« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 13 posts | 
by kiwijohn on Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:47 pm
kiwijohn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 65
Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Hi everyone,

As all of us do, I have a great deal of FUN with my photography and have been messing around in PS with sequential bird shots that sometimes lend themselves to what I call "temporal stacking" where several shots of the same bird are combined over a short period of time to give the viewer a sequential snapshot of a piece of behaviour. Just occasionally these turn out really well.... But are they generally acceptable?

As I should, I 100%-always fess-up to any radical editing/manipulation done in PS beyond basic exposure adjustments/cropping etc - the usual low level stuff, as you only blow your integrity as a photographer once...

FOCUS stacking is rapidly becoming an acceptable practice in macro and landscape work, and such helpful facilities are often built into cameras today (D850), but again I would expect to see it clearly stated in a photo for exhibition on a website or in a gallery.

I guess this is one of those "No-hard-and-fast-rule" categories I suspect... Or is it?

What I am calling "temporal stacking" certainly isn't new, in fact it probably has a proper technical name - Its just that I am ignorant of it!

Have any of you seen it used in competitions/exhibitions... and what are your reactions to it? Oooh! or Yuck!

Have a great Christmas break, and Happy New Year!

John S.

Here is NZ's smallest bird - a rifleman male caught on his favourite twig - 3 different exposures temporally stacked, taken over about an hour, and 2 shots of another juvenile feeding about 2 seconds apart.
Image
2 Juveniles feeding? No, the same bird a few seconds apart.
Image
 

by SantaFeJoe on Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:45 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
Basically, that's a multiple exposure done in a round about manner. Ob my phone, I can shoot a burst and create a moving image (gif) that incorporates the sequence in a somewhat similar manner.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by DChan on Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:12 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
kiwijohn wrote: [snip]
FOCUS stacking is rapidly becoming an acceptable practice in macro and landscape work, and such helpful facilities are often built into cameras today (D850),
Well, as far as auto-focus stacking goes, D850 is a late comer.

If you want to know what some of today's cameras can make life easier for you, here's one example:

https://www.creativeislandphoto.com/blog/olympus-live-composites-star-trails

Another function that takes calculation out of long exposure photography. No chart, no additional app needed. Just watch the LCD:

https://www.olympus-imagespace.co.uk/using-live-bulb-for-long-exposures/



Temporal stacking or not, it is simply a composite.
 

by SantaFeJoe on Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:31 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
Here's another example of your technique:

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=274943

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by kiwijohn on Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:42 pm
kiwijohn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 65
Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Hi Joe,
Thats a great sequence! Thanks for the link!
John
 

by DChan on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:02 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
A quick google comes up with a lot of this type of composite images:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sea ... mp=yhs-001

Many people did that with their solar eclipse images:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrTcYPmMz9aPzsAM6UunIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZ29xY3ZzBHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEc2xrA2J1dHRvbg--;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTY5NARfcgMyBGFjdG4DY2xrBGJjawMzanJmMG41ZDN1Y3ByJTI2YiUzRDMlMjZzJTNEcm8EY3NyY3B2aWQDZmlYbmlqRXdMakk1N2VDNVdqOHpPd2pVTWpBNUxnQUFBQURsc3g1TQRmcgN5aHMtbW96aWxsYS0wMDEEZnIyA3NhLWdwBGdwcmlkAzZzZ1BYa0l0UVJLR3NxeklRQlJXeEEEbXRlc3RpZANudWxsBG5fc3VnZwMxBG9yaWdpbgNpbWFnZXMuc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAMyMgRxdWVyeQNzb2xhciBlY2xpcHNlIHNlcXVlbmNlBHRfc3RtcAMxNTE0MDkxNTExBHZ0ZXN0aWQDbnVsbA--?gprid=6sgPXkItQRKGsqzIQBRWxA&pvid=fiXnijEwLjI57eC5Wj8zOwjUMjA5LgAAAADlsx5M&p=solar+eclipse+sequence&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&ei=UTF-8&n=60&x=wrt&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla


And here's BIF images:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrTcYBhND9a4jMACAcunIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZ29xY3ZzBHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEc2xrA2J1dHRvbg--;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTY5NARfcgMyBGFjdG4DY2xrBGJjawMzanJmMG41ZDN1Y3ByJTI2YiUzRDMlMjZzJTNEcm8EY3NyY3B2aWQDNEIzbG9ERXdMakk1N2VDNVdqOHpPd3NZTWpBNUxnQUFBQURzX2xTMwRmcgN5aHMtbW96aWxsYS0wMDEEZnIyA3NhLWdwBGdwcmlkA2FGRXc3VHN2U3hDTG5PRWphMDhWcEEEbXRlc3RpZANudWxsBG5fc3VnZwMyBG9yaWdpbgNpbWFnZXMuc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAMyMwRxdWVyeQNiaXJkIGluIGZsaWdodCBzZXF1ZW5jZQR0X3N0bXADMTUxNDA5MTYzNgR2dGVzdGlkA251bGw-?gprid=aFEw7TsvSxCLnOEja08VpA&pvid=4B3loDEwLjI57eC5Wj8zOwsYMjA5LgAAAADs_lS3&p=bird+in+flight+sequence&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&ei=UTF-8&n=60&x=wrt&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla
 

by kiwijohn on Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:34 pm
kiwijohn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 65
Joined: 30 Jan 2015
DChan wrote:A quick google comes up with a lot of this type of composite images:

https..............
Wonderful! Thanks for your input.
These sequences are at first glance plainly "time-lapsey"....  and perhaps with many of these, there is no need to explain to the viewer how they were obtained I guess.
Some great sequences on these sites.

I think perhaps when displaying pictures made from just 2 or 3 combined multiple exposures in time where it is less obvious how the final image was constructed, it becomes more necessary to explain the process to the viewer... ?

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't want someone to go away with the idea that my final combined image is a "pure" single shot "un-messed with" in PS..... and then discover later it was a composite of several shots in time.

Or am I being too sensitive about these things? !!  :)
 

by DChan on Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:34 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
kiwijohn wrote: I think perhaps when displaying pictures made from just 2 or 3 combined multiple exposures in time where it is less obvious how the final image was constructed, it becomes more necessary to explain the process to the viewer... ? [snip]
I don't see the necessity. If asked, yes, the photographer should be honest about it. Whatever kind of image that the viewer believes he or she is seeing, and how he or she interprets and understands it is not up to the image producer. Would it be better for the producer to be up front about it? Probably. Does he/she have an obligation to be so? I'm not sure about that.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't want someone to go away with the idea that my final combined image is a "pure" single shot "un-messed with" in PS..... and then discover later it was a composite of several shots in time.
Well, good for you, since you posted the image on this site which has its name starting with "Nature". :)
 

by stevenmajor on Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:14 am
stevenmajor
Forum Contributor
Posts: 54
Joined: 13 May 2015
Temporal Stacking..?     I get a visual of the catacombs.

The type of images you include I have been calling composites for decades...not sure if that’s correct.
TY
 

by kiwijohn on Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:31 am
kiwijohn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 65
Joined: 30 Jan 2015
DChan wrote: Temporal stacking or not, it is simply a composite.
As is focus stacking!
 

