced in depth domain and tried auto alighn and autostack function of PS CC. In the end I had to \clone details of many individual slices in blobbed areas of resultant image (jpeg by default) of autostacking. I think after studying the theory, it will be fruitful to test the trial version of Zerene before spending the heavy amount. Thank you sir😊🙏
Very watchable video and I find the stuff you publish engaging. My stacking and retouching needs are modest to say the least: this is only for my own consumption and I may ( but not yet ) explore high mag. for vey small things. I had a 1 yr Helicon license which expired a few months ago. I forgot that there was an upgrade option to a perpetual license and so, just returning to macro/close up after a break, I got a 30 day trial of Zerene, Your analysis presents a compelling arguement for Zerene for many people: I am not sure for myself: I did use Helicon and Affinity in parallel for quite a few months. For simple stuff Affinity/PS seems adequate ( can''t differentiate the results from Affinity, Helicon and Zerene - again for simple stuff,) However I was just stress testing Affinity vs Zerene with an input deck of 50 jpegs and Affinity really struggled ( and crashed ) whereas Zerene just completed but slowly ( which is fine for me ). This was a very simple stack - no difficult source issues. Therefore I wil an inclined - probably get a full Zerene license. Also followed your other blogs - written and video - very very useful - thanks..
You should try the latest Helicon (it is now November 2022). It is EXTREMELY fast and easy to use! Might have a different opinion. Note that "software" is always in a state of flux; hence the word "soft"...
I think there's potential for both of these softwares (or some other) to make a quantum jump, using AI. As humans we can very quickly form a three dimensional model of a photographic subject, and can do so by (apart from other ways such as handling an object), turning the focusing ring or moving a focusing rail back and forth. We end up **knowing** the full dimensionality of the subject. Now imagine a focus stacking software that could take as inputs not just a stack of static images, but a video input file to use as a depth reference. Or image a focus stacking software that could take as inputs not just a stack of static images, but a second "depth reference" stack of the same subject, but photographed from a second physical point of view. Such a fictional AI focus stacking software would then develop a three dimensional model of the subject, to which it would then apply the stack of images, "knowing" that it was layering them onto a three dimensional space. It would "know", in a sense different from current focus stacking software, that a pair of hairs (or whatever) might appear to cross or touch from the point of view of the stack, but not from the reference of the three dimensional model. Ghosting artifacts would be greatly reduced, as they would have no "resting place" on the three dimensional model. Similarly, confusion about which hair is in the foreground, and which in the background, could be eliminated. When we retouch a focus stacking software's output, we are applying our innate knowledge of the dimensionality of the source subject. One day AI will do this.
Hi Allan, Can you please point me to where it shows that Helicon converts a RAW to a Tiff when converting to DNG. Everything I've been able to find shows that the Adobe DNG Converter that Helicon uses does keep all the original RAW information during the conversion. I don't see where an intermediary TIFF is made during that process. Thanks
Hi Allan, great video and articles! As you know I'm using Helicon for a few month and I'm very satisfied with the results so far. But you are right, I'm spending a lot of time with processing the images. After watching your video and reading your articles I consider if Helicon was the wrong decision. Okay, you talking about a Helcon update, let's see what that will bring. Hope to hear again from you, if you have a look in your huge pile of emails ... :-)
Just found your channel. You’ve got a lot of content I’ve been looking for. So many other vids are just vids of people walking around in the woods talking about basics that are useless to me.
Oh I do plenty of useless video as well - but I do try to keep a steady flow of helpful ones in the pipeline. If there is anything in particular you would like to hear about, feel free to drop a line - most of my ideas come from viewer questions. Glad you found the channel!
Dear Allan, my small moths aren't always quiet and still, therefore some stacking is comming hard and I have been painting each single layer in Photoshop to achieve the best of each moth... Could you please let me know if Helicon focus would do an easier way? Thank you so much! Still waiting for you in Uruguay!!! :)
Nice explaination. I use bought ! bought have their strenghts and weeknesses as you perfectly explained. 3D feature is not that great on the Helicon, But the rocking 3D in Zerene is nice. The only thing is that it is slow compared to Helicon.
