Wouldn't this also work for blending multiple exposures of any type (assuming you used a sturdy tripod and you bracketed them properly)?
Yes, I agree. The technique shown is the time-tested way to blend copies of any two images, like scans. And it's totally great for that. But if you are really talking about Raw images, it's better, in terms of ultimate reversible non-destructiveness, to use the "multiple smart objects of raw files with different conversion settings" method, which can be automated by Russell Brown's Place-A-Matic plug-in (scroll down). Then you don't need any adjustment layers at all. Just two raw-based smart objects and one mask.
Yes, I agree. The technique shown is the time-tested way to blend copies of any two images, like scans. And it's totally great for that. But if you are really talking about Raw images, it's better, in terms of ultimate reversible non-destructiveness, to use the "multiple smart objects of raw files with different conversion settings" method, which can be automated by Russell Brown's Place-A-Matic plug-in (link is in the linked article). Then you don't need any adjustment layers at all. Just two raw-based smart objects and one mask.
I'm not sure how that ends up being more non-destructive, but the place-a-matic thing sure looks cool.
I'm not sure how that ends up being more non-destructive, but the place-a-matic thing sure looks cool.
Because at any time you can edit the raw conversion settings by double-clicking either the light or dark smart object. With the traditional layer way, you are stuck with the PSD you made from the conversion unless you go all the way back, re-convert the raw, and insert the new version into the document with the adjustment layers in it. Instead of editing an adjustment layer curve on a static post-conversion bitmap layer, you edit the actual tone curve in Adobe Camera Raw of each individual smart object. Try it, it's cool!
Because at any time you can alter the raw conversion settings by double-clicking either the light or dark smart object. With the traditional layer way, you are stuck with the PSD you made from the conversion unless you go all the way back, re-convert, and paste it into the document with the adjustment layers in it. Try it, it's cool!
For now the page I linked to is a great tute for that.
Maybe I will make a smugmug version someday when there's more time. (I know, I know, "then how do you find time to post")
That Dr. Brown is one smart cookie! The Place-A-Matic works great. I didn't read a thing, just downloaded the easy installer, I had a vague idea of how it worked...et voila! Nice!
I think the corrections are a tad slower, since the machine has to do more thinking, but it's well worth it and very cool!
The thing I'll add about the whole Place-A-Matic thing, is that it won't work with earlier version of PS...
Right, you need CS2 and Bridge, which means you need a lot of memory.
I see the wonderful advantage of being able to adjust your RAW files as you do your masking.
But the basics of masking don't change, you still have the challenge of making the edges look right.
One additional thought: all these tutorials look at only layering two exposures. But I've found myself using three, maybe even four. Worth thinking about.
It seems to me that if you are simply blending for exposure differences, that hand masking is doing it the hard way? Why not use the blend-if sliders to automatically blend the difference and use a reverse S-curve adjustment layer on top of it all if you wind up with too much contrast? Using blend-if is non-destructive and so is the adjustment layer... take a midtone metered pic as the base, put highlight and shadows exposures above it, and blend away whatever you don't want.
Why not use the blend-if sliders to automatically blend the difference and use a reverse S-curve adjustment layer on top of it all if you wind up with too much contrast? Using blend-if is non-destructive and so is the adjustment layer... take a midtone metered pic as the base, put highlight and shadows exposures above it, and blend away whatever you don't want.
Because I find it very difficult to achieve believable results in a scene like this.
Comments
One thing is always overlooked in these discussions. It has nothing to do with technique.
What people forget is that no matter how proficient you are, you still have to develop your eye to understand what looks good and what doesn't.
This is where I struggle.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Yes, I agree. The technique shown is the time-tested way to blend copies of any two images, like scans. And it's totally great for that. But if you are really talking about Raw images, it's better, in terms of ultimate reversible non-destructiveness, to use the "multiple smart objects of raw files with different conversion settings" method, which can be automated by Russell Brown's Place-A-Matic plug-in (scroll down). Then you don't need any adjustment layers at all. Just two raw-based smart objects and one mask.
Could do!
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I'm not sure how that ends up being more non-destructive, but the place-a-matic thing sure looks cool.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Because at any time you can edit the raw conversion settings by double-clicking either the light or dark smart object. With the traditional layer way, you are stuck with the PSD you made from the conversion unless you go all the way back, re-convert the raw, and insert the new version into the document with the adjustment layers in it. Instead of editing an adjustment layer curve on a static post-conversion bitmap layer, you edit the actual tone curve in Adobe Camera Raw of each individual smart object. Try it, it's cool!
Ah, didn't get that point.
Wanna write a tute?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Maybe I will make a smugmug version someday when there's more time. (I know, I know, "then how do you find time to post")
That Dr. Brown is one smart cookie! The Place-A-Matic works great. I didn't read a thing, just downloaded the easy installer, I had a vague idea of how it worked...et voila! Nice!
I think the corrections are a tad slower, since the machine has to do more thinking, but it's well worth it and very cool!
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I'll have to finagle someone to write a tute on that.
Here's my attempt at this image with Dr. Brown's help.
photo credit: wxwax
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I see the wonderful advantage of being able to adjust your RAW files as you do your masking.
But the basics of masking don't change, you still have the challenge of making the edges look right.
One additional thought: all these tutorials look at only layering two exposures. But I've found myself using three, maybe even four. Worth thinking about.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Because I find it very difficult to achieve believable results in a scene like this.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops