Desolate: 16 shot exposure stack -1.7 to -0.0

[Manfred M]

Jiji is ImageJ on steroids.

There are times when not being a techy simplifies things

I looked up the software and it seems to be primarily used for photo enhancement for scientific reasons, so I suspect that the algorithms do a lot of things that we would ordinarily not do in image processing for other purposes. I have no experience in this field at all, so cannot comment. I would expect that you can get some funky results.

That being said "not being techy" means you can get some interesting results but probably don't understand how you got there and repeatability might be an issue as well.

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

Thanks for your further explanations of what you are doing.

It would be interesting to see the results from the following test if you have time to do it;

a) Take 1 shot or use an existing reasonably exposed one.

b) Make 6 copies of it (giving 7 in total).

c) Alter 3 of the copies in PP to produce darker images of -1.5, -1.0 and -0.5 exposure.

d) Alter 3 of the copies in PP to produce lighter images of +0.5, +1.0 and +1.5 exposure.

e) Put all of these 7 images of varying exposure/brightness through your normal procedure in Fiji.

Then compare the 'result' with your 'original' image.

[Cogito]

Brian, your camera has the following specifications -
"Exposure Compensation
+/-5.0 EV (1/3EV, 1/2EV steps selectable)"

So to take 17 different images at "Compensation -0.0 to -1.7 is clearly impossible.

As others have asked, please explain.

BTW, it's still a nice image!

[xpatUSA]

I think this 'Brian-bashing' has gone far enough.

Brian has a condition whereby explanation of technical matters is not always possible. So this well-meant onslaught of conventional wisdom may not have the desired effect and it is quite possible that he will not be helped at all.

The bottom line is that the image is excellent and how that was achieved should remain moot in this case.

Pardon me, Brian, for speaking up on your behalf.

[Stagecoach]

Brian, your camera has the following specifications -
"Exposure Compensation
+/-5.0 EV (1/3EV, 1/2EV steps selectable)"

So to take 17 different images at "Compensation -0.0 to -1.7 is clearly impossible.

As others have asked, please explain.

If you read Brian's post 14 he explains very clearly what the 16 shots consisted of.

okay, I took 16 shots all within the exposure compensation range of 0.0 to -1.7. They were taken with 3 steps between them.

Every exposure stop had two shots. (probably)

Hope that helps

[JBW]

I looked up the software and it seems to be primarily used for photo enhancement for scientific reasons, so I suspect that the algorithms do a lot of things that we would ordinarily not do in image processing for other purposes. I have no experience in this field at all, so cannot comment. I would expect that you can get some funky results.

That being said "not being techy" means you can get some interesting results but probably don't understand how you got there and repeatability might be an issue as well.

I don't understand the physics in 99% of my life. I doubt that many of us do. But that doesn't mean I can't get clean laundry or fly a kite. You can, without understanding the chemistry bake bread and even create new recipes.

I do know that if I do A, B, and C I get result D. Which means I can replicate and modify as the need arises.

[JBW]

Brian, your camera has the following specifications -
"Exposure Compensation
+/-5.0 EV (1/3EV, 1/2EV steps selectable)"

So to take 17 different images at "Compensation -0.0 to -1.7 is clearly impossible.

As others have asked, please explain.

BTW, it's still a nice image!

It does indeed but I've never been able to find all that exposure compensation when I'm in manual. Any suggestions. It is not impossible. You simply cl;ick the shutter 17 times. Each shot will be different. Remember I am shooting outdoors and things change quickly

[JBW]

Brian,

Thanks for your further explanations of what you are doing.

It would be interesting to see the results from the following test if you have time to do it;

a) Take 1 shot or use an existing reasonably exposed one.

b) Make 6 copies of it (giving 7 in total).

c) Alter 3 of the copies in PP to produce darker images of -1.5, -1.0 and -0.5 exposure.

d) Alter 3 of the copies in PP to produce lighter images of +0.5, +1.0 and +1.5 exposure.

e) Put all of these 7 images of varying exposure/brightness through your normal procedure in Fiji.

Then compare the 'result' with your 'original' image.

With the simple exception of doing it in steps of 3 (as in the original) I'll have a go at it. My back went out yesterday so carrying a camera around today is a no-no.

[JBW]

I think this 'Brian-bashing' has gone far enough.

Brian has a condition whereby explanation of technical matters is not always possible. So this well-meant onslaught of conventional wisdom may not have the desired effect and it is quite possible that he will not be helped at all.

The bottom line is that the image is excellent and how that was achieved should remain moot in this case.

Pardon me, Brian, for speaking up on your behalf.

No pardon required. Aside from MS clouding my brain I've always been m ore of a touchy feely than a scientist.

[Manfred M]

I don't understand the physics in 99% of my life. I doubt that many of us do. But that doesn't mean I can't get clean laundry or fly a kite. You can, without understanding the chemistry bake bread and even create new recipes.

I do know that if I do A, B, and C I get result D. Which means I can replicate and modify as the need arises.

Brian - I agree to a point, but what is important is the basic understanding of the abilities and limitations of the tools one uses.

When I see you post that you stacked 19 images with very small exposure changes to produce an image that can be reproduced in a single exposure or when you write that the focus point changes when you shoot at different apertures I feel that you might want to review some of the basics.

The problem with photography (and most other endeavours) is that the more complicated the process is, the more likely a mistake will occur or something will go wrong. That makes it difficult to repeat a process the same way. I'm a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle and will only use a more complex approach if I can't get it to work with a simple technique.

[JBW]

Brian - I agree to a point, but what is important is the basic understanding of the abilities and limitations of the tools one uses.

When I see you post that you stacked 19 images with very small exposure changes to produce an image that can be reproduced in a single exposure or when you write that the focus point changes when you shoot at different apertures I feel that you might want to review some of the basics.

The problem with photography (and most other endeavours) is that the more complicated the process is, the more likely a mistake will occur or something will go wrong. That makes it difficult to repeat a process the same way. I'm a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle and will only use a more complex approach if I can't get it to work with a simple technique.

Stagecoach in an earlier post suggested a simple test. I took his suggestion and ran with it. The results are in the post processing forum and may be found here. You will be surprised.

And again i make you an offer to send you the RAW file and have you reproduce my shot. If you can terrific, if you can't your apology is already accepted.

[Manfred M]

Stagecoach in an earlier post suggested a simple test. I took his suggestion and ran with it. The results are in the post processing forum and may be found here. You will be surprised.

And again i make you an offer to send you the RAW file and have you reproduce my shot. If you can terrific, if you can't your apology is already accepted.

Actually I am not surprised and I will certainly look at your shot if you send it to me. I won't be able to get an identical result as I would not be using the same workflow as you do nor would I be using the same tools, but I will most definitely be able to enhance the look versus the original.

Take a look at the post you started as I have already done one image using a global single image and another using the approach I follow with virtually all of my "serious" image work and note the difference in look and colour depth. I used a base image that has low colour depth, mediocre lighting, etc and was still able pull out data from the original that cannot be seen in the original single image shot.

My approach is very likely quite similar to how Donald finishes his images; primarily through local rather than global adjustments. This is quite similar to how I used to work in the wet darkroom, although I can finish an image far more quickly using digital tools.