100 Shot Composite

In the last few days a few of us have been talking about combining multiple images to simulate the effect of a long exposure. I had a bit of spare time today so I shot this 100 frame composite (100 x 1 sec exposure @ F16 @ ISO 100), and have also included one of the composite frames to give a bit of an indication as to the difference ...

(Single Frame)

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...3/original.jpg

(100 Shot Composite)

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9/original.jpg

I think it looks quite good, not quite as finshed as some of your other long exposure shots Colin.

But not really having much experience in this area, how would you say it compares to taking an actual long exposure photograph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iPhillip

I think it looks quite good, not quite as finshed as some of your other long exposure shots Colin.

But not really having much experience in this area, how would you say it compares to taking an actual long exposure photograph?

---

It's just a junk shot to test the technique, so don't pay any attention to the composition (I went to the shore to get waves going over rocks - and just chucked the driftwood in the middle to make the scene a little less boring) - but in terms of the technique, I think it worked beautifully - gave the expected mist - no sign of the waves that were running up over the rocks in the left part of the scene - and all done with a 1 second exposure (I forgot to mention that I had my Vari-ND on the lens, pretty much maxed out (probably 7 or 8 stops), so it would have been nigh on impossible to get a multi-minute exposure the conventional way.

It's something I'll be using more in the future :)

This is sort of what I meant in the thread for recommending filters. I'm going to shoot the Beetham Tower in Manchester as a composite like this. The only difference will be that it's gonna be a vertical panorama as well. It's the one "big" project I've got for this year.

Interesting effect. The water turns to mist. Do you need all 100 shots to achieve this effect or would 10, 20, etc. achieve the same effect?

Chuck

I like the affect Colin, We don't get good waves here or if we do the wind is so strong as to make this technique unusable.
Chuck
the number of shots required for this to work is relative to the shutter time and the desired out come.

http://web.mac.com/jwrevie/iWeb/West...ts-at-dawn.jpg

http://web.mac.com/jwrevie/iWeb/West...s/fall-3_3.jpg

Both the above shots are nine frame composites the old salmond nets are 5 second exposures and the waterfall are 1/20 of a second exposures.
the way to work out the number of frames required is to divide the required exposure time by the shutter speed.
john

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CNelson

Interesting effect. The water turns to mist. Do you need all 100 shots to achieve this effect or would 10, 20, etc. achieve the same effect?

Chuck

---

Good question Chuck!

I stacked them in photoshop as layers of 10 (changing the opacity and then flattening), and then repeated the process on the 10 composities, so it's probably the differences in the final 10 composites that best answer your question ...

... and the answer is ... yes / no / maybe! (to be precise). Seriously, it's hard to answer - there's definately a difference, but whether it's a difference that's better or worse I can't really say.

Obviously the more the better, but also obviously there is a point of diminishing returns. I think also that the number of shots needed will vary depending on how much variety there is in the source images; however, as I was processing these I had another thought - "there's nothing to stop me choosing just the images I want" - as I was doing these the waves were rolling in and out - I could choose just the ones where it was in for example (being lazy I just setup the TC-80N3 timer to do 99 shots and let it go for it, but I could probably also have just hit the button manually when the water was where I wanted it).

If I had to answer the question, I'd say that the effect you'll get is probably similar to what you would have got had you exposed the image for that long in 1 shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john w revie

I like the affect Colin, We don't get good waves here or if we do the wind is so strong as to make this technique unusable.

---

Yeah - we often have the same problem here. Perhaps the best time is after a storm has passed: the sea is still stirred up, but the wind has past = maximum "mist". I best counter the wind problem by using a Tripos built like a tank (Gitzo 1548) - sturdy head - and even leaning on the whole rig. It would be nice to have some kind of industrial-strength portable wind break.

Colin,

I like the 2nd photo very much - 100 shot composited.

Can we achieve the same effect with a single shot and a very long exposure?
I have tried using Singh Ray Vari-ND filter to achieve more than 1 minute exposure on waves.
The results were not stable, sometimes good, sometimes failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yan Zhang

Can we achieve the same effect with a single shot and a very long exposure?
I have tried using Singh Ray Vari-ND filter to achieve more than 1 minute exposure on waves.
The results were not stable, sometimes good, sometimes failed.

---

Yes - so long as you can stop the shot from over-exposing, which is (in essence) often the problem. This technique should also vastly decrease high-iso noise, which I plan to experiment with shortly.

Long exposures of waves breaking over rocks will give you mist, but you get a different effect with just normal waves in the ocean. If you're not getting consistant results, try the above technique (eg do 10 1 minute exposures and stack them - just make sure you get the opacities right (starting from the bottom, 100%, 50%, 33%, 25%, 20%, 16.67% etc).

Very interesting. A new area to experiment in.

Chuck

Very nice effect. What post-processing adjustments were performed on the 100 shot average as opposed to the top 1 second single exposure? The lower image looks quite a bit cooler white balance wise, and a light bit puchier when it comes to contrast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McQ

Very nice effect. What post-processing adjustments were performed on the 100 shot average as opposed to the top 1 second single exposure? The lower image looks quite a bit cooler white balance wise, and a light bit puchier when it comes to contrast.

---

Hi Sean,

A touch of "full circle" here as it was one of your tutorials that taught me the correct opacities to use for stacking multiple layers :)

I did the exercise just as a test, so yes, I think I spent a bit of time in LAB colour driving the colours apart on the composite, and a bit of content sharpening, whereas I threw the single shot in almost as an afterthought.

The test was really only to look at the change in the texture / effect of the water to see if it would simulate a long exposure (which it does), but we can't read anything else into it as PP is different. I've got a few sneaking ideas in mind for this technique now :)