At The request Of Stagecoach: Testing the effect of EXPOSURE Stacking

[JBW]

I believe that Exposure stacking creates a deeper richer shot. Some people don't believe that it is possible. It was suggested that I take one reasonably exposed shot and make six copies. Then to apply six exposure compensations, three up and three down. Stack them in Fiji and see how the stacked and the single shot compare. Seemed like a good idea to me.

But a better idea with an edition. My original shot had all the exposure compensation to the minus side. Which means I have also included a pure minus side shot.

Here they are: Shot #1 is the base shot, #2 is the balanced stack shot and #3 is the all minus stack. Do you see a difference in any or all of the shots? To my old man's eyes both of the stacked shots appear to have richer, deeper and darker colors than the base shot.

To my way of thinking this conclusively proves that exposure stacking gives a very different shot than can be gotten with a single shot.

Brian

[Shadowman]

My only concern with exposure stacking is subject movement, if there is no movement then the experiment will be somewhat effortless in the stacking process. Regarding the need to exposure stack in the first place is where most of the debate occurs, I wonder if you left out the capture steps you'd get less comments on your procedure and more on the impact of the capture. I realize using the technique is personal to you and I guess if you plan to continue displaying images using the technique then you might get less criticism if you were to also display an identical image which didn't require stacking; sort of showing us where you see the limitations of or benefits of using one technique over the other.

[JBW]

My only concern with exposure stacking is subject movement, if there is no movement then the experiment will be somewhat effortless in the stacking process. Regarding the need to exposure stack in the first place is where most of the debate occurs, I wonder if you left out the capture steps you'd get less comments on your procedure and more on the impact of the capture. I realize using the technique is personal to you and I guess if you plan to continue displaying images using the technique then you might get less criticism if you were to also display an identical image which didn't require stacking; sort of showing us where you see the limitations of or benefits of using one technique over the other.

true enough if they move it becomes senseless. I have on occasion taken 18 yes eighteen second insect exposures. They were deep and rich in color and texture. Those who say exposure stacking doesn't make any difference were also nay sayers about the benefits of long exposure.

You are undoubtedly correct about leaving that detail out of my commentary. I just thought that others might want to give it a try.

At least now I've shown that with my tools it is a legitimate technique. I don't know why it works but I know it works.

[Stagecoach]

Here we are Brian, I approached this in a different way.

I opened your three images in ACR and placed the colour sampler tool on 5 places. These positions are identical on each of the images.

I then adjusted No 2 and No 3 (the stacks) using the global 'exposure' slider to match the No 1 base image at sampler point 1.

The results of the differences are evident by the numbers.

No 1


No 2


No 3


So the conclusion we can make from this is that it is impossible to make the images the same by just making a global adjustment

[Manfred M]

So the conclusion we can make from this is that it is impossible to make the images the same by just making a global adjustment

No surprise at all here Grahame.

Let's look at what is likely happening with the software Brian is using and then compare how that would be emulated in a more conventional way.

The process Brian is using resembles the way a traditional HDR image is built up where a number of different images are taken and the software then combines these images into a single image. With HDR we do very much like what Brian has done and take a number of images at different exposures and let the software with its rules combine the various images into one. Based on the rules of the software different parts of each image are selected and used in the final outcome.

In a conventional approach, I cannot see how using a single. global approach could emulate this, so Lightroom is not the appropriate tool to use here. A more reasonable approach would be to use Photoshop and layers and process the individual parts of a well taken image individually; sharpening, adjusting contrast, dodging, burning, etc. LOCALLY to bring out parts of the image. This is the way that most advanced users approach a single image when they turn it into a final product.

Let me demonstrate with an image I'm about to post. This is a single image shot done at ISO 5600 (i.e. the noise, dynamic range and colour depth are not wonderful). I was shooting as the engine was being moved out of a display building by a shunt engine, so needed a high ISO and was tracking from inside the building to the exterior shot we see here.



Image 1 - Global adjustments only





Image 2 - Local adjustments + Global adjustments (6 adjustment layers + 2 filters)




This screen shot shows the layers I used to come up with the final image (which I need to refine a touch more as I don't like the layer mask used for the sky).

[JBW]

No surprise at all here Grahame.

Let's look at what is likely happening with the software Brian is using and then compare how that would be emulated in a more conventional way.

The process Brian is using resembles the way a traditional HDR image is built up where a number of different images are taken and the software then combines these images into a single image. With HDR we do very much like what Brian has done and take a number of images at different exposures and let the software with its rules combine the various images into one. Based on the rules of the software different parts of each image are selected and used in the final outcome.

In a conventional approach, I cannot see how using a single. global approach could emulate this, so Lightroom is not the appropriate tool to use here. A more reasonable approach would be to use Photoshop and layers and process the individual parts of a well taken image individually; sharpening, adjusting contrast, dodging, burning, etc. LOCALLY to bring out parts of the image. This is the way that most advanced users approach a single image when they turn it into a final product.

Let me demonstrate with an image I'm about to post. This is a single image shot done at ISO 5600 (i.e. the noise, dynamic range and colour depth are not wonderful). I was shooting as the engine was being moved out of a display building by a shunt engine, so needed a high ISO and was tracking from inside the building to the exterior shot we see here.



Image 1 - Global adjustments only





Image 2 - Local adjustments + Global adjustments (6 adjustment layers + 2 filters)




This screen shot shows the layers I used to come up with the final image (which I need to refine a touch more as I don't like the layer mask used for the sky).

Manfred, you started off your comments by emphatically stating that what I thought was happening could not possibly happen. Now that you have been shown that it is happening and in much the way I thought it was you have changed your critique.

Now you state that most advanced photographers do it your way. The clear implication being that I'm neither advanced nor one of the crowd.

How good or bad I am I leave to others. Now and again I place well in the CiC monthly challenges. To me this means that on occasion I create a pretty good image.

As for not following the crowd... why would I want to. You have your techniques that fit your style. they produce technically good shots. However as you often proclaim they aren't artistic. fair enough there is no reason they should be.

You shoot nudes, trains, children and structures. None of which are in my niche.

I shoot in my garden/temple. I shoot close-up / macro. I have a style and an aim which is constantly being refined.

There are some points and places where the rules you follow apply to me. there are others where they don't.

For the record I do dodge and burn and clone and do a fair number of local adjustments. But I do them after Exposure stacking, when I Exposure stack. That you and others can't see them is a good thing.

you used to tell me that it was stupid not to use all of the auto settings and built in do dads that came with my very technically advanced camera. Now you are telling me that to use a seriously technically advanced program that produces the results I'm looking for is wrong.

Reality is that as long as it produces what I am interested in using I'm going to use it.

Brian

[DanK]

Brian,

I won't speak for Manfred, but I'll answer for myself, since your criticism of him could apply to some degree to me. I have not the slightest interest in persuading you to follow the crowd or to do what I do, and I am guessing that this is true of Manfred as well. The reason I was trying to figure out what you are doing was because I couldn't understand (and to some extent still can't understand) what you were actually doing. To be honest, it came across as "I am following some recipe, and I don't really know what the ingredients are, but sometimes it seems to taste good." No harm in that, but I think that figuring out what your process is actually doing would help you get the results you want more often. It might also help others, including me, if we could figure out what ingredients are responsible when the stuff tastes good.

If you don't want that kind of feedback, which is intended to be constructive, I suggest that you not post descriptions of what you have done. This is a forum in which people comment on each others techniques in an attempt to help the OP, others, and even the respondent her(him)self.

I don't always agree with what Manfred posts, either in reference to my shots or in reference to the images of others. However, I can say that over the past several years, I have learned more from his comments than from the comments of any other person who participates on this forum. That's not criticism of anyone else; I have learned plenty from others as well.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Manfred, you started off your comments by emphatically stating that what I thought was happening could not possibly happen. Now that you have been shown that it is happening and in much the way I thought it was you have changed your critique.

Brian you are definitely misinterpreting what I wrote. Part of the issue (and the reason I asked the question) is that intuitively the process you laid out did not make sense to me and to some other photographers. The fact that you were using specialized software that is used by the scientific community was not mentioned until well into the discussion.

