Combining images

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

Combining images

Postby radar on Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:19 pm

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 :oops:

In colour, it looks like this:
Image

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:
Image

(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 :)
Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams

(misc Nikon stuff)
User avatar
radar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:18 am
Location: Lake Macquarie (Newcastle) - D700, D7000

Postby gstark on Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:55 am

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.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby stubbsy on Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:16 am

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.
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby DVEous on Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:26 am

... Obsolete ...
Last edited by DVEous on Sat May 03, 2014 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DVEous
Senior Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:32 pm

Postby radar on Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:49 am

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
Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams

(misc Nikon stuff)
User avatar
radar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:18 am
Location: Lake Macquarie (Newcastle) - D700, D7000

Postby Atorie on Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:27 pm

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.

Image

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.
Michael
~~~~~
User avatar
Atorie
Member
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:39 pm
Location: Brisbane - Nikon D60

Postby radar on Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:53 pm

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. :D The colour version now is very, very nice.

Cheers,

Radar
aka André
Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams

(misc Nikon stuff)
User avatar
radar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:18 am
Location: Lake Macquarie (Newcastle) - D700, D7000

Postby stubbsy on Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:31 pm

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.
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby radar on Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:43 pm

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 :oops: :oops:

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 :evil: )
Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams

(misc Nikon stuff)
User avatar
radar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:18 am
Location: Lake Macquarie (Newcastle) - D700, D7000

Postby Atorie on Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:50 pm

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 :oops: :oops:

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 :evil: )


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.
Michael
~~~~~
User avatar
Atorie
Member
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:39 pm
Location: Brisbane - Nikon D60


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques