R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for your interest, Bob. Working on single exposure images has limitations which very often result in extra work to optimise the images in PP. I've seen videos that show it's possible to get a better starting point than a single exposure. One way which I've tried already is exposure bracketing and I can confirm that it's easier to achieve good results and the results are better than those got from a single exposure image. And that's true whether the captured scene had a high dynamic range or not. Another way that I've seen - the one this thread is about - is to use median blending of multiple exposures got from using continuous shutter release. The main advantage is the effect that it has on noise, which in itself is a significant advantage, even at base ISO, because no image is so noise-free that lightening dark areas doesn't bring out noise. I also suspect that it will be similar to merging bracketed images in that the colours may be stronger (and that may apply to details as well).

Put another way, merged images can take significantly more pushing and pulling in PP resulting in a better final image, and I suspect that the same will be true of median blended images. At the very least, blended images taken in low light are significantly more noise-free than a single exposure of the same scene, so what's not to like? With a noisy image you will always be limited to how much pushing you can give them because most of what you want to do to add pop, depth, definition etc results in any noise being aggravated.

If things work out the way I'm hoping I should be able to post clear examples of the undeniable advantages of using median blending and/or exposure bracketing . Thanks for wishing me success.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for your input, NG. You're not the first advocate of GIMP. I'll definitely be considering it as a possibility.

srt101fan

I don't even know what "median or average blending" is, R.G., but I'll vote for Affinity! 😊

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

Sounds interesting. I too look forward to seeing the results.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Hi RG,

Affinity does average and median stacking (and a few other operations on the stack). Luminar 3 does not.

However any editor that uses layers may be able to average a stack. Here is a Petapixel article discussing, among other things, manually averaging layers in the Processing discussion (sec 4). A link to the article is:

https://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-practical-guide-to-creating-superresolution-photos-with-photoshop/

Ex. To take an average of 4 images, align the 4 images then set the opacity of the lowest layer to 100% (1/1), the next layer to 50% (1/2), the next layer to 33% (1/3), the final top layer to 25% (1/4). This approach is the same as taking an average of the 4 layers in PS, but not the same as median.

Your approach to stacking for noise in the shadows is also effective in 1) low light photography, 2) simulating an ND filter, and 3) super-resolution. Super-resolution was discussed in another post last year.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-526173-1.html

For low-light photography, you can shoot multiple shots at a high ISO and by averaging them, you can significantly reduce the ISO noise.

For simulating an ND filter, shoot multiple shots of a waterfall and by averaging them, the areas of no movement will retain detail but the areas of movement will be averaged creating the smooth flowing effect that a long exposure gives.

The referenced article discusses how to increase the resolution of an image using stacking. It works, but is limited by the lens resolution.

If your software has layer capabilities, then these methods should be possible. Some editors like PS, Affinity and GIMP just make it easier than others.

Mike

R.G. Loc: Scotland

At the very least, median and average blending are effective ways to produce low noise images even from high ISO exposures. It seems to me that Affinity is a better proposition than Ps Elements, even for someone that doesn't have specific needs. Thanks for commenting, srt.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for commenting, Heather. I'm hoping that the technique will be a way to get very good quality images even from average cameras. I've already found out that exposure bracketing can be used to get good image files even from a small sensor compact camera. My current camera is a D5200 which isn't in the same league as the best and most recent models, but with the right techniques it should be possible to negate the disadvantages that it has.

N4646W

R.G.
Affinity can do just about anything PS can, but it is much more user intuitive for me. I do my raw in NX 2 and NX D before any other program touches it. I've found that Affinity will (after stripping out all the presets) give me the closest representation of my Raw image work done in Nikon software. It seems to give me a slightly finer detail than the Nikon software. You have to pixel peep, but this might be that it is a consistently updated software and is more capable of using the computer hardware better, to portray the results. Unlike other applications, it is not hampered by being stripped out as some are. I got it when it was still a Windows Beta, and have yet to have to pay for an update. The new Consumer Beta is even faster and I eagerly await the final.

I recently did a 29 frame horizontal pano which none of the other software was able to stitch, in less than 2 min with only one very slight blemish, (had to pixel peep again to find it) and I have a 10 year old machine running 10 internal HD's plus externals. Stacking, Focus merge, HDR, are all just as fast and reliable.

Ron

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for the further info. It sounds quite impressive. Even if I opt for another editor to do my median blending I may well buy Affinity to give it a try. Serif are quite good at including tutorial stuff within the application, which suits me fine because I never feel like hunting for explanations when I'm new to something.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for the links and comments, Mike. It looks like there's all sorts of potential in these techniques. I'll be happy if I can get files with low noise, strong details and strong colours that'll take lots of pushing and pulling in PP - which is what the best files from the best cameras are like. You and others are making Affinity sound irresistible .

N4646W

Well, it is fully functional for 30 days with "no" restrictions.

Ron

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Once I get some hardware issues sorted out I'll give it a try.

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

You seemed to be doing very well without all the recent gear. It just shows that it is not the camera but the operator, but of course, we all aim to improve further. Once you have decided on which software you choose I look forward to hearing of the results.

H

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I'd have to admit that I hanker after some of the more recent developments like Highlight Weighted Metering, blinkies, ISO invariance and the like. And I'd like a camera that gives quick access to ISO and exposure compensation adjustments. Not to mention some proper weather-proofing (given Scotland's temperamental climate ). Maybe some cheap second hand D500s will come on to the market in the not too distant future.

Since you mention results, I'll mention a workflow that I'm considering trying (which was inspired by a video that Mike <Salvage Diver> provided a link to) -

For maximum detail retention I'll try grabbing ~20 exposures (hand-held with a steady hand) using fast, continuous shutter release, upsizing them to 4x the resolution, applying equal amounts of sharpening to each exposure, blending them using median blending and then doing whatever to the resulting file. I suspect that if I leave the resolution high until I've done all of the editing then convert to jpeg, I'll have a reasonably compact file (perhaps in the region of 20MB) which holds on to most of the detail when converted. Jpeg may not be ideal in terms of holding on to colour and luminosity data, but it does seem to be good at holding on to detail.

And for the times when I'm not worried about maximising the detail I'll just downsize to a lossless format like TIFF. I'm also thinking about combining the median blending technique with exposure bracketing. If detail retention and/or noise reduction aren't a priority I should be able to get away with using less exposures. For simple noise reduction, six exposures is probably more than adequate, and even in extreme cases, eight or so exposures is probably enough (going by what I've seen and heard).

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

RG, 20 exposures hand held? You must have a steady hand. Good luck.

Our hobby is a very expensive one. Perhaps you should do what I did. I am spending some of the children's inheritance and have just purchased a secondhand Sony AR7II. It is very sharp and quick to focus. I am yet to find out all that it can do but meanwhile, I am very pleased with the photos. The Lenses are very expensive and I am taking my time in deciding which is the best lens for taking Landscapes and Birds. I would be interested to hear from other members regarding which lens they use with good results. Perhaps they would PM me as this is a separate issue to this thread. I would prefer a Sony Lens.

H