by David Salem on Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:07 am
David Salem
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3457
Joined: 8 Jul 2013
Location: Riverside, Ca
I think by you even asking this question about "composite images", like the ones you just posted, you know the correct answer to the question.
IMO It should be divulged up front so the viewer doesn't get the wrong idea. Especially on a site like this with many Pro and semi photographers posting and viewing images daily.
As you know, in the world of uncontrolled natural wildlife photography, just getting a target subject in the frame, sharp, in good light, with a good head angle, with a nice perch, and a nice background is challenging enough. Now you post an image like the Rifleman birds. Although it is very nice and very appealing it is not a realtime capture, and thats what most wildlife photographers are trying to get. When it is posted on this forum without being divulged you will get comments like "Wow, I can't believe you got all three of them sharp and with great poses. Fantastic work!!"  How dose that make you feel?  Pride? Or how dose it look after many comments like that, and then you have to come back and state that this is a composite. Or do you? I guess it is all up to the person and how they want to portray themselves and their art.
Many people have posted beautiful "stated" composite images over the years and they are appreciated for what they are, a great looking manipulated image.
This is also the reason why they are generally not allowed in photo contests, and to make sure the author has to send in the original RAW file to show proof that nothing was manipulated. 
 
DChan wrote: "Whatever kind of image that the viewer believes he or she is seeing, and how he or she interprets and understands it is not up to the image producer"
 
I believe the opposite.
COME JOIN ME FOR A CUSTOM PERSONALIZED RAPTOR WORKSHOP   NOV-MAR 2019/2020.    PLEASE PM ME TO ENQUIRE ABOUT PRICING AND AVAILABILITY! 
 

by kiwijohn on Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:10 pm
kiwijohn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 65
Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Thanks for your input David,

You wrote:
"I think by you even asking this question about "composite images", like the ones you just posted, you know the correct answer to the question."
Well I THOUGHT I knew what the correct answer was, but as the art of photography changes constantly with new technology and techniques, so the "acceptability thresholds" might shift to accommodate them (e.g. Focus stacking, HDR, drones etc) and I thought it would be good to mull the concept over with like minded enthusiasts.

"IMO It should be divulged up front so the viewer doesn't get the wrong idea."
Yep, theres often not enough detailed explanation of techniques revealed alongside photos IMHO.

"...just getting a target subject in the frame, sharp, in good light, with a good head angle, with a nice perch, and a nice background is challenging enough...."
Yes! I have endless admiration for those master wildlife photographers who pull off those stunning shots that leave the rest of us speechless. There's a danger that several "easy" shots compiled into one "apparently nigh-on impossible" shot could mislead observers - we need to be up-front with this at all times.

"Many people have posted beautiful "stated" composite images over the years and they are appreciated for what they are, a great looking manipulated image."
Thats right - openness and transparency preserves a photographers integrity, which once "blown" can't be regained.

"This is also the reason why they are generally not allowed in photo contests, and to make sure the author has to send in the original RAW file to show proof that nothing was manipulated."
Yes, you can see their reasoning. But would this exclude from competitions the use of focus stacked images for which there is no one RAW file? I don't think it should, because they give an "angle on reality" that no other technique can show - i.e. the incredible depth of focus - almost like a scanning electron microscope gives.
In the same way, I believe "temporal stacking" MAY have a place as an openly stated technique - in that it can show a BEHAVIOURAL dimension of reality unavailable by other means. For example, the rifleman stacked image shows how the wee bird characteristically zig-zags its way up the tree searching for morsels of food as it goes.
 

by David Salem on Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:18 am
David Salem
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3457
Joined: 8 Jul 2013
Location: Riverside, Ca
John wrote: " But would this exclude from competitions the use of focus stacked images for which there is no one RAW file?"

For most of the contests I have entered, this would definitely be the case.

Some contests may have categories for HDR images but I can't recall any that would allow composite images in a nature catagory.
I think it would be a cool category though as it would be fun to see what people come up with.
Most nature contests try to pride themselves on being purists and thats what most nature photographers that enter them want also.
It levels the playing field so to speak. You either got it or you didn't. If you did, then you shouldn't have any problem proving it wasn't manipulated!!
Thanks
COME JOIN ME FOR A CUSTOM PERSONALIZED RAPTOR WORKSHOP   NOV-MAR 2019/2020.    PLEASE PM ME TO ENQUIRE ABOUT PRICING AND AVAILABILITY! 
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
13 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group