I still maintain what I originally wrote is correct and the additional information you provided shed a different light on what you were doing. Unfortunately, I am not a mind reader and rely on the information you provide in your postings.

Think about your postings about UV photography. You got some excellent answers on the subject, but it turned out that you were not writing about UV photography at all, but rather photographing objects illuminated by a black light. The question you were asking and the answers we were giving were about totally different subjects. The same thing appears to have happened here and until you clarified your approach, we could not understand what you were doing.

If you are clear about what you are doing, it is far easier for the rest of us to understand what you are up to and can make a reasonable comment.

Now you state that most advanced photographers do it your way. The clear implication being that I'm neither advanced nor one of the crowd.

Sorry to disappoint you Brian, but you are not an advanced photographer. You are pushing into intermediate levels with some of your work. In general, I am viewed as an intermediate to advanced photographer, depending on the subject matter. In genres like macro and sports photography, I would be a beginner. I still take a lot of courses and attend master classes to improve my skills, both behind the camera and in the digital darkroom.

The way to recognize an advanced photographer is that they consistently produce superior results rather than creating the occasional interesting image.

My comments about workflow have nothing to do with being part of a crowd, but rather about a solid workflow that gives you strong and consistent results. So far as I can tell you are still not there. That is one reason that I suggested that you look at a more formal approach through online learning so that you settle into a strong workflow using a set of tools you know well and are comfortable with. Flitting from one set of software to another is generally not what one would expect in someone who is working at an intermediate to advanced level.

How good or bad I am I leave to others. Now and again I place well in the CiC monthly challenges. To me this means that on occasion I create a pretty good image.

That is quite true, but we should not forget that the monthly competitions here are judged by your peers, rather than experienced and trained photographic judges. If you want to go the next level in your work, look at joining a photographic organization that does this. The Photographic Society of America (PSA) would be one such organization.


https://psa-photo.org/index.php?psa-competition-dates

In competitions and contests "People's Choice" awards are quite often not in line with what the competition judges come up with. The CiC completions are good, but the judging is variable.

As for not following the crowd... why would I want to. You have your techniques that fit your style. they produce technically good shots. However as you often proclaim they aren't artistic. fair enough there is no reason they should be.

There are two distinctly different aspects to "following a crowd". In photography, as in any other discipline there are some established "best practices". Learning and using these helps the individual learn the craft without "reinventing the wheel". People who follow the path tend to become good in their practice much more quickly than those that do not. Most people who have made their mark in their have gone through this process because once they have learned the basics and a workflow they have the skill set and tools to innovate. There are exceptions, of course, but they tend to be quite rare.

When it comes to photography there are two general schools that teach this subject; one is essentially designed to turn out commercial photographers, regardless of whether they shoot weddings, portraits or photojournalism. The second school is the ones that head off in the direction of "fine art photography", which is essentially pieces that can be found in galleries.

Neither the work I have seen you do nor the work I do generally falls into either of these categories. That is the main reason I mention that I suggest my work is not art; I have a different purpose in making photographic images.

You shoot nudes, trains, children and structures. None of which are in my niche.

I generally describe myself as a travel photographer who has recently gotten into portraiture work. Most of my work is landscapes (including urban landscapes) and bits and pieces to tell a story of what I have seen when I am out with my camera. I rarely shoot trains and children. I am intrigued by nudes because most portrait photographers will tell you that this is the most challenging aspect of portraiture and frankly, I am not particularly good at them yet.

I shoot in my garden/temple. I shoot close-up / macro. I have a style and an aim which is constantly being refined.

I understand what you shoot Brian and where you shoot and why. In an end result a good image is exactly that, regardless of the genre. There is a common thread in what works well as an image and what works less well. The techniques used to achieve these results will be different, of course.

A photographic style is something one grows into and is constantly being refined. Most photographers do not end up finding their style until they have been shooting for quite some time, usually measured in years.

There are some points and places where the rules you follow apply to me. there are others where they don't.

Carefully said, rules of photography are a good learning tool but do not guarantee good results. The important part of these rules is to understand how they impact the composition as well as to how and why it does or does not work. They are also useful in describing an image as it gives photographers a common terminology when describing things.

