Image & Focus stacking

[YossarianXXI]

Hi,

I'm looking for a good image & focus stacking tutorial in Lightroom thread or site. I looked over the site tutorials & did a search through the forum threads & I didn't find anything. I did find a few through a Google search, but was wondering if anyone on here had one they liked or found most helpful.

EDIT: I should probably give some background here into what i'm looking for:

I have pictures, usually after sunset or before sunrise, where the focus object is the right lighting but the sky is over exposed and then take another shot where the sky is right but the object is underexposed. I understand that focus stacking can help this image, but i've never actually used it, and would like to work on it.

From searching the forum posts on here i also understand that Lightroom now has a way to do this even if the 2 images aren't exactly the same

Thanks!

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC. It does not sound like you are actually looking at focus stacking, but rather a way of dealing with a high dynamic range image (HDRI).

Lightroom and Photoshop / Adobe Camera Raw do have the capability to merge two or more images, done at different exposures, in the way you describe. The process is technically called "tone mapping". There are a number of proprietary programs that do this; Photomatix is probably the most popular and has more functionality than Photoshop / Lightroom. There are tons of online tutorials on this. Ideally you will shoot from a sturdy tripod, but you are correct, there is autoalign functionality in the software that can do this.

You can also get a plug-in for Lightroom called LR/Enfuse that works slightly differently than HDR. People like this approach because the output tends to look a lot more natural.

My preferred approach is to hand blend these images in Photoshop, but that is generally viewed as an advanced technique.

Focus stacking is a completely different technique where the image is taken with the focus set to different points in the scene to end up with an image that it totally in focus from the closest to the farthest element in the scene. It does not look like this is what you are trying to do.

[DanK]

As Manfred said, you are looking at ways to blend exposures, not focus stacking.

To elaborate a little on Manfred's post: the two ways to do this are typically called (1) HDR or tone mapping, and (2) exposure blending or exposure fusion. The first remaps the tones in the images. It can lead to distorted colors and the "grunge" look one often sees in HDS. The second simply takes well exposed portions from each image and puts them into a composite. Manfred's manual blending is a manual method of doing exposure fusion.

Lightroom's "merge to HDR" function is technical the first, but unlike many such methods it tends to produce very natural colors. An alternative in LR is the plug-in that Manfred mentioned, which is an exposure fusion method. I used LR Enfuse for years, but I now sometimes use LR's merge to HDR, as in my experience it produces quite similar results.

[Geoff F]

I do a lot of exposure merging and like Manfred I prefer to do the merge manually using layers and masks which I edited in various ways.

Can you set your camera to automatically shoot a number of bracketed exposures? Usually 3 but it can be 5 shots. Ideally, you will be able to vary the amount of exposure difference between the shots.

I have found that I can do this with hand held shooting, providing there is a bit of overlap for trimming any slight edge misalignment.

Editing is simply stacking the shots as layers then using an auto alignment setting before applying the masks and editing in various methods.

The problem comes with any subject movement between shots. However this can sometimes be overcome if the movement area is kept in synch with the area directly behind; which is where hand editing of masks is so useful.

There is another method which I frequently use when movement cannot be avoided. Take one shot which is in the middle area of the required exposure range and do some basic editing to suit the mid range. Then create one or more copies (eg end up with 3 layers) and edit them to suit the more extreme ends of the required range. Once again, merge by editing some masks.

That method isn't true HDR but it will often produce an acceptable substitute.

Changing a sky, etc, is another alternative way of creating a similar result although the success rate tends to depend on the actual scenes and your degree of area selecting skill

Maybe if you post a few examples we can have a go with them and run through the editing methods in more detail.

[DanK]

Lightroom now has a way to do this even if the 2 images aren't exactly the same

Lightroom requires that the images be the same other than exposure. It can compensate for minor difference in alignment, but not large ones.

There is another method which I frequently use when movement cannot be avoided. Take one shot which is in the middle area of the required exposure range and do some basic editing to suit the mid range. Then create one or more copies (eg end up with 3 layers) and edit them to suit the more extreme ends of the required range. Once again, merge by editing some masks.

That method isn't true HDR but it will often produce an acceptable substitute.

Since you are new to this, I think it's worth pointing out a distinction. Sometimes you have an situation where the image doesn't exceed the dynamic range of the sensor but where parts of the image are squished into the top or bottom of the histogram. I think that's what Geoff is referring to. The method he describes is one of several ways to try to make the best of this situation. However, sometimes you have a situation where the range of brightness in the scene exceeds what your camera can handle, and some of the image is pure black or pure white ("clipped" or "blown out"), with no data recorded other than the value for black (0) or white (255). In that case, Geoff's method won't work because you can't create detail where none exists. The solution in that case is to bracket exposures, regardless of which method you use to create the composite.

One fine point is that if you shoot raw, sometimes what appears to be blown out isn't quite, and you can recover detail that looked like it was lost. Geoff's method can work then. But when an area really is clipped and there are no data, there are no data.

[YossarianXXI]

Since you are new to this, I think it's worth pointing out a distinction. Sometimes you have an situation where the image doesn't exceed the dynamic range of the sensor but where parts of the image are squished into the top or bottom of the histogram. I think that's what Geoff is referring to. The method he describes is one of several ways to try to make the best of this situation. However, sometimes you have a situation where the range of brightness in the scene exceeds what your camera can handle, and some of the image is pure black or pure white ("clipped" or "blown out"), with no data recorded other than the value for black (0) or white (255). In that case, Geoff's method won't work because you can't create detail where none exists. The solution in that case is to bracket exposures, regardless of which method you use to create the composite.

One fine point is that if you shoot raw, sometimes what appears to be blown out isn't quite, and you can recover detail that looked like it was lost. Geoff's method can work then. But when an area really is clipped and there are no data, there are no data.

This is what I've been doing up until this point. I'll put on a HD filter or I'll turn the exposure down a few whiskers and then pull out the detail from the .NEF file using the adjustment brush in Light Room. Since most of my pics are going to be viewed on screens & not blown up to poster size, the resulting noise in the dark areas doesn't matter too much.

But I am definitely going to start practicing more advanced techniques, so I will d/l that extension for exposure fusion & try learning both tech

There is another method which I frequently use when movement cannot be avoided. Take one shot which is in the middle area of the required exposure range and do some basic editing to suit the mid range. Then create one or more copies (eg end up with 3 layers) and edit them to suit the more extreme ends of the required range. Once again, merge by editing some masks.

That method isn't true HDR but it will often produce an acceptable substitute.

Changing a sky, etc, is another alternative way of creating a similar result although the success rate tends to depend on the actual scenes and your degree of area selecting skill

My area selecting skill is frustratingly poor, but this is what I thought i was going to have to do all the time. I will have to do this some (the images i was looking at that inspired the original post are of this type.)

I have the raw files, and will work with them, but I'm not sure how to share those, without some sort of file sharing like dropbox or something.

[Geoff F]

Full size Raw files, which would be the best option, will require uploading so some storage site for downloading. However, where we are just talking about the general principle of image editing it would be acceptable to upload smaller size Jpeg images which haven't been edited except for resizing. That would give us something to work with.

Do you use one of the internet photo storage/sharing sites? That is what most of us do for uploads to CinC. Then just post a link here. It is possible to do some direct uploads to CinC but there is a fairly small size limitation.

Have you seen this post?

HELP THREAD: How can I post images here?

[DanK]

If you use Lightroom’s merge to HDR function or the Lightroom Enfuse plug-in, you won’t have to do any selections, but you will probably have to do substantial tonL adjustments.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[YossarianXXI]

I did see it. I have a Flickr site. I'll post a couple this week

[Manfred M]

My area selecting skill is frustratingly poor, but this is what I thought i was going to have to do all the time

If you want your images to be a step above what others produce, this is a skill I highly recommend that you master. Selections are the key to producing a great image as this ties in to strong, local adjustments. Lightroom has very limited tools to do this; I do all my dodging and burning in Photoshop which has a whole array of tools built for making selectiions.

[Geoff F]

Like Manfred, I use the full Photoshop for my editing work, although I only use a rather small number of the options which that software has to offer.

For what you want to achieve, you probably won't need to do a great deal of complex selection work. But it will include quite a bit of layers, masks and brush work instead.

However, if you are keen to get the maximum out of your images this is the way to go and although some items may seem a bit daunting at first you will soon master the basics and wonder how you managed to get along without these techniques.

[proseak]

There's also a standalone program called enfuseGUI

http://software.bergmark.com/enfuseGUI/Main.html

Some tips on it's use here -

https://www.mibreit-photo.com/blog/d...crease-part-1/

[YossarianXXI]

I used the Lightroom HDR merge tool. Used 5 images ranging in exposure [IMG]Raw-0610 by Yossarian_XXI, on Flickr[/IMG]

Raw-0608 by Yossarian_XXI, on Flickr

And got this out of it. I'm happy with it, but feels like there's quite a bit of noise in some areas when zoomed in. For example, the sky above the mountain looks a little "splotchy" to me. Probably the alignment thing you were talking about. I struggled to d/l and install that Enfuse plug in tonight, but maybe i'll work on that this weekend.

DSC_0611-HDR by Yossarian_XXI, on Flickr

[DanK]

It's very hard to evaluate these photos because of the small size (particularly 1 and 2), but if I had to guess, I don't think the splotchiness is noise. The splotches are too large. I'd have to see all of the photos as a reasonable size, at least 1000 wide and preferably 2000, to be able to diagnose this with any confidence.

The installation of LR infuse is indeed more complicated than most plugins because it has two parts. There is a set of installation instructions linked at the right of the home page, if I recall, that tells you step by step what has to be done. I've had to go back to the instructions every time I've installed it because it's unlike any other plugins.

[YossarianXXI]

It's very hard to evaluate these photos because of the small size (particularly 1 and 2), but if I had to guess, I don't think the splotchiness is noise. The splotches are too large. I'd have to see all of the photos as a reasonable size, at least 1000 wide and preferably 2000, to be able to diagnose this with any confidence.

I was trying to keep the post from being too massive - You can click on the link (Raw-0608) and see the full size image.

After doing that, i think you are right, that the splotchiness is in the raw photo. I didn't do any spot correction before merging, as this was just a "try out this feature" kind of thing.

I'm curious as to what i did to make that splotchiness appear. I've taken photos in low-light before and don't recall seeing this. This evening i may look at the other exposures i took here and see what came out.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by DanK It's very hard to evaluate these photos because of the small size (particularly 1 and 2), but if I had to guess, I don't think the splotchiness is noise. The splotches are too large. <>

After doing that, i think you are right, that the splotchiness is in the raw photo.<>

With my Sigma cameras which are well-known for splotching at low levels, there is never any splotching in the raw images. That is to say, no splotching occurs in the individual RGB raw channels.

Splotches appear only after conversion from raw to RGB and, like yours, they are too large to be temporal noise.

I'm curious as to what i did to make that splotchiness appear. I've taken photos in low-light before and don't recall seeing this. This evening i may look at the other exposures i took here and see what came out.

Although less common in Bayer CFA shots, I've seen it on-line occasionally but I have no reference as to why it occurs, sorry.

[DanK]

These can't still be raw images, as you can't post raw files. Do you mean that you did nothing to them except convert them to JPEGs?

I can't tell what this is. It doesn't look like noise. It looks like dust on the sensor (which is more likely to show up when shooting a fairly uniform surface with a narrow aperture, and you used f/25), but there is a great deal of it, more than one usually sees with sensor dust, so I'm puzzled.

[YossarianXXI]

These can't still be raw images, as you can't post raw files. Do you mean that you did nothing to them except convert them to JPEGs?

Yes, sorry. That's what I meant.

I can't tell what this is. It doesn't look like noise. It looks like dust on the sensor (which is more likely to show up when shooting a fairly uniform surface with a narrow aperture, and you used f/25), but there is a great deal of it, more than one usually sees with sensor dust, so I'm puzzled.

I'll look at some more of my raw images from the same shoot and see if it appears elsewhere.

[DanK]

The best way to test for sensor dust is to shoot as uniform a surface as you can at f/22 or narrower. I have often used a plain blue computer screen, but a light-colored wall will do. the important thing is to avoid details that might obscure the appearance of dust.

[xpatUSA]

I can't tell what this is. It doesn't look like noise. It looks like dust on the sensor (which is more likely to show up when shooting a fairly uniform surface with a narrow aperture, and you used f/25), but there is a great deal of it, more than one usually sees with sensor dust, so I'm puzzled.

I managed to download the "raw" JPEG -never easy with Flickr:



It looks like there are some discrete entities here and there, either Dan's dirt somewhere or possibly out-of-focus distance birds. Rings around the arrowed blotches do imply bokeh which in turn implies out-of-focus objects in the scene ...

Elsewhere, I see a worm-like noise spread evenly across the sky almost certainly due to conversion from raw - or processing.

My post is PNG so nothing added there ...