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

[JBW]

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

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

Dan, Manfred and yourself do photography by the numbers. Fair enough. I don't. I, for all sorts of reasons use the trial and error method. Not as clean or precise as other methods but it works for me.

Obviously those who work by the numbers will find my methods strange and frustrating. Perhaps even annoying.

Both you and Manfred have pointedly suggested that I don't belong here because I don't do it your way.

Perhaps you're both right? Perhaps you're not?

Perhaps it might make as much sense for the both of you to give me up as a lost cause and simply ignore my posts?

In any case until either Dave or Donald suggest I leave I'll stick around. Hopefully continuing to learn in a way that makes sense to some if not to all. And as you and Manfred keep reminding me this is a place for learning.
Brian

[Round Tuit]

Dan, Manfred and yourself do photography by the numbers. Fair enough. I don't. I, for all sorts of reasons use the trial and error method. Not as clean or precise as other methods but it works for me.

Obviously those who work by the numbers will find my methods strange and frustrating. Perhaps even annoying.

Both you and Manfred have pointedly suggested that I don't belong here because I don't do it your way.

Perhaps you're both right? Perhaps you're not?

Perhaps it might make as much sense for the both of you to give me up as a lost cause and simply ignore my posts?

In any case until either Dave or Donald suggest I leave I'll stick around. Hopefully continuing to learn in a way that makes sense to some if not to all. And as you and Manfred keep reminding me this is a place for learning.
Brian

I was not going to weight into this discussion but I would like to offer what may be a way forward.
I and many other members, probably including Manfred and Dan, enjoy your photos. I would hate to loose your contributions to this forums. However, I don't think that it would be useful for Manfred and Dan to ignore your postings when you post information that is blatently wrong. Someone else would have to take you up on it lest that wrong information misled other members.
You admit to not being a technically minded. So my suggestion is that you continue to post your shots but refrain from including technical details of your methods and concentrate on the aestitic qualities of your posting.
FWIW

André

[JBW]

I was not going to weight into this discussion but I would like to offer what may be a way forward.
I and many other members, probably including Manfred and Dan, enjoy your photos. I would hate to loose your contributions to this forums. However, I don't think that it would be useful for Manfred and Dan to ignore your postings when you post information that is blatently wrong. Someone else would have to take you up on it lest that wrong information misled other members.
You admit to not being a technically minded. So my suggestion is that you continue to post your shots but refrain from including technical details of your methods and concentrate on the aestitic qualities of your posting.
FWIW

André

M'Lady and I are thinking along the same lines.

[Manfred M]

Both you and Manfred have pointedly suggested that I don't belong here because I don't do it your way.

Brian - neither Dan nor I have suggested anything of the sort.

[pnodrog]

"........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

Brian as the final image was indeed derived from a single shot all you have proved is exposure stacking gives you a tonal mapping that you find satisfying. As you have not investigated other (mostly simpler) methods of adjusting the tones from the single shot to achieve a similar result you have not proved "that it cannot be gotten with a single shot".

All the tonal information needed to produce your stacking result were contained in the initial exposure. Exposure stacking software's power is to amalgamate exposures where the required tonal information is not available in a single exposure. There are plenty of other techniques available in photo editing software (including Photoshop and lightroom) that can alter the relationships between tones. In your example I suspect that a similar outcome could have been achieved by using a fairly simple curve adjustment.

[JBW]

Brian as the final image was indeed derived from a single shot all you have proved is exposure stacking gives you a tonal mapping that you find satisfying. As you have not investigated other (mostly simpler) methods of adjusting the tones from the single shot to achieve a similar result you have not proved "that it cannot be gotten with a single shot".

All the tonal information needed to produce your stacking result were contained in the initial exposure. Focus stacking software's power is to amalgamate exposures where the required tonal information is not available in a single exposure. There are plenty of other techniques available in photo editing software (including Photoshop and lightroom) that can alter the relationships between tones. In your example I suspect that a similar outcome could have been achieved by using a fairly simple curve adjustment.

I tried and failed but if you want to have a go I'll send you the shot.

[pnodrog]

I tried and failed but if you want to have a go I'll send you the shot.

OK - The only limitation will be if it is a RAW format my older LR version does not support.

[Stagecoach]

In your example I suspect that a similar outcome could have been achieved by using a fairly simple curve adjustment.

So I just had to give it a try using a simple curve to attempt to match the 'original' base image with a 'result from a stack'.

No 1 - This shows the 'Result from Balanced Stack' with its histogram and numbers.


No 2 - This shows my quick attempt to match the 'Original Base Image' with the 'Balanced Stack Result' using a curve. With histogram and numbers.


Whilst there are slight differences in the numbers and differences in the histogram to the eye they are pretty close. Another 10 minutes I suspect I could of got closer

And who forgot to save the images he adjusted

[JBW]

So I just had to give it a try using a simple curve to attempt to match the 'original' base image with a 'result from a stack'.

No 1 - This shows the 'Result from Balanced Stack' with its histogram and numbers.