As for applicability, I cannot answer that as these vary from situation to situation. I do suspect that they probably apply more than you think.

For the record I do dodge and burn and clone and do a fair number of local adjustments. But I do them after Exposure stacking, when I Exposure stack. That you and others can't see them is a good thing.

That is a good thing. Burning and dodging are the most common operations I perform on an image. I sometimes spend hours just on those two operations alone. Not seeing where this has been done is a good thing and suggests you are doing them well.

you used to tell me that it was stupid not to use all of the auto settings and built in do dads that came with my very technically advanced camera. Now you are telling me that to use a seriously technically advanced program that produces the results I'm looking for is wrong.

Again you misunderstand what I have written. When I suggested that you start using some of the automation features on your camera it was with the intent of letting you concentrate on framing and composing the image and letting the camera take care of some of the other decisions for you while you developed those skills. As those skills develop, one then can start testing out other options, such as manual controls, etc.

I do know some photographers who insist that people learn to shoot in manual mode before using automation, much like I know some drivers who suggest that someone needs to learn how to drive a standard transmission vehicle before learning to drive one that has an automatic transmission. I do not hold either of these views to be particularly useful.

That being said, there is a similar view when it comes to running complex image manipulation software, like what you are using. Having the software ingest 19 different files, including a significant number of duplicates suggests you do not understand it well enough to use it optimally.

Reality is that as long as it produces what I am interested in using I'm going to use it.

I can't argue with that, but then you are likely on your own as do not appear to understand what the software is doing. That is the downside of the "black box" approach because unless one understands what is happening, it is difficult to predict the outcome. Would the results have been just as good had you used two or three files? Is 19 the right number rather than say 30?

Had you used software like Serif Affinity or Corel Paint Shop Pro or GIMP some of us could probably make an educated guess as pixel based editors that support layers by and large work in a similar way, although some of the details of the implementations do differ.

[JBW]

Brian,

I won't speak for Manfred, but I'll answer for myself, since your criticism of him could apply to some degree to me. I have not the slightest interest in persuading you to follow the crowd or to do what I do, and I am guessing that this is true of Manfred as well. The reason I was trying to figure out what you are doing was because I couldn't understand (and to some extent still can't understand) what you were actually doing. To be honest, it came across as "I am following some recipe, and I don't really know what the ingredients are, but sometimes it seems to taste good." No harm in that, but I think that figuring out what your process is actually doing would help you get the results you want more often. It might also help others, including me, if we could figure out what ingredients are responsible when the stuff tastes good.

If you don't want that kind of feedback, which is intended to be constructive, I suggest that you not post descriptions of what you have done. This is a forum in which people comment on each others techniques in an attempt to help the OP, others, and even the respondent her(him)self.

I don't always agree with what Manfred posts, either in reference to my shots or in reference to the images of others. However, I can say that over the past several years, I have learned more from his comments than from the comments of any other person who participates on this forum. That's not criticism of anyone else; I have learned plenty from others as well.

Dan

If you want to give me constructive criticism you really need to read my explanation of what I am doing in a closer fashion. I explained the technique and the program. I certainly don't know the inner workings of Fiji but then I don't have to. All I have to know is how to manipulate the program to achieve the desired results.

As for the other ingredients I listed them all. Number or shots, that it was exposure stacking, natural light etc.. If you can't understand my explanation because it is unclear is one thing. If you refuse to understand it because it doesn't fit your understanding of the possible that's another.

How deeply do you understand the science that your gear and programs use? Unless you can do he programming and design them I would suggest not much better than I do.

Brian

[xpatUSA]

How deeply do you understand the science that your gear and programs use? Unless you can do [the] programming and design them I would suggest not much better than I do.

Brian

Unfair comment Brian, sorry. Dan's knowledge of camera/lens design and programming ability is a Straw Man.

[JBW]

Brian you are definitely misinterpreting what I wrote. Part of the issue (and the reason I asked the question) is that intuitively the process you laid out did not make sense to me and to some other photographers. The fact that you were using specialized software that is used by the scientific community was not mentioned until well into the discussion..

Manfred right from the start of your response and indeed right from the start of yhour comments on my using exposure stacking you have been seeing only what you want to see.

