Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>So, are you gonna tell us how you blended these most excellent
>composites
>
Belatedly, yes. I also have added a couple more composites to the
gallery <http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Combos/>.
>or just leave us in the dark?
>
>In looking at #1 it may be that an intermediate exposure was required
>but I'm not yet convinced. The fundamental problem with the composite
>is that the walls in the window passage are brighter than the sky
>outside which makes it look "funny".
>
>
I agree. On the other hand, lightening the sky much takes away the sense
of how it looked to me when I took the shots. The was the first one I
took and tackled and I tried a bit of many things on it. I think I'll go
back and start from scratch on of these days.
>In thinking about this three-shot problem it occurred to me that that
>the answer lies in the shooting data for the successful shots. How many
>stops are there between the light and dark shots of the successful
>composites? This value can then serve as a guide for future shots. If
>the difference between light and dark is more than "x" then take one in
>the middle.
>
>
The problem is that I set myself a very difficult test. Shots were all
taken hand held and generally with other people around and other things
to do. Also, it's a very automatic camera, so there is no way to just
dial in x.x stops of exposure adjustment. Another consequence of this
approach is that the images aren't always exactly the same
size/magnification. Even without changing the zoom setting, it appears
that the AF may make subtle changes in the effective focal length.
Still, I'm pleased overall. Some of the results I like rather a lot and
I've learned a lot from the others. It adds to what I can do in casual
shooting situations, which is the point. If I were going to use a tripod
to get exact registration, etc., I might as well use the DSLR in RAW,
and don't need the multiple exposures to get the Dynamic range I want.
>Anyhow, nice stuff. Tell us more.
>
>
Thanks. As I said, I don't even remember all I did for the window.
The medieval chapel and sky was pretty simple. With the sharp
differentiation of building and sky in contrast and color, I selected
the sky on the darker one, made it a layer and dragged it over onto the
other image. I did a good job of keeping the same angle and size in
shooting these. The dark one should have been maybe a half stop darker.
Then I could have held a little more detail in the clouds with the same
overall brightness.
The Olympia Diner was tougher. I think the original exposures were just
right. I ended up lightening the sky/clouds, but had all the DR to do it
just as I liked. One difficulty was in the fact that the two images were
noticeably different sizes. Not otherwise significant, but the sky
didn't match up with the building at the edge and it would be very
obvious. Another hard part was all the fine detail where the sky shows
through under the sign and around the lights and poles. I could have
just cloned out the lights, but decided to hone my skills on them. I
selected and made layers of the sky and clouds portion of both shots,
cloned in extra sky/clouds along the bottom of the darker one, then set
it under the bottom portion of the lighter shot. That took care of the
overall misregistration rather nicely. Around the lights, I did some
cloud cloning where they were on the darker shot, now the bottom layer,
and some erasing on the top layer.
The schooners in Camden Harbor were pretty easy. The darker shot was
pretty much what I wanted for everything but the foliage. I selected by
color for the foliage in the lighter shot, deselected with the lasso for
the parts of the water, boats, etc. that had the same colors, and
overlaid the lighter foliage on the darker overall image. A perfect
reproduction of the actual light would probably have had the boats and
harbor a bit lighter, but I like the reflections in the water and the
tonal differentiation in the white parts of the boats the way I set it.
The door way was too much work for a not so interesting image, but again
I was learning what I could do and how to do it. As you can see, the two
images are at noticeable different magnifications and tilted relative to
each other. That's the problem with working in a hurry as ones'
companion walks on. :-) I selected the lighter door, slightly enlarged
and rotated it, then put it under the darker house image with the door
deleted.
The sunset was quite easy. I put the lighter image under the darker one,
selected most of the upper area with a mass selection tool and deleted
it, then cleaned up around the edged with a big, soft eraser. The soft
nature of the overall subject and lack of a hard boundary made it easy.
I actually like both of the originals just as they are, but liked being
able to combine the better, less blown out detail of the bright parts of
one with the greater upper cloud detail of the other.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|