Post Processing Examples Cont'd (Page 3 of 3)
|
A simple cameraphone photo of a mountain scene, handheld, and wobbling around atop a mountain ridge, wishing to not to topple over and ride out a posthumously embarrassing 1000m fall. A lot of noise, and the moon is overexposed [Pixel 7]....  The next day, after making it back down to the valley, below, and after coming back from the bar, I pulled out the 80-400mm and took a photo of the moon through the apartment window, with the specific intent of addressing the over-exposed moon from the night before with a composite image, and some noise reduction...  D850 w/ 80-400 the following evening...  [Absolutely blitzed for both photos, if recollection serves.] |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: A simple cameraphone photo of a mountain scene, handheld, and wobbling around atop a mountain ridge, wishing to not to topple over and ride out a posthumously embarrassing 1000m fall. A lot of noise, and the moon is overexposed [Pixel 7].... https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xtLWw4g/0/Fbr75sktkzKb846FN6fWQHWfVk8q639vvNsG3kq4J/X3/i-xtLWw4g-X3.jpg The next day, after making it back down to the valley, below, and after coming back from the bar, I pulled out the 80-400mm and took a photo of the moon through the apartment window, with the specific intent of addressing the over-exposed moon from the night before with a composite image, and some noise reduction... https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20230516-Chamonix/i-wCQHV4H/1/FFfTPCzrrkBfRfkDtSD9wF9fKR2HXWLqkJ6XNfnr9/X3/PXL_20230522_203220399.NIGHT%20%281B2%29-X3.jpg [Absolutely blitzed for both photos, if recollection serves.] Looks very good! Where was this mountain at? I don't think I'd like being a few thousand ft above air, drinking or not. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: Looks very good! Where was this mountain at? I don't think I'd like being a few thousand ft above air, drinking or not. France. The photo is taken from a catwalk at the Cosmiques Refuge, atop a ridge at the edge of the Col du Midi, and looking towards the Dome de Gouter, on the flanks of Mont Blanc. The higher set of lights on the glacier are at the Refuge des Grands Mulets, with the lower set of lights being a pair of ascending climbers, maybe even two separate parties, making their way up to the refuge, and perhaps just intending to truck on right past it in a one day push to the top. Revisiting the elevation profile, I'll revise the 1000m downwards and estimate it to be a 500m drop to the glacier/seracs below. (A little further away, at the Aiguille du Midi station, it is a bona fide 1000m down to the snow/talus fans) From the Cosmiques Refuge where the nighttime photo was taken, it's 2600m elevation drop to the town lights. For perspective, that 2600m elevation difference is roughly 1500ft greater than the elevation rise at the top of Grand Teton to the Snake River in Wyoming. It's really hard to describe the scale. From the coffee shop in town to the top of Mont Blanc, it's a 12,700ft difference. And over the course of a mere 5 to 6 miles. Here's a photo of the Refuge taken from down in town. There are two or three rock outcrops at the right of the photo, depending on how you count. The Grands Mulets Refuge sits atop the first, foreground outcrop ... look closely and you'll see it.  And the unprocessed .jpg...  |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: France. The photo is taken from a catwalk at the Cosmiques Refuge, atop a ridge at the edge of the Col du Midi, and looking towards the Dome de Gouter, on the flanks of Mont Blanc. The higher set of lights on the glacier are at the Refuge des Grands Mulets, with the lower set of lights being a pair of ascending climbers, maybe even two separate parties, making their way up to the refuge, and perhaps just intending to truck on right past it in a one day push to the top. Revisiting the elevation profile, I'll revise the 1000m downwards and estimate it to be a 500m drop to the glacier/seracs below. (A little further away, at the Aiguille du Midi station, it is a bona fide 1000m down to the snow/talus fans) From the Cosmiques Refuge where the nighttime photo was taken, it's 2600m elevation drop to the town lights. For perspective, that 2600m elevation difference is roughly 1500ft greater than the elevation rise at the top of Grand Teton to the Snake River in Wyoming. It's really hard to describe the scale. From the coffee shop in town to the top of Mont Blanc, it's a 12,700ft difference. And over the course of a mere 5 to 6 miles. Here's a photo of the Refuge taken from down in town. There are two or three rock outcrops at the right of the photo, depending on how you count. The Grands Mulets Refuge sits atop the first, foreground outcrop ... look closely and you'll see it. