Random Photos : Part 4
Discussion
RobDickinson said:
thats incredible!!! can I ask how you create an image like that? is that a few different shots (capturing the sky, water, mountains etc....) all merged and layered into one shot?
BlackST said:
Not as good as any of the others on this thread but I like this photo from my phone. I don't know the girl, was hard to get a photo with minimal people in the way.
I like it. Technically it could be better but the image tells a potential story, it makes you think of what might be. 
malks222 said:
RobDickinson said:
thats incredible!!! can I ask how you create an image like that? is that a few different shots (capturing the sky, water, mountains etc....) all merged and layered into one shot?
DibblyDobbler said:
malks222 said:
RobDickinson said:
thats incredible!!! can I ask how you create an image like that? is that a few different shots (capturing the sky, water, mountains etc....) all merged and layered into one shot?
LongQ said:
DibblyDobbler said:
malks222 said:
RobDickinson said:
thats incredible!!! can I ask how you create an image like that? is that a few different shots (capturing the sky, water, mountains etc....) all merged and layered into one shot?
king long time painting in all those stars!malks222 said:
thats incredible!!!
can I ask how you create an image like that? is that a few different shots (capturing the sky, water, mountains etc....) all merged and layered into one shot?
Thanks.. Serious answer..can I ask how you create an image like that? is that a few different shots (capturing the sky, water, mountains etc....) all merged and layered into one shot?
Its a stitch of 36 images ( 3 rows of 12) taken iso 6400 15 seconds, at 50mm. Though once stitched I have cropped some of the LHS to get a better comp.
Theres no multiple exposures or layering on this one, though sometimes I process the raws twice at different levels for sky/ground and blend, I rarely take multiple exposures on site.
This has had standard global raw processing ( WB, contrast etc) and a few quick masks and curves in photoshop, one for the sky, one for the hills, and I have added noise reduction on the water.
My processing is actually pretty simple for most of my shots...
RobDickinson said:
malks222 said:
thats incredible!!!
can I ask how you create an image like that? is that a few different shots (capturing the sky, water, mountains etc....) all merged and layered into one shot?
Thanks.. Serious answer..can I ask how you create an image like that? is that a few different shots (capturing the sky, water, mountains etc....) all merged and layered into one shot?
Its a stitch of 36 images ( 3 rows of 12) taken iso 6400 15 seconds, at 50mm. Though once stitched I have cropped some of the LHS to get a better comp.
Theres no multiple exposures or layering on this one, though sometimes I process the raws twice at different levels for sky/ground and blend, I rarely take multiple exposures on site.
This has had standard global raw processing ( WB, contrast etc) and a few quick masks and curves in photoshop, one for the sky, one for the hills, and I have added noise reduction on the water.
My processing is actually pretty simple for most of my shots...
DibblyDobbler said:
What I don't understand ... ok one of many things I don't understand... is surely after 36 x 15secs the stars will have moved quite on quite considerably thus making it impossible to stitch it all together later? Clearly not as you have done it - but how does that work?!
Its even worse, the shot is 15 seconds but I have a 5 second pause in there for stability too.. I shoot in rows with the movement of the stars (rather than against it) , so stuff is lined up within its own row, then the rows are shifted with respect to each other.. but I stitch to a fixed grid and let the stitching software sort it out, with 25-30% overlap there is enough.
The fixed grid thing is important ( to my stitching anyhow) as otherwise the sw will match control points to individual stars and then you get a weird bowed effect.
RobDickinson said:
DibblyDobbler said:
What I don't understand ... ok one of many things I don't understand... is surely after 36 x 15secs the stars will have moved quite on quite considerably thus making it impossible to stitch it all together later? Clearly not as you have done it - but how does that work?!
Its even worse, the shot is 15 seconds but I have a 5 second pause in there for stability too.. I shoot in rows with the movement of the stars (rather than against it) , so stuff is lined up within its own row, then the rows are shifted with respect to each other.. but I stitch to a fixed grid and let the stitching software sort it out, with 25-30% overlap there is enough.
The fixed grid thing is important ( to my stitching anyhow) as otherwise the sw will match control points to individual stars and then you get a weird bowed effect.
Do you find the stitch up method would blow away something shot with a Samyang 14mm or similar?
DibblyDobbler said:
Do you find the stitch up method would blow away something shot with a Samyang 14mm or similar?
oh hell yes. the Sy14 is a decent wide, but heavyish vignetting. you either need to live with that, fix it in post or stop down.Either way you are stuck with a single frame from a 35mm sensor. Noise can be a problem
With 36 frames stitched you end up with far more resolution , and effectively a sensor 27 ish times bigger, and stitched/blended out the poorer part of the lens too (edges/corners).
I've printed this kind of image at 1.5m and had to downsample it to get 300dpi (was 470ish) and its looked stunning, you wont do that with a single frame at iso 6400...
RobDickinson said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Do you find the stitch up method would blow away something shot with a Samyang 14mm or similar?
oh hell yes. the Sy14 is a decent wide, but heavyish vignetting. you either need to live with that, fix it in post or stop down.Either way you are stuck with a single frame from a 35mm sensor. Noise can be a problem
With 36 frames stitched you end up with far more resolution , and effectively a sensor 27 ish times bigger, and stitched/blended out the poorer part of the lens too (edges/corners).
I've printed this kind of image at 1.5m and had to downsample it to get 300dpi (was 470ish) and its looked stunning, you wont do that with a single frame at iso 6400...
RobDickinson said:
Thanks.. Serious answer..
Its a stitch of 36 images ( 3 rows of 12) taken iso 6400 15 seconds, at 50mm. Though once stitched I have cropped some of the LHS to get a better comp.
Theres no multiple exposures or layering on this one, though sometimes I process the raws twice at different levels for sky/ground and blend, I rarely take multiple exposures on site.
This has had standard global raw processing ( WB, contrast etc) and a few quick masks and curves in photoshop, one for the sky, one for the hills, and I have added noise reduction on the water.
My processing is actually pretty simple for most of my shots...
thanks for taking the time to respond. you make it sound so simple..... Its a stitch of 36 images ( 3 rows of 12) taken iso 6400 15 seconds, at 50mm. Though once stitched I have cropped some of the LHS to get a better comp.
Theres no multiple exposures or layering on this one, though sometimes I process the raws twice at different levels for sky/ground and blend, I rarely take multiple exposures on site.
This has had standard global raw processing ( WB, contrast etc) and a few quick masks and curves in photoshop, one for the sky, one for the hills, and I have added noise reduction on the water.
My processing is actually pretty simple for most of my shots...
I just assumed with the reflection on the water that you wouldve needed one single shot for that, but the stitching of the shots has worked very well there.
someone posted Blackpool so here are a few of mine from last week
IMG_2147.jpg by Stuart Brown, on Flickr
IMG_1869.jpg by Stuart Brown, on Flickr
these two didn't quite work out as planned...
IMG_2046.jpg by Stuart Brown, on Flickr
IMG_2057.jpg by Stuart Brown, on Flickr
IMG_2147.jpg by Stuart Brown, on FlickrIMG_1869.jpg by Stuart Brown, on Flickrthese two didn't quite work out as planned...
IMG_2046.jpg by Stuart Brown, on FlickrIMG_2057.jpg by Stuart Brown, on Flickr
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff