MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

Planapo 63x/1.4, DIC, 250µm length, stacked and stitched in Photoshop, Marine sample, Alboran Sea.

Fabulous image !

At this resolution I can’t see any evidence of the stitching
... is it really that good ?

MichaelG.

MichaelG. wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:21 am

Fabulous image !

At this resolution I can’t see any evidence of the stitching
... is it really that good ?

MichaelG.

Ditto Michael!
It really is - when combined with 75's consummate skill with this work - fantastic inspiration and goal for others.

Great image (as usual) !!

The diatoms seem to feed well on the western side of the Mediterranean, and grow to such size.

Very nice!

Many thanks MichaelG, mrsonchus, Hobbyst46 and WhyMe

At this resolution I can’t see any evidence of the stitching

Photoshop stitching (photomerge) is quite seamless and easy to use. Choose images - press button.

If there are problems it is usually either a lack of sufficient image overlap or non matching overlaps.

Beautiful work 75'

How do you do the stitching? I tried to load the files to be stacked via "File>Script>Load Files Into Stack" and then "Edit>Auto-Align Layers".

Thanks Wes

I normally use Adobe Bridge, I find it easier.

If you are going to go direct then there are 3 steps:

"File>Script>Load Files Into Stack"
"Edit>Auto-Align Layers"
"Edit>Auto-Blend Layers> Panorama"

Note: You need to highlight all files that are to be processed.

Hi 75',
I've just started using Bridge/Photoshop (and Lightroom-Classic for fast batch edits) and have found the stacking to be pretty good in PS also. Is there a way to know what type of stacking PS is performing, or even maybe to alter parameters do you know? Perhaps the absence of parameters points to 'Pyramid' stacking?

Hi mrsonchus, can't say I have found anyway to fine tune Photoshop stacking/stitching (seems to me to be mostly automated) nor do I know how it works. Shame on me!

I started using Photoshop for this as I already had it. I find it useful, but suspect it is a little basic as it is just another addition to what is a massive photo editing software program.

I believe dedicated programs are necessarily better, but I always seem to find another use for the money needed for one.

I think you're right 75' - I definitely see different effects with the various (Weighted-Average, Depth-Map, Pyramid) options in Helicon Focus - especially I suspect with the very often 'soft' images of obscure detail within a mounted-section rather than optimally at the coverslip's underside.