A more realistic focus-stack

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Why is this beetle so crisp?

The clarity results from the image being not a single photograph but a composite. I took 50 exposures at different focal depths and merged them in a file sharp enough to cut diamonds.

This extra-clean look is increasingly common, and for a reason. Digital cameras and focus-stacking software are now affordable enough that "stacking" as a genre is positively thriving. Check out Flickr's many groupsdevoted tothe technique.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Since the method creates optically impossible images- no lens can produce a sharp image over an extended focal plane- stacks exude a surreal quality. An experienced eye can pick them, as most stacks transition from sharply focused to completely blurry with little subtlety. The in-focus bits are insanely crisp, and the out-of-focus bits are butter creamy.

I have been experimenting with disguising the telltale focus boundary. Since the point of stacking is to increase sharpness, blurring over the stack's focused parts would be counterproductive. Instead, I settled on boosting background detail the old-fashioned way.

Once I had taken all the exposures to be included in the regular stack, without moving the camera or the beetle, I stopped the lens down, boosted flash power to compensate, and took one more photograph. This final capture left a similar but softer exposure with more native depth of field:

When the high DOF image is added to the stack as background, the image acquires a more realistic aspect while retaining its Whiz-Bang stack sharpness. Compare a stack with an additional small-aperture background file (top) to a stack without one (bottom):

The improved image is still the result of severe digital manipulation, but it doesn't look as much like it.

To purchase a print of the weevil:http://bit.ly/WrVlmp


Alex Wild is Curator of Entomology at the University of Texas at Austin, where he studies the evolutionary history of ants. In 2003 he founded a photography business as an aesthetic complement to his scientific work, and his natural history photographs appear in numerous museums, books and media outlets.

More by Alex Wild

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe