| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|||||||
| Night Time Photography - Page 2 | |
| With D200... | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2015 17:04 |
|
11th Post |
amazing50
|
Good luck on the car removal.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2015 17:57 |
|
12th Post |
jk
|
Yes the blending technique works well. Also if there is a particular item to remove then you can select it and then put it on another layer and make the layer a Subtract layer type.  It then disappears as black!The wonders of Photoshop.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2015 06:44 |
|
13th Post |
Robert
|
OK, I have been playing on my MBP (13" mid 2010). Running Lightroom CC15.1.1 and Photoshop CC15.0.1. The camera was a D200 with Nikkor 20mm f2.8 1/8Sec @ f4.5, ISO 200. I roughly followed the tutorial in the astro photography video, with the exception of masking the foreground. I'm not confident there was NO movement between exposures, so I asked Ps to align the layers. Not sure that was a good idea but will try again without aligning layers when I get home. The first image was exposure 10 of 10, clearly showing cars and headlights in the scene, all bar one exposure had cars visible on the road.  The second image is after the median layer blend, all the cars removed and to my eyes it seems smoother, noise wise, although not really very sharp.  Finally a 100% crop in Ps which shows the lack of sharpness and chromatic aberrations at the junction of the road and wall. There is also a fringe on all of the images at the skyline. This may be mirror slap because I didn't take that much care with my exposures, this really only being a quick experiment.  I will post some more results when I have processed the other images at home.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2015 09:13 |
|
14th Post |
jk
|
Good start on the technique. Car removal has worked well.  I wonder if it is the technique or maybe some shake that is making the image less sharp?
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2015 10:47 |
|
15th Post |
amazing50
|
Interesting to see if you lose any of the sheep. If they only move a bit you may have parts of sheep.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2015 11:51 |
|
16th Post |
Robert
|
Thanks JK, yes, very pleased especially given it was done on the MBP, it coughed a bit aligning the images in Ps but the rest of the process was quite quick. I am sure Eric would create an action and it would be a breeze. I think the lack of sharpness was a combination of wide aperture, lack of care on my part, the fact I just put the camera on high speed repeat shutter with my finger on the button and counted to ten. It needs much more care with the shutter, mirror up and use a remote. The individual images are not sharp either but I do wonder if the auto alignment in PS is averaging the alignment on moving parts of the image like the branches of the tree which were gently swaying in the breeze. This is why I tried it first on this image because most of my other images have moving water with wind created waves moving quite vigorously towards the camera. Mike, I think the two leftmost sheep are only partial, looking at the two complete images, will take a look at the full size image when I get home... I think masking may be needed or overlaying a complete layer for the water, but that's where I expect noise to occur, so will have to try other approaches and experiment a bit...
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2015 16:33 |
|
17th Post |
Eric
|
Robert If you take the same images and use 4 in the variable opacity method I mentioned without aligning the layers, do you get the same degree of fringing and soft edges in the wall crop? My other question is why did you use 200ISO? Surely using a higher ISO and faster speed / smaller aperture would have reduced camera shake? After all, one of the benefits of stacking is to reduce high ISO noise.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2015 03:52 |
|
18th Post |
Robert
|
Hi Eric, I will try your method too. Currently in the midst of fairly major house alterations and upheaval so my photography input is a bit more disjointed than usual.  I am using ISO 200 to minimise the noise (the D200 does not like poor lighting, at any ISO), for the vast majority of my photography that does not matter but I have started to become interested in sunsets and post sunset photography. Until I get my D3 I need to resort to trickery! Its's bad enough at ISO 200, let alone ramping it up, although I do take your point, maybe ISO 400 might be a sweet spot, my current aim is to experiment with the software, which seems to work well enough, I processed another stack last night which included Ulswater with it's moving ripples. I intend posting some images from that stack later when I have beaten the kitchen sink unit and dish washer into submission!!! I am very impressed with the noise removal in the latest stack I have processed, the noise is clearly defined in the unprocessed images but after the median blend on only 4 images the image is nice and clean.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2015 06:53 |
|
19th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Hi Eric, I will try your method too. Currently in the midst of fairly major house alterations and upheaval so my photography input is a bit more disjointed than usual. Exactly my point...whichever method you use the noise will be reduced. You could probably go to 1600!
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2015 11:13 |
|
20th Post |
Robert
|
ISO 1600??? with a D200... Oh my goodness, shock, horror! OK I will try it but it might blow a fuse. I suppose at this rate I might not need a D3.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 1248 Current time is 10:38 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Photography > Photography Projects > Night Time Photography | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0699 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 82 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0699 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 82 queries executed.