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20230516-Chamonix/i-fFSx2wL/0/XZsRMGhxhfPLfs8bbJQv4CvKdsk7rb9BCssbSqX2/X4/20230602-DSC_1951Az%20-%204128-X4.jpg And the unprocessed .jpg... https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-JtpWjrL/0/C9WBRsXmKB3xPJ3M246tKpnX3vXFFV2pRjkzPCR69/X4/i-JtpWjrL-X4.jpg Originally Posted By L_JE: Originally Posted By brass: Looks very good! Where was this mountain at? I don't think I'd like being a few thousand ft above air, drinking or not. France. The photo is taken from a catwalk at the Cosmiques Refuge, atop a ridge at the edge of the Col du Midi, and looking towards the Dome de Gouter, on the flanks of Mont Blanc. The higher set of lights on the glacier are at the Refuge des Grands Mulets, with the lower set of lights being a pair of ascending climbers, maybe even two separate parties, making their way up to the refuge, and perhaps just intending to truck on right past it in a one day push to the top. Revisiting the elevation profile, I'll revise the 1000m downwards and estimate it to be a 500m drop to the glacier/seracs below. (A little further away, at the Aiguille du Midi station, it is a bona fide 1000m down to the snow/talus fans) From the Cosmiques Refuge where the nighttime photo was taken, it's 2600m elevation drop to the town lights. For perspective, that 2600m elevation difference is roughly 1500ft greater than the elevation rise at the top of Grand Teton to the Snake River in Wyoming. It's really hard to describe the scale. From the coffee shop in town to the top of Mont Blanc, it's a 12,700ft difference. And over the course of a mere 5 to 6 miles. Here's a photo of the Refuge taken from down in town. There are two or three rock outcrops at the right of the photo, depending on how you count. The Grands Mulets Refuge sits atop the first, foreground outcrop ... look closely and you'll see it. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20230516-Chamonix/i-fFSx2wL/0/XZsRMGhxhfPLfs8bbJQv4CvKdsk7rb9BCssbSqX2/X4/20230602-DSC_1951Az%20-%204128-X4.jpg And the unprocessed .jpg... https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-JtpWjrL/0/C9WBRsXmKB3xPJ3M246tKpnX3vXFFV2pRjkzPCR69/X4/i-JtpWjrL-X4.jpg That's pretty crazy but pretty scenic. Strange how Europe has the big cliffs and farmland and mild temperatures. The US has nothing like that for mountains compared to the Alps or Andes in SA. Ours are high but don't have that sheer prominence above the valleys the way the European ranges do. Are you there now or is this working on photos from a trip you took? |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: That's pretty crazy but pretty scenic. Strange how Europe has the big cliffs and farmland and mild temperatures. The US has nothing like that for mountains compared to the Alps or Andes in SA. Ours are high but don't have that sheer prominence above the valleys the way the European ranges do. Are you there now or is this working on photos from a trip you took? An impromptu trip from this past May. I was working on another moon photo edit, also taken in haphazard circumstances, which reminded me of this one. |
|
A photo that I edited on my tablet, up at the apartment in NH, and possibly even from a .jpg file, rather than a .NEF file - I'd have to go over to my tablet to be sure. At any rate, it's horrific with respect to noise...  But, here's how it looks after running it through DXO PureRAW 1.6...  |
The timestamp on this file makes me think I did this edit in a bar in Estes Park. The second photo being an edit a year or two later, running it through DxO PureRAW, and being more critical about tone and contrast. The laptop monitor I would have used for the initial edit is abysmal, but at least I knew I had a good photo to work with once I got back home to a better setup. 
|
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: The timestamp on this file makes me think I did this edit in a bar in Estes Park. The second photo being an edit a year or two later, running it through DxO PureRAW, and being more critical about tone and contrast. The laptop monitor I would have used for the initial edit is abysmal, but at least I knew I had a good photo to work with once I got back home to a better setup. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20210826-West/i-BwrPdvX/1/L9T3Jbmhggk5xwk5XL8LJZRJ33dQbbvJKrC6WLj4/X3/DSC_5572B1A%20-%202160-X3.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20210826-West/i-cHcHDGp/1/DkXV8P2Qgsk3FknW2pjtjdX43MLnGkDGZqGSf2N8S/X3/DSC_5572%20DxO%20C1z%20-%204128-X3.jpg I remember a different photo of this from a different vantage point. On the post processing, is it my display or just the contrast change that makes it look like the reddish brown/rust strata are more visible in the background rocks and toned down in the foreground? Maybe just the green more intense makes it appear that way? All of them are great works, your PureRAW software is magical with the noise and pulling details out of shadows as well as removing noise. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: I remember a different photo of this from a different vantage point. On the post processing, is it my display or just the contrast change that makes it look like the reddish brown/rust strata are more visible in the background rocks and toned down in the foreground? Maybe just the green more intense makes it appear that way? All of them are great works, your PureRAW software is magical with the noise and pulling details out of shadows as well as removing noise. Right, I adjusted the tones to draw the eye to moss/lake/peaks, so that meant toning down the foreground rocks, and bringing out/restoring the tones of the peaks to what my recollection was, maybe not what my camera captured, but what I remember from being nose to those peaks the day prior. The Park Rangers set me up wonderfully with 3 nights of bivi permits for Sky Pond, to accommodate my original plan to climb the pencil-thin-profile spire by myself. A day before I was to head in, a guide called me asking if I wanted to climb it with him, as he was bringing a client in there a few days later, and wanted to refresh his memory of the climb because he was not only going to have his client in there, but having another senior guide in tow, doing a skill eval. So, I got to go in a few pound lighter, a day ahead of my climbing partner and splitting the weight of the gear between us. Unfortunately, it meant that once he hiked out, I didn't have the gear to climb another route if I wanted to. But, with all the camera gear I had in there, I managed to keep myself occupied after we did our climb. Even got some photos of him coming back in with his client. I can't thank the rangers enough for setting me up with primo accommodations.            
|
A photo from a few years back up in New Hampshire, and one I've always liked, probably because of the composition ... because after seeing it with fresh eyes, it certainly wasn't for the tones. End of the day, and I just set a GoPro on the tracks on my way out from a day's climbing.  And the original image ...  |
That railroad track one loose really good with your face lightened up that much. Doesn't appear unnatural, either. Great composition there, all of your additional ones of Sky Pond area also great! You camera gear must weigh as much as you, that's a lot of extra load when climbing straight up a thin pillar like that!  What's that bright light in your last photo of sky pond? Looks below horizon. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: That railroad track one loose really good with your face lightened up that much. Doesn't appear unnatural, either. Great composition there, all of your additional ones of Sky Pond area also great! You camera gear must weigh as much as you, that's a lot of extra load when climbing straight up a thin pillar like that! What's that bright light in your last photo of sky pond? Looks below horizon. |
|
LR's enhanced NR is nothing short of amazing. I usually don't use it, because it takes a lot time to process (this one took about 31 minutes), but it's there if I need it. And there's two things I hate; noise in imagery, and the Dutch :) For this shot, there's a larger issue of me being in a hurry and not stepping down the aperture (the 200-500 is sharpest on my body at f/8; this one is at f/5.6), but the enhanced NR does a good job of cleaning up some sharpness even after using the normal sharpening tools. Here's the original frame, as shot:  Immature Baldie Perched OOC by FredMan, on FlickrFirst version, using normal NR  Immature Baldie Perched by FredMan, on FlickrFinal, after apply the enhanced NR. This isn't a tremendous example unless you look at a 100% crop, but the original is noisy.  Immature Baldie Perched Enhanced NR by FredMan, on Flickr |
GD is like putting on crampons and walking through a room full of puppies.
