DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Overlay?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/18/2007 11:49:12 AM · #1
I read the following on how to create some dramatic photos, but I'm having a noob moment where I don't quite understand. Can someone help?

If you have a digital camera, are using a tripod, and know how to overlay photos using digital software, here's another thing to try. Take one picture exposed for the sky and a second picture exposed for your foreground. Then lay the two correctly exposed parts of the image out together using your imaging software. I used that technique in the following picture and it really made a dramatic shot of what would have been a nightmare of an exposure situation, otherwise. It was extremely dark out and the ground and truck required a full two second exposure that would never have worked on the sky. But the two pictures worked out very well together after being combined.

Does this basically mean you take 2 photos. 1 photo being exposed nicely for one part of a photo, and then placing that over a second EXACT same image where the exposure was taking for the rest of the photo? And what would be the most common software to do this? I saw something called photomatix or something.

Help?
 02/18/2007 11:57:54 AM · #2
thats what it means, it is similar to you using a graduated ND filter on the camera, but more versitile with the blending options.

once you have the two images. open them in your editing software, drag one on top of the other. then erase the parts to reveal the proper exposures from each image. thereby getting a final image that appears to have more dynamic range the either of the originals.

a better way ( if you can ) would be to mask the upper layer and paint black over the areas you want to be revealed through the mask of the layer below - this won't alter any of the pixel data, but gets you to the same end in a manner that is more capable of fine tuning. for instance using the eraser tool only lets you erase. with the mask you could paint white back onto the mask if you feel you went too far.

Message edited by author 2007-02-18 12:00:55.
 02/18/2007 12:07:00 PM · #3
Heavyj,

You are correct that Photomatix Pro is a software that automates the process of merging multiple exposures into a single, "High Dynamic Range" Image. It's called HDRI Processing. What Soup is describing is the basic, manual way of doing this. Photoshop CS and above (CS2, CS3) have a "Merge to HDR" command that addresses the same issues. Photomatix, arguably, does a better job. Search out some of the many threads in DPC over the last 6 months or so on "HDR" to see more discussion; also on "Tone Mapping", which is a component of the HDR workflow and can be successfully used on a single exposure if the range is not too extreme. The Photoshop equivalent of that (again in CS or higher) is "Shadow/Highlight Adjustment".

R.

Message edited by author 2007-02-18 12:07:36.
 02/18/2007 12:11:57 PM · #4
the biggest difference - i think - with the HDR vs masking is the HDR is going to merge all the data from both images where with masking you have the control over what part of each image is going to be used.

IMO the masking method is more realistic in the end... for the most part.

edit: also with HDR you're not so much concerned about getting 'proper' exposure. but more looking to get shadow and highlight detail a little bit at a time from more than two exposures. where as exposing only two shots - one specifically for one area of the frame, and the other for the remaining area of the frame still require you to expose the two images properly, but merely to acheive a final result that the camera isn't capable of recording in a single image.


Message edited by author 2007-02-18 12:16:56.
 02/18/2007 12:18:14 PM · #5
Originally posted by soup:
the biggest difference - i think - with the HDR vs masking is the HDR is going to merge all the data from both images where with masking you have the control over what part of each image is going to be used.

IMO the masking method is more realistic in the end... for the most part.


I don't think that's really accurate: HDR merges different parts of each image into the composite, not all parts of each. I any event, I have had considerable success with a hybrid approach where I layer an original over the HDRI composite in "lighten" mode and then fade the opacity of that layer to bring light back into bright areas that have gone too dull, then erase any parts of the overlay layer where I don't WANT the HDRI image to be altered.

I also don't think it's fair to say the masking method is "more realistic"; I think that's more a function of the fact that we don't even KNOW and image is done with HDRI unless it is exaggerated tot he point where it looks unnatural. And that's what a LOT of people are doing with it, going for that extreme "look". But that's a function of the workman, not his tools, if you catch my drift. HDRI imaging is very flexible and can be very subtly done.

R.
 02/18/2007 12:22:48 PM · #6
Originally posted by soup:
edit: also with HDR you're not so much concerned about getting 'proper' exposure. but more looking to get shadow and highlight detail a little bit at a time from more than two exposures. where as exposing only two shots - one specifically for one area of the frame, and the other for the remaining area of the frame still require you to expose the two images properly, but merely to achieve a final result that the camera isn't capable of recording in a single image.


Again, I disagree. It's perfectly possible that no single exposure can be optimized to both midtones and highlights, or midtones and shadows, thereby mandating a third exposure. Or, contrariwise, if the "base exposure is "correct" for everything BUT the highlights, the bright areas, then the range of that image is not particularly extreme. In any event, HDRI imaging does require a "properly" exposed pair of bookend images, just as you are describing. You just have the option as to how many interim images are necessary to finish the job. I have done HDRI with just two images...

R.
 02/18/2007 12:23:30 PM · #7
not going to argue about HDR with you. at any rate the original question was not regarding HDR. so i tried to answer that aspect of the question.


02/18/2007 12:34:47 PM · #8
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I also don't think it's fair to say the masking method is "more realistic";


I almost feel "realistic" meant more grounded in traditional dark room approaches. That's how I read it anyway :-) Which is quite true.
 02/18/2007 12:36:35 PM · #9
Originally posted by soup:
not going to argue about HDR with you. at any rate the original question was not regarding HDR. so i tried to answer that aspect of the question.


And you did it very well :-) Succinctly explained. However, he DID bring up Photomatix in the original question, so I took over explaining THAT part ;-)

As an aside, I'm finding it kind of sad that within DPC more and more people seem to be tarring HDRI with the "extremist" brush, as if it's a passing fad and somehow "not realistic" for a purist photographer. But as I've said, that only applies to the visibly extreme uses of it, which of course attract the most attention. It's like saying "hue/saturation adjustment is a bad tool, it makes things lo0ok unreal" just because so many people amp up their saturation to an extreme level...

R.
 02/18/2007 12:37:43 PM · #10
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I also don't think it's fair to say the masking method is "more realistic";


I almost feel "realistic" meant more grounded in traditional dark room approaches. That's how I read it anyway :-) Which is quite true.


But, dangit, Leroy.... That's ALL that HDRI really is; it's automated masking.

R.
 02/18/2007 12:40:46 PM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But, dangit, Leroy.... That's ALL that HDRI really is; it's automated masking.


I believe ya, Robert :-) I really think it's the tone-mapping part where people start getting confused as to what HDR is.
 02/18/2007 12:56:57 PM · #12
Thanks for the replied fellas. I'm gonna spend tomorrow afternoon trying to use the masking technique since I don't have to pay for that.
 02/18/2007 01:13:43 PM · #13
Originally posted by heavyj:
Thanks for the replied fellas. I'm gonna spend tomorrow afternoon trying to use the masking technique since I don't have to pay for that.


It's not extraordinarily difficult... just time consuming.
 02/18/2007 02:55:29 PM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I also don't think it's fair to say the masking method is "more realistic";


I almost feel "realistic" meant more grounded in traditional dark room approaches. That's how I read it anyway :-) Which is quite true.


But, dangit, Leroy.... That's ALL that HDRI really is; it's automated masking.

R.


I'm not so sure about that. If that statement is true, by the way, it definitely has NO business being in Basic Editing, which you have strongly argued on behalf of. :)
 02/18/2007 05:14:09 PM · #15
well i'm only working with one good eye and one quite blurry one, so cut me a little slack ;}

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And you did it very well :-) Succinctly explained. However, he DID bring up Photomatix in the original question, so I took over explaining THAT part ;-)

As an aside, I'm finding it kind of sad that within DPC more and more people seem to be tarring HDRI with the "extremist" brush, as if it's a passing fad and somehow "not realistic" for a purist photographer. But as I've said, that only applies to the visibly extreme uses of it, which of course attract the most attention. It's like saying "hue/saturation adjustment is a bad tool, it makes things lo0ok unreal" just because so many people amp up their saturation to an extreme level...

R.


that is what i meant ;}

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I almost feel "realistic" meant more grounded in traditional dark room approaches. That's how I read it anyway :-) Which is quite true.


Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 06:50:41 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 06:50:41 PM EDT.