No 2 - This shows my quick attempt to match the 'Original Base Image' with the 'Balanced Stack Result' using a curve. With histogram and numbers.


Whilst there are slight differences in the numbers and differences in the histogram to the eye they are pretty close. Another 10 minutes I suspect I could of got closer

And who forgot to save the images he adjusted

I'm guessing it was you? Okay, I can't deny the proof of the pudding. That's very close.

Now comes the tough question. Given the closeness of the results do you feel that there is anything wrong doing it my way?

Would you care to humor me and try it with the unbalanced stack which is the one I adjusted the exposure in-camera?

[pnodrog]

Hi Grahame. I have just done a similar thing and would have probably beaten you to the punch if I had not had a Skype from family in Australia. I have only done visual comparisons but they seem to match reasonably. Using RAW files and a bit more time I think it would be possible to achieve a very close match. It would take far less effort to just produce a pleasing aesthetic result rather than striving for a match.

[pnodrog]

I'm guessing it was you? Okay, I can't deny the proof of the pudding. That's very close.

Now comes the tough question. Given the closeness of the results do you feel that there is anything wrong doing it my way?

Would you care to humor me and try it with the unbalanced stack which is the one I adjusted the exposure in-camera?

Nothing wrong with doing it your way. I just feel you would have far more direct control of the outcome by using curves and with experience it will be quicker.

Getting the stack image to match will just require a slightly different curve.

[Stagecoach]

I'm guessing it was you? Okay,

Yes, it's late at night.

I can't deny the proof of the pudding. That's very close.

Visually it was 'extremely' close and unlikely to be noticed by anyone that was not looking for subtle differences.

Now comes the tough question. Given the closeness of the results do you feel that there is anything wrong doing it my way?

I suspect it's a waste of time and I certainly would not do it w.r.t visual results with the very high risks involved, e.g. movement.

Would you care to humor me and try it with the unbalanced stack which is the one I adjusted the exposure in-camera?

From tests I have undertaken there is no difference between adjusting exposure in camera to adjusting exposure in ACR so I think that would be a waste of time. In addition anything you have done in camera is subject to light changes between shots on the subject/framing that may not be 'global'.

[DanK]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that you stop posting. I did suggest that if you don't want critiques of what you have produced and of how you produced it, you are probably not in the right place. There are a lot of people here who are interested in learning more about how the tools work. I'm one of them. I also suggested that you should do more to avoid striking out at people whose comments you don't like.

You wrote:

an, Manfred and yourself do photography by the numbers.

That's not right, and you are missing a fundamental point.

The technology of digital photography is mathematical, and quite a number of people here use mathematics to explain or to try to understand how the tools they are using work. However, the math isn't the critically important part. It's learning how the tools work. this needn't have anything to do with math. When I look at a photo of mine, I don't think, "Oh, damn, the numbers here aren't right." I have thoughts like "Damn, the left side of the face is too dark, and the bright background on the left is very distracting. Why didn't I think about that at the time and shift my position slightly?" Then I search through my rather limited postprocessing toolbox to see what tools I have that can lessen those problems. Sometimes the math simply helps me understand which tools will do the job.

When people learn to paint, they have to learn how different types of pain work on different media. If a carpenter tries to hang a door using a screwdriver instead of a chisel to mortise out places for the hinges, she will get lousy results. If your mechanic interprets "use a torque wrench" to mean "you had better apply a lot of torque," you may have a very expensive repair bill. All of these people need to know which tool is appropriate for solving a given problem, and they then need to learn how to use that tool well. A curves adjustment or exposure blending is the same: to get a good result consistently, you need to know which tool to apply and how to use it. My comments to you for a long time have been saying that you will do better, and your posts will be more instructive to others, if you concentrate on learning how the tools work. I think that was exactly what Manfred was getting at with his comment about not treating the tools as a black box.

One of the truly great things about this site is that by reading posts by people who have more expertise or different expertise than I, I learn more about the tools I can use. That is ALL I was trying to do in my interchanges with you.

In this case, several of us couldn't understand what you did, and we couldn't understand why you would do it. I couldn't even find any mention of exposure blending when I scanned various ImageJ and Fiji documentation files. Now one or two people have posted on a different thread that the software actually doesn't do exposure blending. I don't know if that claim is correct, but this level of confusion doesn't help anyone improve their use of the tools of the trade.

I don't think anyone on this site should have to withhold comments in response to your work or anyone else's. I may, however, just because this has turned out not to be a productive use of either your time or mine

[Rufus]

As a far less accomplished photographer, what I have distilled from this thread is that very similar results can be obtained with curves (which I can use) without the risks of camera movement, changes of light, etc, that come with taking and stacking multiple images (with specialist software).

I can choose the method to suit the contents of my particular software toolbox, my workflow, and the time it takes to accomplish the desired outcome.

This may be simplistic but it suits me. I won't be investing time in the specialist software as I will get a better return on investmnet if I concentrate on the tools I already have. But I am glad Brian has found a way to acheive his goal.