Look at my posting where i used exposure stacking they plainly state that I amusing Fiji. I pdid not hide the fact. You simply didn't register it.

Sony Alpha a68 ~ Tamron 90mm 272E Macro Lens ~ ISO 100 ~ Shutter Speed 1/40s ~ F/16 ~ Exposure Compensation -0.0 to -1.7 ~ Natural Light ~ Stacked in Fiji

Another example off your not reading what I write is your continual statement that I stacked 19 shot. For the last and final time i will correct you. I used SIXTEEN shots.

Again you apparently believe that I have called myself an advanced photographer. I haven't.

By your own admission the best you can offer is an educated guess. I offered facts. I do this and I get that. You chose not to believe the observable facts and you seem unwilling to believe the scientific basis for my observed facts offered by Expat and Stagecoach.

Either this is some strange teaching technique or you are incapable of admitting that others have ways of doing things that work.

I would not ask you to not comment but I must strongly request you comment on what I post. If you are unwilling to comment on what I actually post perhaps your talents would best be applied to others.
Brian

[Stagecoach]

No surprise at all here Grahame.

Let's look at what is likely happening with the software Brian is using and then compare how that would be emulated in a more conventional way.

My interest in this Manfred is to investigate the software/process Brian is using to see if some idea/conclusion can be made from the 'results' achieved as to what's happening, not to compare how it could be emulated in other ways which are simply basic processes that many of us use.

The process Brian is using resembles the way a traditional HDR image is built up where a number of different images are taken and the software then combines these images into a single image. With HDR we do very much like what Brian has done and take a number of images at different exposures and let the software with its rules combine the various images into one. Based on the rules of the software different parts of each image are selected and used in the final outcome.

Whilst I would agree that some similarities exist between what Brian is doing and conventional HDR, auto stacking or manual manipulation we normally undertake those with a simple clear objective to give a result that does not have a blown out sky or view through a window and to enhance our lighting/detail in dark areas.

What we do not know is what 'objectives' are being used in the programme/process Brian is using.

If we go back to Brian's previous post example of the before and after spider stack image it showed a strange anomaly in one area where what had been a gradual gradient of tone on the 'original' (which was 1 of 17) that changed in the 'result' to a very clear 'step' in that previously smooth gradient.

This could have been caused by;

a) The stacking programme
b) A change in light/shadow in that area on one of the 17 images
c) Post processing local changes to either 1 of the 17 or the 'result'.

For this reason I suggested he undertake a more controlled example using images that had been manually adjusted for exposure from 1 single base image. This test would give a 'truer' example of what the programme is doing if we 'assume' that globally adjusting the exposure in post gives an equivalent result to changing exposure in camera.

What the results showed me were that in this test the smooth graduation area that was significantly 'stepped' in the 'result' and raised a question previously was not evident this time, suggesting it was caused by b) or c) above.

The changes that we see in RGB values I will reserve any comment on at present without investigating if a change in exposure in pp (and that would be software specific) gives an equivalent variation in values as if doing it it camera.

[JBW]

Unfair comment Brian, sorry. Dan's knowledge of camera/lens design and programming ability is a Straw Man.

Fair enough, my apologies.

The moral equivalency argument is a poor tool.

I should have said that few of us really deeply understand the equipment we use. As for my own ignorance it is legendary. I'm simply happy to use Fiji or my camera in a way that gets the results I'm hoping for.

[Manfred M]

My interest in this Manfred is to investigate the software/process Brian is using to see if some idea/conclusion can be made from the 'results' achieved as to what's happening, not to compare how it could be emulated in other ways which are simply basic processes that many of us use.

I understood that Grahame. The issue is what I alluded to when I wrote about the "black box" approach in using specialty software or plugins in terms of trying to figure out what they are doing and a systematic approach that you proposed makes a lot of sense.

Whilst I would agree that some similarities exist between what Brian is doing and conventional HDR, auto stacking or manual manipulation we normally undertake those with a simple clear objective to give a result that does not have a blown out sky or view through a window and to enhance our lighting/detail in dark areas.

