|
Search this group's discussions
|
Blended Exposure (without masking)
 |
Wolfsauge [deleted] says:
Here's an example of blending exposures using the curve tool. It works without any masking.
With some exercise I get a final presentation in less than five minutes.
You start with three images, one overexposed, one underexposed and a normally exposed. If you can use the RAW format, you can create the three different images needed from one RAW file enabling you to apply this technique to moving targets, as well.
A short recipe for Photoshop or The Gimp:
0) First open the overexposed image. Then open the normally exposed image as layer on top, finally do so with the underexposed image.
In the following layers dialog screenshot you can see the intended ordering of the different exposures.
If you don't use RAW you will need to align the layers to match each other as precise as possible. Use the layer visibility and the move tool to align the pictures. Even one pixel difference can ruin the final image.
1) Select the top, underexposed layer and change the transfer mode to multiply.
2) Select the the middle, normally exposed layer and change the transfer mode to screen.
3) Do not change the transfer mode of the overexposed layer.
4) Use the "Curves" tool on the top, underexposed layer, making it contain about 1/3 of the image details in the highlights.
5) Use the "Curves" tool on the bottom (overexposed) layer, making it contain about 1/3 of the image details in the shadows.
6) Your result is a three layer image with a very low contrast. To finalize the look you can flatten this image and apply further manipulations.
Note that the normally exposed image component is not altered at all, but, merely, being enhanced by the information from the under- and overexposed images.
I got this recipe from this site: Dynamic Ranger. There you can find example images.
Removed all images and glue text, 2007-02-17, Wolfsauge.
Originally posted at 7:49AM, 17 October 2005 PDT
(permalink)
Wolfsauge edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
wow that looks really good, and pretty simple to do, i will check it out!
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks Wolfsauge ! I saw that recipe before and it did not work for me but you made it much simpler in your explanation and now it's working for me :)
Originally posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
f8125 edited this topic 80 months ago.
|
|
It's still pretty blown out in the upper right; is this intentional?
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wolfsauge [deleted] says:
@Dee-cisions: Looking forward to see the results.
@f8125: I think the graphs in the curves recipe are crucial for enabling readers to apply quick tests. I ponder about adding my own.
@derPlau: Hehe, no. I really use this technique to overcome the drawbacks of my limited equipment. -2EV were simply not enough.
Originally posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
Wolfsauge edited this topic 80 months ago.
|
|
Can we see the original image normally exposed to tell the difference?
It's a nice photographs with great lighting but I think the darks are a little too dark and the highlights a little over.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wolfsauge [deleted] says:
@jdubfudge: I have not yet uploaded these. I have a DRI experiment set with component images here: flickr.com/photos/wolfsauge/sets/866314/
To your remark about absolute tones in the image in relation to this topic, this technique's intention is to increase the range of contrast, or better, the range of luminosity. It does not address absolute values.
The result of the above process is a rather milky looking, low contrast composite, that needs to be postprocessed.
I use the "Levels" tool for that and the "Brightness / Contrast" to increase the contrast.
This is also why it's rather a blending technique, blending based on overall luminosity already present in the picture.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
thanks...great will try it out tonite
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wolfsauge [deleted] says:
I updated the article with screenshots and links. Any more questions? ;)
@peter bowers: Thank you for "Oblong Lake Sunrise #3". This inspired me to play with this at all. Maybe you like this blending technique.
Originally posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
Wolfsauge edited this topic 80 months ago.
|
|
Hmm, is this something that we can make with Photoshop Elements? I don't think we get the "curves" tool.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
ancawonka, have a look at the Earthbound Light site for a curves plugin for Photoshop Elements. That's the one I use. They've also got a channel mixer plugin for converting to b/w. Both free.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
how is this different from high dynamic range (HDR) merging process in PS CS2 for example?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
.supernova., the trick described differs in a couple of ways that come to mind:
1st, it works in the Gimp and CS or earlier as well as other programs that offer layers with some choice of blending mode and curve controls.
2nd, it combines the HDR merging and tone mapping steps into one operation.
3rd, the detailed math applied to the blending of each pixel is completely different. I don't know if this matters, but if the result is pleasing as art, then it only matters if you needed a result that could be calibrated and used as a measurement tool.
I haven't tried it yet myself, but I imagine that working in 16-bit mode would be a good idea right up to the point of needing a compatible JPEG for which a conversion to 8-bit is mandatory.
As an aside, I would love to find a detailed description of the math operations performed by each of Photoshop's blending modes. I've read the manual and the online help. I've read some 3rd-party books. All persist in trying to describe the subjective effect without scaring the reader with math. I'm not afraid of a little math, and having that detail might help me better understand what some of those modes are actually for. Any suggestions?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hello everyone. Here's my first ever attempt at some more serious postprocessing, using this very technique. I woul really appreciate comments and suggestions, namely on the fact that there seems to be a lot of colour noise in the final version. I followed the technique as specified here but the under- and over-exposed photos were Photoshop creations.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
skinjester [deleted] says:
Wolfsauge, thanks for posting this information. It presents a viable 16 bit alternative to HDR processing. Significant for two reasons in that there's not much that can be done with a 32 bit linear HDR image other than tone map it down to 16 bits (often garishly), and because a single (processed) exposure can be the source rather than a series of exposures. I look forward to trying this out!
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ooh, now this is what I call an interesting usage of RAW! I'll be giving this a shot, I can see quite a few practical uses for this.
But there is a question I hope someone can answer, the problem with The GIMP is the limited bit support. (No 16bit TIFFS.) So, could this be done in The GIMP's sister Cinepaint? Cinepaint supports up 48-bit images. (I haven't got that much of a clue about photo-editing in other programs that bibble ...)
Anyway, great tut! Thanks a bunch for making it Wolfsauge!
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wolfsauge [deleted] says:
Tried something different.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you for all the information you've given us here, I shall certainly try it out.
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Technique /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Technique discussion threads
