This is actually a reply to a friend that asked about how we achieve the clarity in our photographs and our basic workflow. I thought it would be useful to post it here.

I think the clarity we achieve is down to a combination of anal rententive attention to shooting technique, RAW processing and focus stacking (when appropriate).

I couldn't resist getting some screen-grabs of my actual working files so I can show you what I'm talking about.

As an example, the Dampiera you mentioned is a focus stack of 7 exposures. I used to use PhotoAcute but now I use Helicon Focus 'cause it has improved a great deal. I did tinker with the super resolution in 'Acute but I prefer to upsample at the end with Genuine Fractals.

First we view all our RAWs at 100% and mercilessly cull any that aren't as sharp as we can get. Garbage in, garbage out. We are very fussy.

Below is an undeveloped RAW file from the middle of the stack. 100% crop:

One of the most vital steps in our work is the actual RAW capture. We did a lot of research into understanding how digital sensors behave, and how to capture the most information they can. In short, nothing clipped, and histogram to the right without blowing highlights. If things are going to clip no matter what, that's when we shift into HDR shooting. We use a heavy tripod and

I have used PhotoAcute Studio for jobs involving focus stacking, or extended DOF (depth of field). It did a better job for me than other programs out there, even though it wasn't perfect. I still have to be prepared to do plenty of hand-masking. Like all programs, including PS, it can't read your mind. So I was very interested to hear that Photoshop CS4 now included the ability to stack images with different DOF. So I availed myself of the 30-day demo and took it for a spin.

My first test is a side-by side comparison of a focus stack using 4 exposures. I'll be doing a tutorial on using PhotoAcute before long, but here's the process in Photoshop CS4:

1. Select your series of developed images (in my case, they're tiffs) in Adobe Bridge CS4. Tools > Photoshop > Load Files into Photoshop layers. Hooray! I've wanted this feature for a long time.

2. Once it's all in PS: Edit > Auto Align Layers. If you leave this step out of a focus stacking, you'll be sorry.

3. Now you can Edit > Auto Blend Layers, and select the "Stacking" button. 

4. You'll be returned with nicely masked layers (love it!), optimized for the focused areas of your exposures. Optimized, but not perfectly. Again, if you're a fusspot, you'll want to be prepared for some hand-masking work.

How all this compares with PhotoAcute

As you can see from the side-by-side snapshot, the Photoshop stack on the left has better detail and less distortion, but some edges need work. With the masks ready to go in the layered PS file, this is much easier.

The PhotoAcute shot is on the right, and you can see the distortion, but better blending. Using PhotoAcute, I've had some images skew to the point of objects being pushed out of the canvas entirely, and had to modify our photography to allow for it. I will do some further tests before posting a verdict.

*Update: Helicon Focus was the other alternative I had to Photo Acute. Around mid-2009, they updated their software and so I changed over. I now much prefer it to anything else. You still have to get in and adjust the masking, but then that's the nature of software: it can't make artistic decisions—that's your job. Here is a link to updated notes on our current focus stacking workflow.

PS CS4 and PhotoAcute blends compared again

Well, I've tried it again. I like that Photoshop doesn't skew your stacks, but it does have problems with the masking. See the little out-of-focus spots on the beetle's head and back here:

If I go in and edit the masks, (fiddly, but it's an essential option to have) I then get this:

And that's just the beetle. Same problems with the surrounding flowers in the pic. This beetle takes up only a tiny portion of the whole image.

Now I compare this with a blended stack made in PhotoAcute:

That's the repaired PS image on the left. Photoshop doesn't skew, but it doesn't mask better than PhotoAcute. PhotoAcute blends better, but it doesn't give me a layered, masked file to use in Photoshop.

My verdict? I wish Photoshop blended better. And PhotoAcute exported layered, masked files and didn't skew things.