PHOTO: Blending images in camera: any chances?

I recently realized that some images can only be made by using a resource most of our cameras have.  We can take two (or more) RAW files and combine them while still in camera.


To see the possibilities, I tried to do it once, and was thinking that maybe iStock could accept a file created this way.  This one I am sharing with you is possibly too noisy, but the idea is what I am trying to get your opinion about.  Here you see the moon that I shot first, and the clouds and stars that I shot later.


Would you help me by judging this kind of image creation?  Here's an example.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/coqvgij0y4z3nce/Half%20Moon%20Clouds%2034%20February.JPG
(Edited on 2013-02-20 19:24:44 by jluizmail)

(Edited on 2013-02-20 19:26:14 by jluizmail)

(Edited on 2013-02-20 19:30:26 by jluizmail)

(Edited on 2013-02-20 19:34:04 by jluizmail)

(Edited on 2013-02-20 19:34:48 by jluizmail)

(Edited on 2013-02-20 20:15:25 by donald_gruener)

(Edited on 2013-02-21 12:31:02 by jluizmail)

your link doesn't work. Did you make it public?

/
/Excuse me for that.


I will fix the link today.


_____________________________


There!  I hope I fixed it right.

(Edited on 2013-02-21 12:31:33 by jluizmail)

live link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/coqvgij0y4z3nce/Half%20Moon%20Clouds%2034%20February.JPG


It doesn't really matter how you merge images (in-camera or in post processing), it just has to look good. You image doesn't look good. Too much noise and main subject (moon) is not in focus.


You will be much better off working with individual frames and manipulate them in post processing (photoshop).

I agree.

Thank you for your patience, slobo.
I still don't understand why I couldn't get the link to work like you did.  I pasted it in the message, the symbol for the link became available, I added the link to it, and thought it would be just like yours.


__________________________________________________________________


Well, as for blending images in Photoshop, I got a little bit insecure because of the rejections I had after  uploading treated images.  I thought inspectors would complain that the file had been manipulated somehow.


On the other hand, how could I get certain images that I see being downloaded in tons if I don't use an image editor at all?


As for my bad example image in this thread, I apologize.  But I only wanted to show my draft.  I promise I won't be uploading this kind of bad image again.

No need to apologize. It's better to ask than to wonder, and that's why this forum is here. So don't hesitate to bring in images you're wondering about, we're happy to help. Sometimes the feedback may be, well, straight to the point, but you'll definitely gain insight.

Slobo is right on when he says it doesn't really matter how you do it. The specific tools, techniques, etc. are not taken into consideration when we review submissions. The end product is all that matters. If it looks good, clean quality, solid concept, it will get accepted.

Manipulated images are difficult to get accepted though. The standard is high, things need to be expertly executed. Basically, it shouldn't LOOK like it's been manipulated. If we can see places where images were clipped, or if lighting, focus, etc. on element A doesn't match element B, or if conceptually it just doesn't click, it's going to get rejected. On top of that, it must also meet the rest of our image quality requirements about focus, artifacts, lighting quality, etc.

Good luck and please don't hesitate to bring in whatever you'd like us to look at.

I'm curious what do you mean by blending images together in camera. Do you refer to HDR or to something else?

Friends,

Your replies - each and every one - are invaluble.  Thank you so much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bike_Maverick,

My Nikon D300s and many other cameras can take two (in my case) or more RAW images and simple merge them creating a third file.

What I did in this example was to choose a picture of the moon where stars can't be seen and also another picture where stars are visible.  Then I confirmed, and the camera came up with that image.

I even know why it is that the final image was not good.  Here are the individual files, see it yourselves.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1enbnkby7s9y2w6/Half%20Moon%20Clouds%2037%20February.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vnipyl6yw1s763w/Half%20Moon%20Clouds%2040%20February.JPG


Again I apologize for not uploading exactly the original moon file, but it works so I can explain how the camera operated with these images.

(Edited on 2013-02-21 14:56:21 by jluizmail)
(Edited on 2013-02-21 14:57:44 by jluizmail)

(Edited on 2013-02-21 18:48:39 by jluizmail)

I did some googling and it's confirmed - you're refering to generating high dynamic range images (HDRI) here. I personally love taking HDR and any landscape photo I take lately I take with three exposures. For some I'll do HDRI, for some I'll just stick to the normally exposed file.


I however NEVER do any kind of merging in-camera (or any processing, for that matter) - camera can never get it as good as a program that you control. I much prefer Photomatix over anything else (Tone mapping mode). If you'd like to learn HDR I'd recommend reading Trey Ratcliff tutorials (google will give you a link to his website right away - not sure if I'm allowed to post it here) - that's what I read when I started learning. Read his tutorials, read through his website - I remember being inspired to try it out when I was reading it.


It's not something that will come to you right away (in my case, anyway), but the more you practice the better it gets. Note that I think that he pushes his settings a but too much, sometimes way too much for my taste; I like when HDR is applied in such manner that the effect itself (halos around brightness edges) is not visible. Almost, if not all, all of landscapes in my portfolio that are older than 2010 are HDR, processed by photomatix and then enhanced in Photoshop. They take work (the longest I spend was couple hours, adjusting local details in PS) but the end result well worth it.


I'll be happy to help you if you have any questions about that