It is also used (or misused) to create tone maps that assign new values to specific data or data ranges. In some HDR software this can result in the image looking quite different from what the original looks like.

What we do not know is what 'objectives' are being used in the programme/process Brian is using.

I did a quick read up on Fiji and ImageJ software and both appear to be scientific image acquisition and processing software. Fiji is ImageJ bundled with other software to give the end user more tools. From what I can tell is was primarily developed as a tool for combining and analyzing microscopy data for neuroscience research. Do I get the feeling that the tools were not developed for anything along the lines of what Brian has been doing with it. This is not a photographic image editing tool, but a hardcore tool for scientific research.

I have no experience with this particular software, but some of the design software I have used in the past was designed to show anomalies or areas of interest (areas where failures would occur or unwanted behaviour (overheated, for instance). The areas of interest colours were mapped so that the viewer could quickly home in on these areas.

[Stagecoach]

I did a quick read up on Fiji and ImageJ software and both appear to be scientific image acquisition and processing software. Fiji is ImageJ bundled with other software to give the end user more tools. From what I can tell is was primarily developed as a tool for combining and analyzing microscopy data for neuroscience research. Do I get the feeling that the tools were not developed for anything along the lines of what Brian has been doing with it. This is not a photographic image editing tool, but a hardcore tool for scientific research.

I just Google searched on "Fiji ImageJ use" and the first one I opened was this

http://www.icmr.ucsb.edu/programs/3D...I_Tutorial.pdf

with this example;

[xpatUSA]

I just Google searched on "Fiji ImageJ use" and the first one I opened was this

http://www.icmr.ucsb.edu/programs/3D...I_Tutorial.pdf

with this example;

I just grasped significance of the post.

Thanks for the link.

[Manfred M]

I just Google searched on "Fiji ImageJ use" and the first one I opened was this

http://www.icmr.ucsb.edu/programs/3D...I_Tutorial.pdf

with this example;

I downloaded Fiji and started going through some of the documentation yesterday and found some fairly interesting functionality including the ability to use one's own or pre-built LUTs to enhance the analysis. Nicely said this software is extremely powerful for remapping individual or groups of data using various techniques to give the user visual enhancements.

Brian has misunderstood as to how this tool works and misinterpreted what his workflow actually achieved.

[Manfred M]

Manfred right from the start of your response and indeed right from the start of yhour comments on my using exposure stacking you have been seeing only what you want to see.

No Brian, I saw something that did not make any sense from a photographic standpoint. You stated that your 16 exposures varied from -1.7 eV to 0 eV. That is not a lot. Your explanation of what the Fiji software is doing really does not add up

Look at my posting where i used exposure stacking they plainly state that I amusing Fiji. I pdid not hide the fact. You simply didn't register it.

You are quite correct. Somehow the comment "Stacked in Fiji" went right over my head. I am usually fairly up on software used in photography and I had not heard of Fiji, so I did not make the connection.

Another example off your not reading what I write is your continual statement that I stacked 19 shot. For the last and final time i will correct you. I used SIXTEEN shots.

Sorry, I guess none of your responses have any typos or other errors. Regardless, if you are shooting panos or are focus stacking 16 (or 19 ) images is not something I would question. When it involves exposure blending, regardless of the tools or technique used; this number makes no sense at all, especially given the relatively small change in exposures.

Again you apparently believe that I have called myself an advanced photographer. I haven't.

I don't believe I said that. I merely pointed out where I thought your (and my) current photographic skill levels lie.

By your own admission the best you can offer is an educated guess. I offered facts. I do this and I get that. You chose not to believe the observable facts and you seem unwilling to believe the scientific basis for my observed facts offered by Expat and Stagecoach.

No, it is not an educated guess on my part. I understand this aspect of photography quite well and have used multiple techniques including HDR, exposure fusion and hand blending when doing exposure blending. When you mentioned this took, it piqued my interest.

I downloaded it and installed it on my computer and started reading the documentation. While I have just scratched the surface, I am quite certain that it is not doing what you think it is. Fiji is an image ingestion and manipulation tool primarily for Life Sciences work especially for microscopy work. It enables the user to manipulate images so as to enhance them for scientific analysis. You are using the tool in a way that it was not designed to be used.