Does the stacking method require the bugs to be dead? It seems that the subject must remain still and in the same position/place in order to take all the necessary images. A live bug likely won’t remain motionless to get all the shots.
I kind of expected you to have a confirmation bias. Definitely comes across that way. You may be 100% correct and accurate in your evaluation but it does feel like there was a prejudice throughout. Far from impartial and neutral. I've seen other head to head comparisons and they all seemed to be a lot more balanced and less divisive. I know a lot of working pro photographers and they all use Helicon. They're not using it for extreme macro though. More product type photography. So, I'm left feeling as confused as ever as to what I should purchase. Is it reasonable to expect a stacking program to do retouching too? Is the big Helicon update that's coming going to level the playing field? Are better looking final images what I want? Does the speed difference make make retouching brushes less of a big deal when I already have several good editing and retouching programs? I just feel at a bit of a loss as to know which way to go. I think until that update arrives it's probably best to just wait. Thanks for your analysis and opinions and your conclusions and for making the video.
I was focus stacking by hand in PS before I knew the term... found photoshop's stack scripts and worked okay, but only because I have been using ps for 25 years. Allan turned me onto Zerene a few weeks ago and have not looked back. My photography adventures started out of necessity for product photos, not to full fill any artistic needs. Now that I'm getting into it, I find I really enjoy it and will be diving deeper into smaller object out of personal interest. The cost of Zerene is well worth the price in saved time.
hi,i'm new to stacking. is it posable to exposure stack. i don't have photoshop and only do min. editing. i use rawtherapee for basic edits. i'm not young and the tech is beyong me.........
Thanks for another awesome and informative video. Unfortunately I purchased a Helicon Focus already and do postprocessing and retouching in PhotoLab. Didnt know the Zerene can be so useful and might consider switch in a future if the new update doesnt bring features you mentioned. You also didnt mention a supportive autostacking app which comes with Helicon, called Helicon Remote. Its an app which allows to setup stacking and focus range on your mobile and controls the lens focusing. I liked the idea and it was actually the main reason I decided to purchase the Helicon software but so far I didnt manage to do anything useful with it and got way better results when I use the physical rail instead. Not to mention that to disconnect the camera with the app through WiFi I need to turn its power off as it freezes when I leave the app on my mobile. Its a big shame the Helicon didnt give you an actual access to the beta of the new version and didnt consider your input :(. Anyway, have a great time and thanks for being there and taking your time to make all these content... you are so inspiring
Good points. I didn't;t mention helicon remote because I didn't use it in the testing (I have never used it) and it was only peripherally relevant to the question at hand. But I also see your point that these other features may counter some of the negatives. I am going to look at Helicon again, as soon as the new release has stabilized and see if the missing functions are now on line. By the way, my main camera has a similar focus stacking functionality and it simply cannot manage the steps sizes I need - but great for landscapes!
@@AllanWallsPhotography Thanks, yeah, I have heard that some cameras has stacking functionality built in but I plan to purchase one when the one I currently use dies and needs replacement (Canon80D). Regarding the Helion Remote, it looks super awesome in theory, since as a user we can select the the close and the far focal points with our finger on screen and based on camera setting and lens used it auto-calculates the amount of images needed for stacking. Of course we can set it all manualy or change multipliers. Unfortunately I failed so far with this app in practice :) and consider it a waste of my money, but as I have heard it suppors WeMacro mechanised focus rail which I plan to purchase when I save some more monies (maybe even its StackShot version?). Have no clue how it works in practice but in theory it has some potential. Its definitely an expensive hobby.. I am at max magnification 2.5x after a year and have to learn and practice a lot to get better before I even consider goingo into higher magnification level with microscope objectives.. hopefully the budget gives me time to practice with what I have got so far :)
Hello Allan, I only do landscape photography and my only post-processing software is Capture One on my Apple MacBook Pro. Usually no more than 5 images need to be staked. Which program would you recommend? Thank you!
Hey Harry, if you are doing that kind of stack, a program like Photoshop might actually be better that a specialist application like Zerene or Helicon. The way Photoshop does stacking is well suited to landscape work. You can get it for $10/month, with Lightroom, a great deal. I thought Capture One had a similar stacker built in. I still use Photoshop when I stack landscapes - does a great job!
It is not a good stacker, with no advanced features for retouching. It uses a single algorithm and produces a lot of difficult artifact. It is really a tool for stacking large subject images like landscapes. It can handle very simple high-contrast stacks but not much more than that.
Helicon is so much faster. As you say the outputs are very similar. You can use RAW files which is a big deal. Export from Abobe Bridge. By definition if you retouch from single images in the stack, as you can in Helicon, you cannot get anything better because they contain the maximum amount of information, when in focus. Very surprised by the bias in your conclusion.
But it is exactly these points that make it impractical for high magnification - Yes you can get the finest detail from retouching from single images, and you can do it in both programs, but you cannot retouch from sub stacks in Helicon. My point is that to retouch from 400 individual images would mean you could retouch about one final image every 7-10 hours. I retouch that stack from slabs in 7-10 minutes, using selected original files as needed. Also you can't stack RAW files, both programs stack TIFFs. I don't know about Bridge but I'll give you that one. My bias has nothing to do with my conclusions. I had a bias going into the study, I stated it several times, so I did everything to counter my known bias. The conclusions were drawn from the results alone. I didn't change the results or draw inaccurate conclusions to fit my bias. And all I am saying is that Helicon, in its present iteration, is impractical as a stacking tool for high magnification macro photography. If you are stacking 20-40 frames and have plenty of time, Helicon makes sense, but that is not what we were doing, because it isn't what we do in this kind of photography. Hopefully that will be less surprising.
@@AllanWallsPhotography Now that is a much more balanced conclusion for those of us who are not using automated rails and limiting our stacks to about 50 images. 😀
@@scotimages Thanks - I really was trying to make this as useful as possible to anyone who might stumble across the video, but it looks like I may have had a second bias in operation also. I was wrong to assume that the majority of people using these programs would be doing the kind of work I do. It turns out that not everybody is quite as OCD as me! Who knew! A lot of very fine photographers have told me over the last few days that their workflow and images were perfectly suited for Helicon. So while it is not a practical solution for me, it certainly may be for a much larger section of the macro population than I initially estimated. Thanks for making me look again and for keeping me honest! Allan
I have used both, and I have found that Zerene is better overall and produces better results more consistently. Helicon tends to get buggy sometimes, and the stack comes out all messed up!
I've tried both, Helicon and Zerene. Zerene was clunky and temperamental when trying to process my bracketed image series, almost to the point of being maddening, and never producing acceptable images. Helicon, on the other hand, handled my bracketed series of images without a hiccup and did a fine job of stacking them. Helicon, hands down choice in my book.
Thanks again Allan 🙏 also my M1 has held up today with 85 or so raw out my a7iii, no issue. Stacked like meh. So here I am. You rock ❤
Thanks for putting in all the hard work it took to make this gold standard video on the comparison between the two major stacking programs macrophotographers use. I have used the prosumer version for some time and agree it is excellent. I would like to see some of the basic dodge and burn type tools in Zerene so I could change the tonal range in one slab or one source image temporarily so I could make a structure” more defined” in the retouching portion of Zerene. The Darken and Lighten brushes do a great job but do not allow me to increase or decrease the tone of a small important structure such as a hair during the retouch process. I look forward to advances in the stacking technology and believe that competition helps drive those changes. Well done!
Thanks: Great video again! When I tried to evaluate both Zerene and Helicon (some years ago), I failed with Helicon, because I did not manage to install Helicon (including the trial license key) on my offline PC. Zerene simply worked, so it was my choice.