|
I can really see a difference in the eye and beak, the rest of it I can't see the original full size, it just takes me to a page with ir reduced. The extra focal plane depth enhancement is good as well, adding the extra blur to the background leaves. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By FredMan: LR's enhanced NR is nothing short of amazing. I usually don't use it, because it takes a lot time to process (this one took about 31 minutes), but it's there if I need it. And there's two things I hate; noise in imagery, and the Dutch :) For this shot, there's a larger issue of me being in a hurry and not stepping down the aperture (the 200-500 is sharpest on my body at f/8; this one is at f/5.6), but the enhanced NR does a good job of cleaning up some sharpness even after using the normal sharpening tools. Here's the original frame, as shot: First version, using normal NR https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53615800723_11da67fac5_h.jpgImmature Baldie Perched by FredMan, on Flickr Final, after apply the enhanced NR. This isn't a tremendous example unless you look at a 100% crop, but the original is noisy. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53623826264_2c6328cda6_h.jpgImmature Baldie Perched Enhanced NR by FredMan, on Flickr Fred, The noise reduction from #2 to #3 is really good. sharpens the whole thing right up. EBR |
|
Originally Posted By brass: I can really see a difference in the eye and beak, the rest of it I can't see the original full size, it just takes me to a page with ir reduced. The extra focal plane depth enhancement is good as well, adding the extra blur to the background leaves. The original frame doesn't look nearly as noisy as the crop; I think "zooming in" on the crop brings the slight noise at full resolution to more noise. Same noise, but more evident when zoomed in. |
GD is like putting on crampons and walking through a room full of puppies.
|
Originally Posted By FredMan: The original frame doesn't look nearly as noisy as the crop; I think "zooming in" on the crop brings the slight noise at full resolution to more noise. Same noise, but more evident when zoomed in. Where I notice it most is in the background leaves not having the noise on the green, and being able to clearly see the bird's eye the eye is the Biggest "jumps out at me" improvement, then the leaves. Normal NR you have to look for the eye while the new Magic version the eye jumps out at you and the greens in the background are nice and solid, not having noise crawling all over the green. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Heading into Rock Springs, WY, during some intermittent rain. A single frame crudely processed from a .JPG file...  A different single frame from a single .NEF file, perhaps when I got into a bar at Rock Springs...  Multiple frames, processed through Sequator to reduce noise and remove transient artifacts - such as the satellite, as many as I could get in between vehicles, 6; as well as some light painting by me with a headlamp for some foreground detail, and the help of an oncoming vehicle. And then reapplication via layering of one of the headlight frames to bring back the vehicle - Sequator did a pretty good job of removing it as a transient artifact, so good, that over the last two years, I forgot it was there - only recently revisiting this series of photographs. 
|
|
Raw file: Attached File Post-processed and retouched: Attached File |
Obedience is not patriotism. Patriotism is love of your country, not of your government.
|
My boss shot this and I said "What the fuck?" Attached File So I fixed it. Attached File |
Obedience is not patriotism. Patriotism is love of your country, not of your government.
|
Glacier NP, US. The first image was a single frame edit in LR on my tablet while out on the road. I had a number of frames, with several different exposure techniques with the same framing, so I was fairly confident I could ultimately get the detail I was after. With some of the frames, I was waiting for cars to go by, hoping I could get an exposure that wasn't blown out by the headlights. 9 10s exposures for the Milky Way to reduce sky noise and satellite traffic 1 30s exposure at a lower ISO for the fore/midground 1 exposure for the passing vehicle My remote release was broken, so I was limited to 30s exposures on this trip - which was a real handicap when trying to capture some scenes.  