Grahame, Ted and I all have an engineering background, I believe. Dan has a different background, but his approach is quite similar and very systematic. We tend to look at problems in a very systematic way to gain an understanding as to what is happening. We all approached this from a slightly different direction. Take a look at Grahame's post #15; that is a clear visual example that this software does significant remapping of data to help the user better visualize their research data.

I suggest you read the link that Grahame has posted: http://www.icmr.ucsb.edu/programs/3D...I_Tutorial.pdf

It explains what Fiji / ImageJ is used for.

Either this is some strange teaching technique or you are incapable of admitting that others have ways of doing things that work.

I have no issues at all seeing things that work when the user can explain what and why something is happening. I submit that what you think is happening with the images you run through Fiji and what is really happening are quite different.

I would not ask you to not comment but I must strongly request you comment on what I post. If you are unwilling to comment on what I actually post perhaps your talents would best be applied to others.

Sorry Brian, that is not going to happen, especially if what you post something that clearly does not seem to make sense and you are unable back up your position in a meaningful way that people can understand.

If you are posting here to get "likes", I suggest you head over to Facebook and post there. At CiC you are going to get honest opinions of what you have posted and while you may not always agree you should consider the comments as being well meaning. Resorting to name calling is not acceptable.

[DanK]

I'll weigh in one more time. I wrote a long response but then deleted it.

Brian, you wrote:

How deeply do you understand the science that your gear and programs use? Unless you can do he programming and design them I would suggest not much better than I do.

That's wrong on all counts. I don't care what opinion you have of my understanding, but your writing this suggests that you still don't understand what I and some others were writing.

One doesn't need to know the programming underneath software to know how it works and use it well. I have earned part of my livelihood using statistical software. It is essential that I know what it does in response to my commands; it is usually entirely irrelevant whether I know how the underlying code implements my instructions. To take an example from this past week: I had to generate a matrix that included three correlations with exactly certain values. I know which of the tools in the software I use will do that (as opposed to generating correlated draws from a probability distribution, which will vary somewhat), and I know what instructions I had to give it to generate the results I needed. In a matter of a few minutes, I was able to generate exactly what I needed. There was no guesswork; I didn't say to myself "I'll try this and see what it gets me." I knew what I needed, and I got it. Do I know how that underlying code was written? Not a clue. Would knowing it help me get what I needed? Nope.

The same principle holds true with photo editing. If you put your own work aside and look at the discussions among other people, you will see a great deal of discussion of exactly this type of understanding. People suggest ways of using software to obtain specific results, and they will sometimes explain the mechanism.

That's what I was trying to do in this instance, and I believe it is what Manfred and Grahame were trying to do as well. Just speaking for myself, my first task was to figure out what you did, since your initial description made no sense to me for several reasons. After several prompts, you provided a clear description of the input images, but I still have no idea what your command was telling Fuji to do, and you haven't explained. You simply said, in effect, "I pushed this button." I also have no idea why you did what you did. Why so many copies, for example? I was trying to sort this out for my own sake, for the sake of others who might be interested, and most of all for your own sake, since using software without any idea of what you are commanding it to do is not going to hold you back.

Your response was to get angry and to lash out in an ad hominem and frankly nasty way. Unfortunately, this is not the first time you have done this, although it might be the first time I was one of the recipients. I think that is inappropriate on this forum. I can count on one hand the number of participants over the almost 8 years I have watched this forum who have responded to queries and criticism this way.

I think Manfred's comment is right on the money: if you want likes and only easy-to-follow suggestions, this is the wrong place. This is a place where people trade serious suggestions and criticisms and discuss techniques for doing better. I have learned a great deal from people here, and that's why I come back. Yes, it sometimes stings when someone offers a good criticism of a photo that I thought was just dandy, but that's part of the process. This is a place for learning.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

No Brian, I saw something that did not make any sense from a photographic standpoint. You stated that your 16 exposures varied from -1.7 eV to 0 eV.

Pardon my pedantry, Manfred, but can we use EV or Ev for exposure?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

eV stands for electron-Volts - as is often found in text involving photons and photo-diodes.