Now I am happy with it, especially because of the Slabbing and Retouching features. So from that perspective I can fully understand your review, Allan!
The articles with full size photos are amazing. I have never seen better
I am really only interested in close up photography, but since finding your channel I really like your take on this aspect of photography. Worth watching even if you don't go to these extremes. And your sense of humor suits me to a "T" :)
Great Video. The only point why I am using HF is it is able to use your GPU. I hope ZS will have this feature in the feature as well.
I tried ZS and yes, the quality is much more crispy the HF. ;)
I used Zerene for >15 years. I have Helicon too, but only used it for a couple of the 3d features because Zerene always did a better job with deep, hi-mag stacks of insects and the like. Zerene's retouching was faster and more accurate in use too, so it accounted for 98%+ of all my focus stacking work to date. But I recently fired up Helicon and found I could upgrade to the latest version very cheaply, so I did. OMG! I was super-surprised at how fast Helicon is now, and how much the stacking and retouching have improved. It's an order of magnitude faster than Zerene and the end results are every bit as good. Needless to say, as of a month ago, I use Helicon for 98%+ of my stacking work now. I definitely didn't expect that outcome.
I don't do deep macro with objectives but I do shoot a lot of small objects with a macro lens. I originally used Photoshop which did an ok job so long as there were not too many images to stack. If there was 15+ images Photoshop would simply crash. I moved to Affinity for stacking and found it much more stable however the output was riddled with halo's and required a ton of retouching in PS later. Needless to say I realised that a purpose made stacking software was my only option going forward. I spent 2 months researching both Zerene and Helicon, reading multiple reviews and comparison videos on RUclips. Ironically, Helicon's ability to accept RAW files wasn't a plus feature for me. I was aware the program just converted them to TIFFs internally and frankly I'd far rather let Lightroom do the TIFF conversion anyway. I always apply a linear profile to my RAW files before exporting them as TIFFs so Zerene's lack of RAW support was moot for me. I won't lie, Zerene's " 1980's Sinclair Spectrum " GUI didn't inspire me with much confidence when put against the much more modern looking Helicon. Price wise both were very similar all be it Zerene was a bit cheaper. I really couldn't decide between the two....until I came to your channel. It was on the strength of your incredible work that I decided to try the trial version of Zerene. I figured if it's good enough for Allan Walls then it's plenty good enough for me! 😊 Colour me impressed with the results, I was sold and soon purchased a full licence. I did consider looking at the trail version of Helicon also but to be honest I was so happy with Zerene I never got round to it. I'm sure, to be fair, had I opted for Helicon I'd have been perfectly happy with it as I'm not doing super deep high magnification stacks. On average I stack between 30 and 100 images per photo. All in all I'm pleased I made a good choice and that should I venture into much higher magnification photography, I'll have a stacking software that I can grow with ( I've already started slabbing some of my projects ). Thanks for your time and effort reviewing these programs alongside each other Allan, keep up the great work! 👍
Thank you! What a great comment! It is always a great pleasure to discover that something I have done has been useful to someone. Someone else who would be please to see it, I think, would be Mr. Littlefield. I'll send it to him.
Great video! I've been using Helicon for my landscapes for years, and the retouching from images works extremely well. But virtually never more than 5 frames. My true macro stuff just can't be handled in Helicon. I'm looking at Zerene again! Thanks!
I'm doing a LOT of microscopic work focusing on Algae cells. I'm very happy with Zerene (Trial). I'm stacking from a video usually between 200-500 frames at a SS 100+ as I need a bit more light for a faster SS. I use all frames because Zerene is so quick & can handle everything I throw at it rather then selecting every 2,3,4 (importing frames as layers in Photoshop - Export sequences as TIF using action keys - so pressing an assigned action key such as F2 exports the layers as a TIF so the process is a few seconds, save in a designated folder).... Stacking 400 images in D map with Zerene with a 3070 Graphics Card & latest CPU takes about 3mins & produces excellent results!
