I can't find any reference to this being discussed, so I was wondering what software people are using to merge multiple exposures? I know CS4 etc will do it, but that is a bit pricey. I use lightroom 1.1 as a standard developing software, but the 2.0 upgrade doesn't seem obviously able to merge images? I considered the CHDISK hack to in camera RAW merge on my G7, but CHDISK is incompatible with waterproof case usage.

Cheers-Mark

Are you referring to HDR (High Dynamic Range)?

If you are then the leading software in this is supposed to be Photomatix http://www.hdrsoft.com/
Not used it myself but i am told it is better than Photoshop at this.

You can simulate multiple exposures using "layers" in a cheap version of Photoshop. The one I use is Photoshop 5LE.

Alexander

Cheers for both those, hadn't really thought of extending dynamic range for my digi photos but that would be a bonus for my D10 SLR everyday photos. I hadn't thought of cheap elements, not having played around with layers much. The HDR software does look good as well, pity the pound isn't worth 2 dollars anymore!

Dear Noel Axle is right, layers in Photoshop is the best way and you can do this even in PS Elements (the basic version that's bundled with many printers and scanners). To simulate multiple exposures open all the required digital images, then choose one as your base image. Click on the first one you want to merge, then use Select>All, Ctrl+C (to copy the image), go back to the base image and use Ctrl+V to paste the file you copied. It will appear on its own separate layer, and you can then edit it as you wish - using the Eraser tool will reveal the base image below. Repeat for as many images as you want to merge, you can change the layer order by dragging them up and down the Layers palette.

However, the best way of merging images in this way is to change the blend mode of each layer - you do this on the Layers palette. This works particularly well with cave shots as there tend to be large dark areas, and changing the blend mode to 'Lighten' will reveal just what you want. When you've finished you can go to Layer>Flatten Image to compress all the layers, or save as a TIFF with all the layers intact, at the expense of a bigger file size.

Try it and see, or Google 'Photoshop Blend Modes', there are countless tutorials out there. This image was done with this technique, using four separate shots of Biffa in Ogof Ffynnon Ddu II's Big Chamber Near the Entrance. I stacked the layers, changed the blend mode to 'Lighten' then tweaked it slightly with the Eraser tool. I have a slightly better version that I haven't finished playing with that I'll post when I've done it.

Sorry, can't post the image at present, I'll sort it later...

Thanks for that Tony, looks like I need to learn to use elements and layers. Like to see that OFD image

I have used photomatix before, and was happy with it.

Examples:





Both pictures are made out of 3 pictures with +/- 2EV.

Francis

is that ice in the first photo or long exposure foam / bubbles/ spray?

Cave_Troll said:

is that ice in the first photo or long exposure foam / bubbles/ spray?

Click to expand...

Ice .

Francis

GIMP is a free photoshop-like image editing software with layers

http://www.gimp.org/

But it would not do it "properly", but neither would photoshop.

Merging photos "properly" either to obtain higher dynamic range, or to reduce noise
would view a photo as an array of radiance measurements. This requires knowledge of the camera imaging pipeline.
Even in raw mode most cameras perform a non-linear mapping of the sensor signal (which usually has a linear tone response),
and this needs to be reverse engineered (calibration of the tone response function).

For me GIMP is not an option, as it AFAIK doesn't support 16bit files.

Francis

francis said:

Cave_Troll said:

is that ice in the first photo or long exposure foam / bubbles/ spray?

Click to expand...

Ice .

Francis

Click to expand...

Presumably you are using a tripod so that registration is maintained? (or does photomatix cope with that?)

Cheers,

Glenn

wow - gettnig some proper photo geek jargon now.

I've never understood photography and probably never will 

I have no idea what anyone is on about but I do like Francis's pictures 

The red building in the second one doesn't look real.

The Gimp is shit compared to Photoshop. Yes I know it's free but there's plenty of free versions of Photoshop floating about if you don't want to pay the crazy price tag. Not that I'd ever condone such behaviour of course  :ang:

Photomatix is definitely best for HDR but you have to be really careful not to overdo it and create very false looking images. Used subtly HDR can be great but there's some shocking examples of overblown images about.

Just my opinion, but most HDR photos look 'orrible.

Sorry. 

Yeah, a lot of them do look horrible because people over-use the technique. Done subtly they are much better:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ccgd/2749424480/

Yep, nice subtle HDR images there. I feel inspired..

Glenn said:

Presumably you are using a tripod so that registration is maintained? (or does photomatix cope with that?)

Cheers,

Glenn

Click to expand...

Yes, the camera was on a tripod, and I used cable release iirc. Photomatix can cope with misalignment, but the end result isn't as sharp as it can get by using a tripod.

ttxela said:

I have no idea what anyone is on about but I do like Francis's pictures 

The red building in the second one doesn't look real.

Click to expand...

Thankyou!

I agree the red building looks a bit fake.

Francis