|
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: Glacier NP, US. The first image was a single frame edit in LR on my tablet while out on the road. I had a number of frames, with several different exposure techniques with the same framing, so I was fairly confident I could ultimately get the detail I was after. With some of the frames, I was waiting for cars to go by, hoping I could get an exposure that wasn't blown out by the headlights. 9 10s exposures for the Milky Way to reduce sky noise and satellite traffic 1 30s exposure at a lower ISO for the fore/midground 1 exposure for the passing vehicle My remote release was broken, so I was limited to 30s exposures on this trip - which was a real handicap when trying to capture some scenes. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-5prwGK9/0/MVkFpVDBQBhmCNmDNtxFhr7m72CbbvDrXTgfvqCbs/X2/i-5prwGK9-X2.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KQDPFFk/0/KXF7bmg8Kv2xGgWLbD2s3sZStqCcTDQDMf2ZXZjGj/X2/i-KQDPFFk-X2.jpg Can't you set it up and put it on a timer, say 10 seconds after tapping trip the shutter and hold it open for 3 minutes or will it only go beyond 30 seconds when in bulb mode (must hold button down on remote)? |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: Can't you set it up and put it on a timer, say 10 seconds after tapping trip the shutter and hold it open for 3 minutes or will it only go beyond 30 seconds when in bulb mode (must hold button down on remote)? I can’t speak to his specific gear, but in my experience most cameras have a max exposure of 30 seconds for built-in Bulb function. To go longer you’d have to use an external trip and set on Bulb, then trip at start and end of your planned exposure. |
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Originally Posted By brass: Can't you set it up and put it on a timer, say 10 seconds after tapping trip the shutter and hold it open for 3 minutes or will it only go beyond 30 seconds when in bulb mode (must hold button down on remote)? Originally Posted By brass: Originally Posted By L_JE: Glacier NP, US. The first image was a single frame edit in LR on my tablet while out on the road. I had a number of frames, with several different exposure techniques with the same framing, so I was fairly confident I could ultimately get the detail I was after. With some of the frames, I was waiting for cars to go by, hoping I could get an exposure that wasn't blown out by the headlights. 9 10s exposures for the Milky Way to reduce sky noise and satellite traffic 1 30s exposure at a lower ISO for the fore/midground 1 exposure for the passing vehicle My remote release was broken, so I was limited to 30s exposures on this trip - which was a real handicap when trying to capture some scenes. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-5prwGK9/0/MVkFpVDBQBhmCNmDNtxFhr7m72CbbvDrXTgfvqCbs/X2/i-5prwGK9-X2.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KQDPFFk/0/KXF7bmg8Kv2xGgWLbD2s3sZStqCcTDQDMf2ZXZjGj/X2/i-KQDPFFk-X2.jpg Can't you set it up and put it on a timer, say 10 seconds after tapping trip the shutter and hold it open for 3 minutes or will it only go beyond 30 seconds when in bulb mode (must hold button down on remote)? The foreground of this photo was probably done as a 4 minute exposure, if I recall. Whatever my exposure was for the sky, I then dropped the ISO down to 100, or so, and increased my shutter time proportionally to get back to the same exposure. And then probably went +1.5EV in editing - because nobody is going to sit in a dim room and spend a minute or two to really take in the photo as it would have been truly seen when I was there. [that's a crescent moon on the horizon, but I just couldn't get subsequent moon exposures to look more natural, as one would have seen it while there, so it just is what it is]  |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: Newer Nikon mirrorless afford shutter speed of up to 900s when selected in-camera, but the older DSLR models only allow for shutters up to 30s when in bulb mode. I know you know this but thought I'd mention it for newbe's. With many of the older DSLRs you can use a Intervalometer Timer Remote Control Shutter Release to run the shutter for long exposures. EBR |
|
Originally Posted By EBR666: I know you know this but thought I'd mention it for newbe's. With many of the older DSLRs you can use a Intervalometer Timer Remote Control Shutter Release to run the shutter for long exposures. EBR Originally Posted By EBR666: Originally Posted By L_JE: Newer Nikon mirrorless afford shutter speed of up to 900s when selected in-camera, but the older DSLR models only allow for shutters up to 30s when in bulb mode. I know you know this but thought I'd mention it for newbe's. With many of the older DSLRs you can use a Intervalometer Timer Remote Control Shutter Release to run the shutter for long exposures. EBR The Time Mode " -- " doesn't work with the built in interval shooting options, but I wouldn't be using it like that, anyway. And moving the camera with a finger on the shutter release at the beginning and end of a minutes-long exposure isn't going to have an adverse impact on the image. Thanks for bringing up this option. Early nighttime photos or very late nighttime photos pushing into morning twilight can get around the issue by shooting the foreground image when there is just a bit more light. But, it's always the "I screwed that up, let me recompose my image" photos in the middle of the night that