I also made an action to stack with Photoshop (by recording my previous inputs), Photoshop stacking quality looks very poor by comparison and is extremely heavy on my system taking sometimes more then 10x longer then Zerene.
I don't know whether you read comments about this but this was very well-considered and extremely informative. Have you any new updates on your comparison as both products have had updates. OK Helicon's statements appear to be about the GUI or glossy look but they may have listened to your constructive comments. I'm sure you have better things to do than go to this depth again? I confess I'm about to purchase and this video makes me stop and think. Thank you.
I have been using Zerene Stacker for 3 years. Then I tried Helicon focus. And I have been using it for 3 years now. I like it more.
My experience is a bit different. I used Zerene for probably ten years and swapped to Helicon about two years ago. I photograph minerals using a super macro lens (4x) plus extension tubes. For me the benefits are the speed to process and the dust map feature. I find that I need far less retouching now than I used to with Zerene, So probably end to end, take about half the time. My stacks are anything from 20 to 200 images.
Hi Steve, thanks for this comment and it raises an important point - I should have been more deliberate when I stated that there are styles of photography, and technical methods, that result in images that are inherently easier to stack in a program like Helicon. I have a number of colleagues whose work fits in this category. They stack in Helicon and retouch in PS. I have a very different set of circumstances where most of my stacks are very deep and packed with crossing detail at high magnification. These images really need a powerful compositing retouch tool with the ability to customize the retouching source images. So they are two distinctly different tools for two different jobs, and that is good , I'm glad we have options. I use both programs in my workflow and that is probably the best of both worlds. Thanks for your insight!
Thanks for a comprehensive video.
What would you recommend for someone who wants to use stacks of 15-50 images, specifically for flower photography?
I note that this video was made a few years back, since that time both the softwares would have introduced improved versions ...specially the big update that you mentioned the H was to be coming out with. In 2024, do you still recommend Z over H ?
On a separate note, I observe that the Zerene requires one to buy their most expensive version if one is to use their software for doing paid work. While one may not doing paid work today, you would not want to limit your options for the future. And therefore if one compares the Pro versions for Z and H, Z is infact a bit more expensive. :)
Hi Allan, this represents a lot of research and hard work. We appreciate it and I have watched it throughout the whole thing . I only nodded off momentarily and that’s just due to my age.
Thanks Andy, it isn't the sexiest topic, but I'm grateful for the complement!
Great video! I choose my Zerene Stacker and Helicon focus programs. Is Zerene stacker still better in 2024? Thank you
28:42 "he just hung up on me; he does that when i call him at 3 o'clock in the morning..." the way you delivered this nonchalantly had me dying of laughter.
Thanks very much for this amazing video!
Again - great presentation Allan. I happened to ask Helicon last week about an iOS REMOTE version and they sent me a beta - pleasantly surprised.
That was a very compelling discussion Alan. I think you've made my mind up for me but I am off next, to your website, to view the articles you referred to. BTW I had no idea that affiliate links worked in the way you describe - I'll bear you in mind in my future Amazon transactions!
if you are using a not too old PC and turn on the OpenCL hardware acceleration, you will realize Helicon Focus is not 3x, but more than 20x faster than the Zerene. the later one really decades behind.
I think it is essential to watch your this video, read all the three articles you wrote then only we will be benefited by watching your video,'Focus stacking with Zerene...' Stacking NEFs in photoshop gave only 60% success when I used 12 files re-sequenced in depth domain and tried auto alighn and autostack function of PS CC. In the end I had to \clone details of many individual slices in blobbed areas of resultant image (jpeg by default) of autostacking. I think after studying the theory, it will be fruitful to test the trial version of Zerene before spending the heavy amount. Thank you sir😊🙏
Thank you for this summary!
Next project: e-mail stacking? (Heh)
Very watchable video and I find the stuff you publish engaging.
My stacking and retouching needs are modest to say the least: this is only for my own consumption and I may ( but not yet ) explore high mag. for vey small things.
I had a 1 yr Helicon license which expired a few months ago. I forgot that there was an upgrade option to a perpetual license and so, just returning to macro/close up after a break, I got a 30 day trial of Zerene,
Your analysis presents a compelling arguement for Zerene for many people: I am not sure for myself: I did use Helicon and Affinity in parallel for quite a few months. For simple stuff Affinity/PS seems adequate ( can''t differentiate the results from Affinity, Helicon and Zerene - again for simple stuff,)
However I was just stress testing Affinity vs Zerene with an input deck of 50 jpegs and Affinity really struggled ( and crashed ) whereas Zerene just completed but slowly ( which is fine for me ). This was a very simple stack - no difficult source issues. Therefore I wil an inclined - probably get a full Zerene license.
Also followed your other blogs - written and video - very very useful - thanks..
You did not wear a BLUE fisherman shirt! Oops! The girls love the shout out. Please text me a description of the camera tube you need to borrow ?
You should try the latest Helicon (it is now November 2022). It is EXTREMELY fast and easy to use! Might have a different opinion. Note that "software" is always in a state of flux; hence the word "soft"...
I think there's potential for both of these softwares (or some other) to make a quantum jump, using AI. As humans we can very quickly form a three dimensional model of a photographic subject, and can do so by (apart from other ways such as handling an object), turning the focusing ring or moving a focusing rail back and forth. We end up **knowing** the full dimensionality of the subject.
Now imagine a focus stacking software that could take as inputs not just a stack of static images, but a video input file to use as a depth reference.
Or image a focus stacking software that could take as inputs not just a stack of static images, but a second "depth reference" stack of the same subject, but photographed from a second physical point of view.
Such a fictional AI focus stacking software would then develop a three dimensional model of the subject, to which it would then apply the stack of images, "knowing" that it was layering them onto a three dimensional space. It would "know", in a sense different from current focus stacking software, that a pair of hairs (or whatever) might appear to cross or touch from the point of view of the stack, but not from the reference of the three dimensional model. Ghosting artifacts would be greatly reduced, as they would have no "resting place" on the three dimensional model. Similarly, confusion about which hair is in the foreground, and which in the background, could be eliminated.
When we retouch a focus stacking software's output, we are applying our innate knowledge of the dimensionality of the source subject. One day AI will do this.
Hi Allan,
Can you please point me to where it shows that Helicon converts a RAW to a Tiff when converting to DNG. Everything I've been able to find shows that the Adobe DNG Converter that Helicon uses does keep all the original RAW information during the conversion. I don't see where an intermediary TIFF is made during that process.
Thanks
Hi Allan, great video and articles! As you know I'm using Helicon for a few month and I'm very satisfied with the results so far. But you are right, I'm spending a lot of time with processing the images. After watching your video and reading your articles I consider if Helicon was the wrong decision. Okay, you talking about a Helcon update, let's see what that will bring.
Hope to hear again from you, if you have a look in your huge pile of emails ... :-)
That is exactly what I was going to suggest - wait and see what the new update fixes! I will email you.
“they are are all terrible.” Yep, couldn’t have said it better; that sums up my thoughts on trying to focus stack in general editing programs
Great detailed video. Thanks for putting this all together. Do you have a link for Amazon purchases uk. The one in the description is US.
Thanks John, I didn't even know I could use such a link until very recently. I will hopefully have it the next time you are in the purchasing mood!
Just found your channel. You’ve got a lot of content I’ve been looking for.
So many other vids are just vids of people walking around in the woods talking about basics that are useless to me.
I’ve been using Zerene for years but only its basics.
Oh I do plenty of useless video as well - but I do try to keep a steady flow of helpful ones in the pipeline. If there is anything in particular you would like to hear about, feel free to drop a line - most of my ideas come from viewer questions. Glad you found the channel!
Dear Allan, my small moths aren't always quiet and still, therefore some stacking is comming hard and I have been painting each single layer in Photoshop to achieve the best of each moth... Could you please let me know if Helicon focus would do an easier way? Thank you so much! Still waiting for you in Uruguay!!! :)
Nice explaination. I use bought ! bought have their strenghts and weeknesses as you perfectly explained. 3D feature is not that great on the Helicon, But the rocking 3D in Zerene is nice. The only thing is that it is slow compared to Helicon.
Does the stacking method require the bugs to be dead? It seems that the subject must remain still and in the same position/place in order to take all the necessary images. A live bug likely won’t remain motionless to get all the shots.
A slow one will do, they are cold blooded, so at dawn they move very slow, and you have light...
you make an amazing job thanks a lot from france !!
Merci!
Great information, thank you.
I kind of expected you to have a confirmation bias. Definitely comes across that way. You may be 100% correct and accurate in your evaluation but it does feel like there was a prejudice throughout. Far from impartial and neutral. I've seen other head to head comparisons and they all seemed to be a lot more balanced and less divisive. I know a lot of working pro photographers and they all use Helicon. They're not using it for extreme macro though. More product type photography. So, I'm left feeling as confused as ever as to what I should purchase. Is it reasonable to expect a stacking program to do retouching too? Is the big Helicon update that's coming going to level the playing field? Are better looking final images what I want? Does the speed difference make make retouching brushes less of a big deal when I already have several good editing and retouching programs? I just feel at a bit of a loss as to know which way to go. I think until that update arrives it's probably best to just wait. Thanks for your analysis and opinions and your conclusions and for making the video.
Did you get as far as 46:50?
@@mrrcassidy I watched the whole thing.
What light do you use for indoors? I've been struggling to have a nice lit photography stage.
Flash almost exclusively. It is the only reliable predictable light source that I can rely on for color accuracy and vibration control.
you are saviour.
I was focus stacking by hand in PS before I knew the term... found photoshop's stack scripts and worked okay, but only because I have been using ps for 25 years. Allan turned me onto Zerene a few weeks ago and have not looked back. My photography adventures started out of necessity for product photos, not to full fill any artistic needs. Now that I'm getting into it, I find I really enjoy it and will be diving deeper into smaller object out of personal interest. The cost of Zerene is well worth the price in saved time.
Would have loved to get your thoughts on stacking software, but the jazz music scared me away.
hi,i'm new to stacking. is it posable to exposure stack. i don't have photoshop and only do min. editing. i use rawtherapee for basic edits. i'm not young and the tech is beyong me.........
What f/ stop you recommend on a macro?
Thanks for another awesome and informative video. Unfortunately I purchased a Helicon Focus already and do postprocessing and retouching in PhotoLab. Didnt know the Zerene can be so useful and might consider switch in a future if the new update doesnt bring features you mentioned. You also didnt mention a supportive autostacking app which comes with Helicon, called Helicon Remote. Its an app which allows to setup stacking and focus range on your mobile and controls the lens focusing. I liked the idea and it was actually the main reason I decided to purchase the Helicon software but so far I didnt manage to do anything useful with it and got way better results when I use the physical rail instead. Not to mention that to disconnect the camera with the app through WiFi I need to turn its power off as it freezes when I leave the app on my mobile. Its a big shame the Helicon didnt give you an actual access to the beta of the new version and didnt consider your input :(.
Anyway, have a great time and thanks for being there and taking your time to make all these content... you are so inspiring
Good points. I didn't;t mention helicon remote because I didn't use it in the testing (I have never used it) and it was only peripherally relevant to the question at hand. But I also see your point that these other features may counter some of the negatives. I am going to look at Helicon again, as soon as the new release has stabilized and see if the missing functions are now on line. By the way, my main camera has a similar focus stacking functionality and it simply cannot manage the steps sizes I need - but great for landscapes!
@@AllanWallsPhotography Thanks, yeah, I have heard that some cameras has stacking functionality built in but I plan to purchase one when the one I currently use dies and needs replacement (Canon80D). Regarding the Helion Remote, it looks super awesome in theory, since as a user we can select the the close and the far focal points with our finger on screen and based on camera setting and lens used it auto-calculates the amount of images needed for stacking. Of course we can set it all manualy or change multipliers. Unfortunately I failed so far with this app in practice :) and consider it a waste of my money, but as I have heard it suppors WeMacro mechanised focus rail which I plan to purchase when I save some more monies (maybe even its StackShot version?). Have no clue how it works in practice but in theory it has some potential. Its definitely an expensive hobby.. I am at max magnification 2.5x after a year and have to learn and practice a lot to get better before I even consider goingo into higher magnification level with microscope objectives.. hopefully the budget gives me time to practice with what I have got so far :)
Hello Allan, I only do landscape photography and my only post-processing software is Capture One on my Apple MacBook Pro. Usually no more than 5 images need to be staked. Which program would you recommend? Thank you!
Hey Harry, if you are doing that kind of stack, a program like Photoshop might actually be better that a specialist application like Zerene or Helicon. The way Photoshop does stacking is well suited to landscape work. You can get it for $10/month, with Lightroom, a great deal. I thought Capture One had a similar stacker built in. I still use Photoshop when I stack landscapes - does a great job!
@@AllanWallsPhotography thank you Allan!
What about Adobe PSD to stack with Auto-blend?
It is not a good stacker, with no advanced features for retouching. It uses a single algorithm and produces a lot of difficult artifact. It is really a tool for stacking large subject images like landscapes. It can handle very simple high-contrast stacks but not much more than that.
👍
Good to know I can buy dog food from Amazon now. I already own a boomerang. So I'll be ordering dog food. Then maybe someday I'll get that dog.
11:09 PMSL
11:07
I would PS the mouth to make it less controversial
Never! It is the little beast's most interesting feature!
@@AllanWallsPhotography 😀
your music should not be twice as loud as your dialog
Helicon is so much faster. As you say the outputs are very similar. You can use RAW files which is a big deal. Export from Abobe Bridge. By definition if you retouch from single images in the stack, as you can in Helicon, you cannot get anything better because they contain the maximum amount of information, when in focus. Very surprised by the bias in your conclusion.
But it is exactly these points that make it impractical for high magnification - Yes you can get the finest detail from retouching from single images, and you can do it in both programs, but you cannot retouch from sub stacks in Helicon. My point is that to retouch from 400 individual images would mean you could retouch about one final image every 7-10 hours. I retouch that stack from slabs in 7-10 minutes, using selected original files as needed. Also you can't stack RAW files, both programs stack TIFFs. I don't know about Bridge but I'll give you that one. My bias has nothing to do with my conclusions. I had a bias going into the study, I stated it several times, so I did everything to counter my known bias. The conclusions were drawn from the results alone. I didn't change the results or draw inaccurate conclusions to fit my bias. And all I am saying is that Helicon, in its present iteration, is impractical as a stacking tool for high magnification macro photography. If you are stacking 20-40 frames and have plenty of time, Helicon makes sense, but that is not what we were doing, because it isn't what we do in this kind of photography. Hopefully that will be less surprising.
@@AllanWallsPhotography
Now that is a much more balanced conclusion for those of us who are not using automated rails and limiting our stacks to about 50 images. 😀
@@scotimages Thanks - I really was trying to make this as useful as possible to anyone who might stumble across the video, but it looks like I may have had a second bias in operation also. I was wrong to assume that the majority of people using these programs would be doing the kind of work I do. It turns out that not everybody is quite as OCD as me! Who knew! A lot of very fine photographers have told me over the last few days that their workflow and images were perfectly suited for Helicon. So while it is not a practical solution for me, it certainly may be for a much larger section of the macro population than I initially estimated. Thanks for making me look again and for keeping me honest! Allan
I have used both, and I have found that Zerene is better overall and produces better results more consistently. Helicon tends to get buggy sometimes, and the stack comes out all messed up!
Always good advice but, my oh my ...he can waffle.