Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2009, 02:59 AM
 
106,248 posts, read 108,257,613 times
Reputation: 79791

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
You can easily do it using PhotoMatix. The technique is just "blending" several images into one. The hard way is by using ND filters while taking the same photo several times with the camera on a tripod. Each photo is exposed differently with the aid of a ND filter.

But the easiest way is to take one RAW photo, and process this photo with PhotoShop (or Elements), and saving them to PhotoShop's ".dng" Each photo is processed so the first one is underexposed, the next one exposed a little more, and more, and more on the next photos. You can expose as many as you want. The next step is to use PhotoMatix to blend or fuse the photos into one. The result is a photo that shows a loth more shadow/light and color depth. Then you take this photo and re-process it with PhotoShop to make it look better.
the one photo with multiple exposures created artificially i find more often then not creats a ton of noise. the reality i found is that if you have the one photo and its a good exposure then just take the one and run it thru detail enhancer by itself. the one photo takes on a nice clean , not as sureal look most of the time.

you can do this with jpegs too, just duplicate the jpeg, dont change exposure but feed at least two photos into photomatix and it will enhance a jpeg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2009, 05:50 AM
 
Location: New Zealand
1,872 posts, read 6,483,581 times
Reputation: 5607
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
You can use one of numerous "actions" sold by Fred Miranda and others to use with PhotoShop. Such actions save you a lot of work, since the action itself does the work for you.
Interesting, will have to look into it...but I feel like I'm cheating if I'm blindly pushing a button without understanding what it's doing. I like to do things manually at least until I "get it". That's why I like step-by-step guides where I can learn exactly what's happening (an example), as opposed to just downloading actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2009, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,276 posts, read 37,049,222 times
Reputation: 16391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the one photo with multiple exposures created artificially i find more often then not creats a ton of noise. the reality i found is that if you have the one photo and its a good exposure then just take the one and run it thru detail enhancer by itself. the one photo takes on a nice clean , not as sureal look most of the time.

you can do this with jpegs too, just duplicate the jpeg, dont change exposure but feed at least two photos into photomatix and it will enhance a jpeg.
Blending a RAW image that is saved to ".dng" does not create noise. All you do is to save the default or automatic image as is, and then increase the exposure a little each time in each of the following copies. Blend the images with PhotoMatix, and then process the blended image with Photoshop. If there is any digital noise on the image, you can remove it with PhotoShop, or with one of several applications (Noise Ninja, Neat Image, etc.), all of which work within the filters folder in PhotoShop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2009, 02:05 PM
 
106,248 posts, read 108,257,613 times
Reputation: 79791
its not blended images that are noisy, its one exposure that is artificially created into 3 exposures and then merged that we were refering to
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2009, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,276 posts, read 37,049,222 times
Reputation: 16391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Interesting, will have to look into it...but I feel like I'm cheating if I'm blindly pushing a button without understanding what it's doing. I like to do things manually at least until I "get it". That's why I like step-by-step guides where I can learn exactly what's happening (an example), as opposed to just downloading actions.
You can find numerous blending techniques that guide you through step-by-step on the Internet. Just search "photo blending." Most of these techniques are set-up to be used with PhotoShop, but there are a lot of software that do the blending for you automatically.

All you are doing is adding more depth to the range of color, to the range of light, and everything in the photo. HDR is somewhat similar to "bending," but a lot more intensive or strong. Read about HDR below, and that will give you an idea of what you can do by just blending three or four identical photos into one.

Also, most digital SLR cameras allow for you to set it so it can take three or more identical photos for you while mounted on a tripod. The camera can do that for you automatically, and you can blend these photos yourself with the aid of PhotoShop, PhotoMatix, etc.

HDR:
High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2009, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,276 posts, read 37,049,222 times
Reputation: 16391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
its not blended images that are noisy, its one exposure that is artificially created into 3 exposures and then merged that we were refering to
The only way that can happen is if the noise is present in the original image. But even this can be removed with Noise Ninja, Neat Image, PhotoShop, etc. The blending process blends tonal ranges (colors), light and darkness, etc. The resulting image is not a processed photo, but a sort of negative of an image. You still have to process this photo with PhotoShop or another application to add one of more of the following: brightness, light, saturation, contrast, etc.

Now JPG images can get noisy or lose quality the more you work on them and then save. I only shoot RAW, and then work on copies in dng, TIFF, or PSD formats.

Blending and HDR often make the photo look worst than intended, unless the person who is using it knows exactly what he or she is trying to achieve. But one can easily "blend" images a little bit to achieve great results. HDR is very intensive and takes time to control, but blending is a very light process.

Last edited by RayinAK; 10-11-2009 at 02:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2009, 02:23 PM
 
106,248 posts, read 108,257,613 times
Reputation: 79791
not so, maybe we arent talking the same thing but when you take one exposure and push it to synthetically push it up a stop or 2 and down a stop or 2 creates lots of noise. we arent talking taking 3 different shots initially , we are talking taking one exposure and artificially copying it over, bumping up and down 2 artificial exposures off that one then merging it.

i have seen the noise doing that many times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2009, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,276 posts, read 37,049,222 times
Reputation: 16391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
not so, maybe we arent talking the same thing but when you take one exposure and push it to synthetically push it up a stop or 2 and down a stop or 2 creates lots of noise. we arent talking taking 3 different shots initially , we are talking taking one exposure and artificially copying it over, bumping up and down 2 artificial exposures off that one then merging it.

i have seen the noise doing that many times
What I do is to push the exposure of the RAW image UP from the default image fractions of a stop. In other words, I first save the original image, which is slightly underexposed by the camera, and then increase exposure of the next RAW copy just a fraction of a stop. I continue doing this until the final copy is slightly overexposed. By then I may have anywhere from three to eight identical copies, each exposed slightly different. When these images are blended-in, the result is a sort of negative, and this in turn is processed with PhotoShop. With PhotoShop you can expose the photo in very small increments within a full f/stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2009, 04:10 PM
 
106,248 posts, read 108,257,613 times
Reputation: 79791
origionaly i would do my single exposures that way but then i began to notice that going to all the trouble of bumping up 2 more exposures off the 1 origional wasnt worth the effort. simply duplicating just 1 more exact copy of my origional let me feed it into photomatix and enhance it with a little less work

with both my wife and i shooting we need to trim every step as much as we can. today we went to the cloisters in newb york city... we have almost 500 pictures to review between us in 2-1/2 hours of shooting
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2009, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,276 posts, read 37,049,222 times
Reputation: 16391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
origionaly i would do my single exposures that way but then i began to notice that going to all the trouble of bumping up 2 more exposures off the 1 origional wasnt worth the effort. simply duplicating just 1 more exact copy of my origional let me feed it into photomatix and enhance it with a little less work

with both my wife and i shooting we need to trim every step as much as we can. today we went to the cloisters in newb york city... we have almost 500 pictures to review between us in 2-1/2 hours of shooting
Yes, that works. My Canon 40D slightly underexposes the photos, and I like that. I can set the camera to over/under expose, but I like the default mode the best. When to blend images, I only do so using the original plus one or two more exposed a little higher. PSE does this very well, and fast. I rarely blend photos, however.

But if I were using a Canon 5DII, I would hardly have the need to blend images since the tonal depth of this one is vastly superior to the 40D.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top