truly benefit from the minutes-long foreground exposure. There were a number of instances on this trip where Time Mode would have saved the day, or resulted in more/better images. The auroras, for one. |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: Thanks for bringing up this option. Your welcome. The timer is very useful for night sky object photography. With camera on a equatorial mount that will track the object use the timer to shoot long, like 5 minute exposures. over say a two hour span or longer. Then use stacking software to enhance the photo. There is online software for the stacking process. It analyzes the photo and will remove the noise from the stack. I'm playing with this process but still have a long way to go. There is a you tube guy, AstroBackyard , That goes into this process. EBR |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: There is a Time Mode that I overlooked, where it's a two-part action with the shutter: one press to open it, another to close it, rather than having to continually hold the shutter. Being out by myself, with little down time and usually away from any internet connectivity, there was a lot to get done and finding a workaround never made the cut - I think I looked at Gen Delivery for a new remote release, but couldn't really nail down a schedule well enough to be in a particular town after such and such date, so I just moved on without. The Time Mode " -- " doesn't work with the built in interval shooting options, but I wouldn't be using it like that, anyway. And moving the camera with a finger on the shutter release at the beginning and end of a minutes-long exposure isn't going to have an adverse impact on the image. Thanks for bringing up this option. Early nighttime photos or very late nighttime photos pushing into morning twilight can get around the issue by shooting the foreground image when there is just a bit more light. But, it's always the "I screwed that up, let me recompose my image" photos in the middle of the night that truly benefit from the minutes-long foreground exposure. There were a number of instances on this trip where Time Mode would have saved the day, or resulted in more/better images. The auroras, for one. The way to get around camera shake on “—“ mode is to use a remote trigger? |
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Originally Posted By EBR666: Your welcome. The timer is very useful for night sky object photography. With camera on a equatorial mount that will track the object use the timer to shoot long, like 5 minute exposures. over say a two hour span or longer. Then use stacking software to enhance the photo. There is online software for the stacking process. It analyzes the photo and will remove the noise from the stack. I'm playing with this process but still have a long way to go. There is a you tube guy, AstroBackyard , That goes into this process. EBR Originally Posted By EBR666: Originally Posted By L_JE: Thanks for bringing up this option. Your welcome. The timer is very useful for night sky object photography. With camera on a equatorial mount that will track the object use the timer to shoot long, like 5 minute exposures. over say a two hour span or longer. Then use stacking software to enhance the photo. There is online software for the stacking process. It analyzes the photo and will remove the noise from the stack. I'm playing with this process but still have a long way to go. There is a you tube guy, AstroBackyard , That goes into this process. EBR I really like StarTrails for stacking. Use it all the time for ISS shots and other long timeframe pictures.  Resize by FredMan, on Flickr Sun Moon Track 16mm 4 min by FredMan, on Flickr
|
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Originally Posted By FredMan: The way to get around camera shake on “—“ mode is to use a remote trigger? As long as it's the "--" mode, a single initial press to open and a single press to close 30+ seconds later shouldn't have any noticeable effect, aside from maybe greatly overexposed pinpoint light sources. |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: As long as it's the "--" mode, a single initial press to open and a single press to close 30+ seconds later shouldn't have any noticeable effect, aside from maybe greatly overexposed pinpoint light sources. You need to log out and log back in. It’s been killing me. 
|
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Originally Posted By FredMan: The way to get around camera shake on “—“ mode is to use a remote trigger? Originally Posted By FredMan: Originally Posted By L_JE: There is a Time Mode that I overlooked, where it's a two-part action with the shutter: one press to open it, another to close it, rather than having to continually hold the shutter. Being out by myself, with little down time and usually away from any internet connectivity, there was a lot to get done and finding a workaround never made the cut - I think I looked at Gen Delivery for a new remote release, but couldn't really nail down a schedule well enough to be in a particular town after such and such date, so I just moved on without. The Time Mode " -- " doesn't work with the built in interval shooting options, but I wouldn't be using it like that, anyway. And moving the camera with a finger on the shutter release at the beginning and end of a minutes-long exposure isn't going to have an adverse impact on the image. Thanks for bringing up this option. Early nighttime photos or very late nighttime photos pushing into morning twilight can get around the issue by shooting the foreground image when there is just a bit more light. But, it's always the "I screwed that up, let me recompose my image" photos in the middle of the night that truly benefit from the minutes-long foreground exposure. There were a number of instances on this trip where Time Mode would have saved the day, or resulted in more/better images. The auroras, for one. The way to get around camera shake on “—“ mode is to use a remote trigger? I think shortest way around camera shake is a video tripod with a 50lb weight hanging from the center hook. Short of somebody tripping on it, wind won't jostle around. However, that's 150lb of very backpacking unfriendly equipment. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: I think shortest way around camera shake is a video tripod with a 50lb weight hanging from the center hook. Short of somebody tripping on it, wind won't jostle around. However, that's 150lb of very backpacking unfriendly equipment lol. If it was easy it wouldn’t be fun. Getting THAT shot. Against all odds. |
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Originally Posted By FredMan: You need to log out and log back in. It’s been killing me. Thank you. Account management was just one of those things that became really hard when I had to switch over to a Canadian SIM card. After working around for the most critical accounts, I let others just fall by the wayside. |
|
A single-frame exposure in Glacier NP, MT, processed in Lightroom on a tablet. There's not detail in the trees down in the valley. And, the foreground was so dark/noisy I cropped it out. Nonetheless, this photo let me know that I had enough to render the scene, as best I had it composed.  Back home, and on a computer, I took a subsequent sky series, probably 7 frames or so, and averaged them in Sequator to reduce noise and let me bring out a little more detail. I then blended in an earlier frame from that evening to bring out better detail in the valley and foreground, the final result being very close in overall tones of the single-frame. This image has enough detail to distinguish individual trees down in the midground valley.  Blue Hour Milky Way photos are among my favorites ... when they work out. I have a lot where the tones just don't pan out the way I hoped - in theory, I should be able to push/pull them to where I'd like, but it just doesn't happen. But, this one, the tones worked out nicely. I might take an additional step to minimize some of the stars. Sequator seems to be able to keep up, but perhaps at the ragged edge, as I think I'm starting to notice artifacts that I haven't had to wrestle with in the past. Unfortunately, Blue Hour photos will become a thing of the past, or require so much processing that I'll never be able to get as much detail in the sky as I had in the past. If I get bored enough, I'll go back in time and pull up Blue Hour photos from similar latitudes and moon phases, and do a hand count of the satellite clutter. Offhand, I'd say it's grown 10x over the past 5 years. |
I didn't think much of the photo when I took it. The museum was closed because of the govt shutdown back in October, so it was just a driveby photo, and then back into Badlands. A simple split-tone via yellow/teal, some clarity, slight tone curve, and negative vignetting ... and now it's a photo that makes the cut, and preserves a memory, even if the big moose outside said the place was closed.... 
|
|
Here's a photo I recently revisited with some better noise reduction, and a different eye for the edit. The Milky Way was prominent enough that my climbing partner insisted we get some photos of it, despite out alarms set to go off in 3 to 4 hours. We had just crawled out from under the tarp, holed up there for hours of thunderstorms that moved through in the early evening. The old edit, while pulling out a lot of color in the Milky Way core, it just renders the stars overly harsh. This was my first trip with the D850, and the stars just render more harshly than what I was seeing with my D800. With the more recent edit, I've reduced the clarity of the sky, which gives better differentiation, more natural differentiation of the stars, and chose to keep the Milky Way core more subdued, close to how we would have seen it in the moment. I'm happy with that I revisited this older photo, because it finally brings it closer to what we saw, and why we went through the trouble of taking the photos in the first place. It was an amazing scene, but I had similar images from the night before, shooting all through the night, while my climbing partner and his friends were still a day out from arriving in this cirque. Old edit:  Recent edit: 
|
