DSLRUsers.com

Hi,

I wanted to join a few images together. Not a problem, cropped them to be the same height and then used a nice little Linux cli tool to join them all together, pnmcat for those that use Linux.

All three images were taken with my 50mm lens, approximately the same distance from each dog. The time of day was different, so the lighting ends up being different. Also the one on the right, I had the WB wrong

In colour, it looks like this:


I wasn't very happy with the result as the different lighting does really show up. So I decided to change it to B&W. Did it with Channel mixer in the GIMP and it looks like this:


(click on the image to get a bigger version)

Do you find that the B&W is much better? Does the break in the three images detract from the final photo?

Thanks for any feedback,

Radar
aka André PS: dogs are Bebe, Peanut and Holly

Typical bloody labs; always ready for inaction.

I prefer the B&W; the varying colour balances don't help at all in the colour images.

André

The B & W works by miles. I'd have liked a bit more space around the dogs heads as with the three together it's a little cramped, but I'm guessing you didn't have such luxury.

... Obsolete ...

Thanks for those great tips. I'll go back to the darkroom. I do have a bit of room to play with in terms of leaving some more space around the head(s), I'll give that a go

Cheers,

Radar.
aka André

When taking photos for a series under different lighting (especially when using auto programs and auto white balance) often the results vary in colour temperature & balance giving the series a mismatched look.

Adobe have addressed this problem in Photoshop by introducing the "Match Color..." adjustment filter (Image, Adjustments, Match Color...) This opens a dialogue box from which you can select a 'source' photo from which the lighting/colour balance is read. Photoshop then adjusts the colours in your initial photo to match the source. Works quite good and is useful for creating a series of photos.

I played with your "dogs-colour.jpg" file and here's my result using Match Color.



As you can see I also added white frames in between the photos to give them a little breathing space, so the viewer can appreciate the photos both individually and as a series.

I'd also go a little further, by using the 'burn' tool to darken the dog's chew toy in the first photo.

Hope this helps.

Atorie wrote:
Adobe have addressed this problem in Photoshop by introducing the "Match Color..." adjustment filter (Image, Adjustments, Match Color...) This opens a dialogue box from which you can select a 'source' photo from which the lighting/colour balance is read. Photoshop then adjusts the colours in your initial photo to match the source. Works quite good and is useful for creating a series of photos.

Does work really nicely. I use The GIMP, I'll have to see if such a tool is available for it.

Atorie wrote:
As you can see I also added white frames in between the photos to give them a little breathing space, so the viewer can appreciate the photos both individually and as a series.
.

I was just thinking of putting the white frame, you beat me to it

Thanks for your suggestions Atorie and spending the time to do it, it helps heaps. The colour version now is very, very nice.

Cheers,

Radar
aka André

Looking at the original colour version you have the colour balance way off in the first shot. The first and third shots have the same blanket, yet their colours are extremely different (I'm assuming the culprit is #1 since it has a blue cast). The redone adobe version is much closer, but still not perfect.

stubbsy wrote:Looking at the original colour version you have the colour balance way off in the first shot. The first and third shots have the same blanket, yet their colours are extremely different (I'm assuming the culprit is #1 since it has a blue cast). The redone adobe version is much closer, but still not perfect.

Yes, #1 is the culprit. I had the white balance set incorrectly for that shot. It is not till the next day when looking at other shot on the LCD that I noticed things being way too blue

To do it right, I need to just do the shots over again. PP does help a lot, like Atorie showed, but ultimately, if you start with a photo that was taken with the correct settings, you have a better chance of getting the result you want.

Thanks,

Radar
(stamping in memory banks to check ALL settings prior to starting shoot )

radar wrote:

stubbsy wrote:Looking at the original colour version you have the colour balance way off in the first shot. The first and third shots have the same blanket, yet their colours are extremely different (I'm assuming the culprit is #1 since it has a blue cast). The redone adobe version is much closer, but still not perfect.

Yes, #1 is the culprit. I had the white balance set incorrectly for that shot. It is not till the next day when looking at other shot on the LCD that I noticed things being way too blue

To do it right, I need to just do the shots over again. PP does help a lot, like Atorie showed, but ultimately, if you start with a photo that was taken with the correct settings, you have a better chance of getting the result you want.

Thanks,

Radar
(stamping in memory banks to check ALL settings prior to starting shoot )

Are you shooting in RAW radar? If you are it gives you more control to recover the correct WB for an image, as you can adjust the light temperature and colour tone.. very beneficial.

More work could have been done in PS to correct the colour cast by using hue/saturation or curves.. but yes ultimately you are correct it is always better to correctly expose and WB the shot prior to the shutter release.