March 15, 2023

DM and his setup

Joe forwarded this information, which he received via email. DM has been quite generous with information -- and helpful.
I began by tripping over (and admiring) this image:

Setup

The photos show my current setup.
Camera is a Canon 90D with 32mp sensor.
The lens is a Canon 70-200mm series L zoom.
I use a Mitutoyo M plan apo 5X or 10X objective.
The lighting is 2 Fiber-lite MI-LED duel pipe fiber optic units.

I shoot in RAW with the images going to an external hard drive. Next I import then into Lightroom for some minor adjustments. Files are then exported to Helicon Focus for stacking. Final adjustments are made in Photoshop and Topaz Labs Adjust AI. Photos are saved as PNG for Mindat and jpeg for Facebook and Mastodon.

I still have the camera mounted on a Stack Shot rail controlled by the control module in Zerene. I now use Helicon Focus for stacking. Many of the folks I know have switched to Helicon.

Note: The Canon 90D is an APS-C camera with 32 megapixels. He uses the 70-200 lens zoomed to 200mm and focused on infinity.

Stacking Software

A bit of history on my stacking. I started out using Combine Z then Combine ZM. Zerene Stacker came along and did a much better job of producing good stacks. And was regularly improved. Combine ZM is no longer supported by the individual who developed it. I used Zerene for a few years and switched to Helicon when it arrived on scene. There was a time when Zerene and Helicon swapped places as the best program for mineral photography. Occasionally, one would run across a specimen that stacked better with Zerene. Now I exclusively use Helicon.

Helicon has 3 stacking option - weighted average, depth map and pyramid. Weighted average is not good for mineral photography. I use method B which uses the depth map process and method C which is pyramid process. I will run both as there are times when one is better than the other. One notable difference being that Helicon does not give the blurred edges that one finds on 2 sides for a Zerene stack. Helicon crops those out. I find the depth map method in Helicon give better results then Zerene. I have found Helicon to be faster at running the stacks, especially if your video card supports open GL and it is enabled in the stacking program preferences. Not sure if Zerene has this function as I have not used it since I got my new Puget Systems computer a couple of years ago.

If you are using a Stack Shot rail for automated stacking, Zerene has the better control module for computer control of the rail. I still use Zerene for that. It is much easier to use than making the settings on the control box that comes with the rail. You still use that but all programing is done on the computer.

That lipscombite specimen was an easy one to shoot as it was well exposed making it easy to illuminate. Many of the specimens I shoot are not so easy.

Feedback? Questions? Drop me a line!

Tom's Computer Info / [email protected]