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: Here's a photo I recently revisited with some better noise reduction, and a different eye for the edit. The Milky Way was prominent enough that my climbing partner insisted we get some photos of it, despite out alarms set to go off in 3 to 4 hours. We had just crawled out from under the tarp, holed up there for hours of thunderstorms that moved through in the early evening. The old edit, while pulling out a lot of color in the Milky Way core, it just renders the stars overly harsh. This was my first trip with the D850, and the stars just render more harshly than what I was seeing with my D800. With the more recent edit, I've reduced the clarity of the sky, which gives better differentiation, more natural differentiation of the stars, and chose to keep the Milky Way core more subdued, close to how we would have seen it in the moment. I'm happy with that I revisited this older photo, because it finally brings it closer to what we saw, and why we went through the trouble of taking the photos in the first place. It was an amazing scene, but I had similar images from the night before, shooting all through the night, while my climbing partner and his friends were still a day out from arriving in this cirque. Old edit: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-5dfk7hr/0/MGVGjngwcvVzPBD3dzD8Ld76PMm7Ss5348fWPBPcS/X2/i-5dfk7hr-X2.jpg Recent edit: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ln9jKpj/0/McRjgRKgP4wwRrdBM6vF93XfkMgMfPNB4jG65775p/X2/i-Ln9jKpj-X2.jpg That’s sureally real. Very nice. EXIF? |
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Originally Posted By brass: I think shortest way around camera shake is a video tripod with a 50lb weight hanging from the center hook. Short of somebody tripping on it, wind won't jostle around. However, that's 150lb of very backpacking unfriendly equipment. I was revisiting this thread for the fun of it. Then saw this post about packing in heavy weight to stabilize the tripod. There is a good way to do the same thing without packing in the weight. This is assuming you are in the wilds. Get one of those mesh bags the women use to launder their bras. They weigh a few ounces. Of course you could use any thing like them. When you need weight fill it with rocks and hang it from the center tripod hook. Now this is assuming you are where there are rocks!! EBR |
|
Originally Posted By FredMan: That’s sureally real. Very nice. EXIF? Originally Posted By FredMan: Originally Posted By L_JE: Here's a photo I recently revisited with some better noise reduction, and a different eye for the edit. The Milky Way was prominent enough that my climbing partner insisted we get some photos of it, despite out alarms set to go off in 3 to 4 hours. We had just crawled out from under the tarp, holed up there for hours of thunderstorms that moved through in the early evening. The old edit, while pulling out a lot of color in the Milky Way core, it just renders the stars overly harsh. This was my first trip with the D850, and the stars just render more harshly than what I was seeing with my D800. With the more recent edit, I've reduced the clarity of the sky, which gives better differentiation, more natural differentiation of the stars, and chose to keep the Milky Way core more subdued, close to how we would have seen it in the moment. I'm happy with that I revisited this older photo, because it finally brings it closer to what we saw, and why we went through the trouble of taking the photos in the first place. It was an amazing scene, but I had similar images from the night before, shooting all through the night, while my climbing partner and his friends were still a day out from arriving in this cirque. Old edit: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-5dfk7hr/0/MGVGjngwcvVzPBD3dzD8Ld76PMm7Ss5348fWPBPcS/X2/i-5dfk7hr-X2.jpg Recent edit: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ln9jKpj/0/McRjgRKgP4wwRrdBM6vF93XfkMgMfPNB4jG65775p/X2/i-Ln9jKpj-X2.jpg That’s sureally real. Very nice. EXIF? Thanks. I think the environmental conditions of the rain that had only ended maybe a half hour earlier really helped to give the scene that look. I think my earlier edit choices just swamped the subtleties of the scene. |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: Here's a photo I recently revisited with some better noise reduction, and a different eye for the edit. The Milky Way was prominent enough that my climbing partner insisted we get some photos of it, despite out alarms set to go off in 3 to 4 hours. We had just crawled out from under the tarp, holed up there for hours of thunderstorms that moved through in the early evening. The old edit, while pulling out a lot of color in the Milky Way core, it just renders the stars overly harsh. This was my first trip with the D850, and the stars just render more harshly than what I was seeing with my D800. With the more recent edit, I've reduced the clarity of the sky, which gives better differentiation, more natural differentiation of the stars, and chose to keep the Milky Way core more subdued, close to how we would have seen it in the moment. I'm happy with that I revisited this older photo, because it finally brings it closer to what we saw, and why we went through the trouble of taking the photos in the first place. It was an amazing scene, but I had similar images from the night before, shooting all through the night, while my climbing partner and his friends were still a day out from arriving in this cirque. Old edit: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-5dfk7hr/0/MGVGjngwcvVzPBD3dzD8Ld76PMm7Ss5348fWPBPcS/X2/i-5dfk7hr-X2.jpg Recent edit: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ln9jKpj/0/McRjgRKgP4wwRrdBM6vF93XfkMgMfPNB4jG65775p/X2/i-Ln9jKpj-X2.jpg I kind of like the top photo as a photograph. The way the headlight merges off the Milky Way is striking. The bottom one looks like a frame grab from a thriller flavor movie since movies rarely run anywhere near the full gamut of color/brightness in mood scenes. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Post Processing Examples Cont'd (Page 3 of 3)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter