Overlapping

<p>Hi,<br>

Not sure this is about retouching.<br>

I have an image that I shot seperately of this late 1800's school and the other shot illuminates the windows. The moon was ultra bright and I may have to adjust the balance. I'll likely use my Elements 8.....would I be able to overlap or splice the windows with the general image ?...or should I learn and do this in Lightroom 5 ? Any ideas how to approach this ? Thanks.</p>

<p>Les</p><div></div>

<p>Since Lightroom doesnt support layering or compositing in that way, it would seem Photoshop is your better bet.</p>

<p>If you shot them on a tripod without moving anything and you have either PS or a third party app that supports HDR, you can easily do this with HDR.</p>

<p>Like Jeff suggested, that's what PS was designed to do. Even older versions of PS, which can be purchased cheaply, will easily do this. I see this on ebay. He has sold 357 items with 100% so a return would be easy if the registration doesn't work<br>

. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Adobe-Photoshop-CS3-for-Windows-/151479478265?pt=US_Image_Video_Audio_Software&hash=item2344e167f9</p>

<p>It's a moonlit scene <strong>at night</strong> so its dynamic range size doesn't garner HDR multi-exposure blending, however a tripod could've been used to "Expose To The Right" with a single exposure using a low ISO setting.</p>

<p>The image as is looks correct for what a moonlit night scene should look like. If you brighten the darkened side where the windows in question reside, it's going to look unnatural as the viewer will be wondering where such a huge bounced fill light white board would be placed and not be reflected in the windows.</p>

<p>Your best approach would be something as simple as moving the contrast slider to the left in ACR/LR thus reducing contrast. Moonlight offers a diffused type of nightlight so to see such a structure look so clear and defined goes against the character of that type of lighting.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tim_L: <em>"...Moonlight offers a diffused type of nightlight ..."</em></p>

<p>Hi Tim - I often hear this said, but I don't agree. The (angular) size of the moon is almost exactly the (angular) size of the sun -- that's why we can have total eclipses. So, on a clear night, why should moonlight be any more diffuse than a sunlit scene under the same weather conditions.</p>

<p>The only reason I can think that might make one think moonlight is more diffuse is if the moon is not full and there is a substantial amount of sky glow, say, from the lights of a nearby city. However, that's more like fill light, not a truly diffuse main light source.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with you Tom that moon light is as harsh as the sun, for the reasons you mention. But the perception of the viewer is that moon light is softer. Looking objectively at your photo, it looks like an underexposed image under sunlight conditions (which it is not). Softening the light, and seeing the stars, will be perceived more clearly like a night time image.<br>

For the same reason we use a skylight filter to remove the blue cast on images because of the sky, but the blue cast is there for real, if you look for it, it is just that our brains compensate and (kind of) remove it from the processed image in our mind. My 2 cents.</p>

I disagree, Bruno. It does look like an underexposed sunlit image. And that because it is underexposed just a bit. Properly exposed, full moon lit and sunlit scenes look the same. The one light is as harsh as the other. The difference is in the amount.

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with you Tom that moon light is as harsh as the sun,...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not with regards to contrast which is the issue I was describing and why I suggested the contrast slider edit.</p>

<p>Everything about tonality, clarity, definition and contrast in night scenes lit by moonlight varies to a degree as they dovetail blend into each other. Overall tonal roll off between varying densities tends to blend together differently at night vs daylight lit scenes in order to tell the viewer they are seeing a moonlit night.</p>

<p>I have never in my entire life ever seen a moonlit night depicted in the OP's image with that much contrast and tonal clarity throughout the entire tonal spectrum of the image and also with that amount of absolute black. There is always some level of overall haze in locating absolute black as it rolls off to lighter densities due to the eyes adapting to night vision.</p>

<p>The OP's image appears very similar to what I've seen of old Hollywood movie night scenes that were shot during the day and adjusted to look dark in post or by using a filter. It looks fake because it's too sharp, clear and contrasty.</p>

<p> </p>

It <i>is</i> with regards to contrast, Tim.<br>And why would it not be? How could it not be?<br><br>Moonlight is as harsh as sunlight. A full moon throws as hard a contrast as the sun. The only difference really is the amount of light, the level. If you expose both right, no difference.<br>The OP's picture looks perfect. A tad underexposed, but that suits a night scene. If anything, that is what is 'fake' (it suits the picture very well, so it's perfect). Not the harshness of the light. That looks perfectly real (because it is).

<blockquote>

<p>It <em>is</em> with regards to contrast, Tim.<br />And why would it not be? How could it not be?<br /><br />Moonlight is as harsh as sunlight. A full moon throws as hard a contrast as the sun. The only difference really is the amount of light, the level. If you expose both right, no difference.<br />The OP's picture looks perfect. A tad underexposed, but that suits a night scene. If anything, that is 'fake' (it suits the picture very well, so it's perfect). Not the harshness of the light. That looks perfectly real (because it is).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G. could you possibly win this argument with more convincing proof?</p>

<p>Do you have a trained eye that allows you to paint an image on canvas to look like a photograph? I have and I developed this back when I was 17 years old when I painted my first photo realist painting. I'm pretty convinced by now at 55 and also from what I've seen of some really hideous looking post processing attempts online and in the photography section of my local art gallery that I have a good grasp on what something is suppose to look like.</p>

<p>So I'll have to disagree with you on your points. The image does not look natural.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To make the comparison with a daytime photo easier, I tried a little experiment: I cut out the foreground (ie, building, ground, hills, etc.) brightened it up, and slightly cooled it. I then composited in a photo of clouds taken in the daytime. Finally, as suggested by Tim, played with the contrast of the foreground objects. Attached below is one version where I increased the foreground contrast.</p>

<p>My impression is that even with the tweaks mentioned above, the photo still does not look like it was captured "naturally" in the daytime. To me, what grabs my attention (in a negative way) is that the left side wall is too red (ie, instead of classic blue "open shade"), and, as Tim said, too bright (even with after increasing the contrast as described above).</p>

<p>That being said, I don't think the original looks like a naturally lit moonlight photo, either. The brightness of the LH wall is too bright for a night-time shot, just as much as it would be for a daytime shot. In addition, the color balance of the non-sky areas looks somewhat too warm.</p>

<p>Interesting discussion, guys.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

Tim, what part of it are you still unsure about?<br>A bit 'Socratic', but sometimes that works best: could you list the reasons why moonlight would not be as harsh as sunlight.<br><br>We agree, by the way, that the image does not look 'natural'. It is underexposed (and, as mentioned, that is a good thing).

<p>This is what moonlight does to color based on my years of observation. The original has way too much saturation and contrast for a night scene lit by moonlight that will induce adaptive night vision that affects shadow roll off out of black to appear more smooth and gradual.</p>

<p>I actually increased contrast to +35 (reduction made the overall image too light) in CS5 ACR and bumped the Shadow slider to +100 with both Shadow Middle triangle sliders pushed all the way to the left in the Parametric Curve settings. That provided the right kind of shadow roll off out of black on the right windowed shadow side.</p>

<p>HSL adjust to the over saturated red brick and to get a more neutral and less overall red appearance to give the impression of neutral or the desaturating effect of bluish moonlight.</p><div></div>

<p>Compositing a pair of bracketed shots is pretty easy in Elements or any software that can handle layers. There are several techniques that can do the job. One simple technique is to overlap and align the layers and use an eraser to reveal the desired details beneath. HDR software like the freebie from Photomatix can work, but alignment is more critical. There's more risk of ghosting and loss of detail if there's any significant deviation in alignment between the composited shots. Try both methods and see which works best.</p>

<p>Regarding the debate over the quality or characteristics of moonlight, I'd agree with Tom Mann's initial comments. I've done a lot of nighttime photography, film and digital, handheld candids with short exposures and <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=319616">tripod-mounted long exposures</a>. Moonlight tends to be more directional, contrasty and less diffuse than daylight.</p>

<p>With daylight, the sky itself provides a lot of light. A nighttime sky provides very little light, other than a little reflected light from the moon and whatever artificial lights might be around. Pollution haze helps a bit in or near urban areas. Clear skies in sparsely populated areas provide very little light, even with visible stars.</p>

<p>There is a quirk of long exposure nighttime photography that can give the illusion of diffuse lighting -- but you won't see the effect by eye in real time. If the exposure is long enough the Earth's rotation exposes more surface to overhead light from the moon, stars or reflected city light from a hazy or cloudy sky. That effect lends the distinctive otherworldly quality to long exposure nighttime photography. There are odd little signs that even the untrained eye recognizes as "different". For example, on a breeze-free night, or with absolutely stationary objects that don't move in the breeze, the photo will show a perfectly stationary object, but the shadow won't quite match. As the Earth rotates the shadows move, resulting in blurred shadows. With longer exposures the periphery of the shadows lacks a hard edge - the shadow is darker away from the edge than you'd normally see by eye real time.</p>

<p>I used to have several more examples in my photo.net portfolio but I deleted most, intending to upload better scans. Still haven't finished that rescanning project, but <a href="/photo/17893636&size=lg">this recent rescan of a long exposure nighttime photo</a> from 2003 shows some of the effect I'm trying to describe. The shadows of the goat skull's horns seem unusually blurry compared with the rest of the photo. But the effect is barely perceptible because the exposure was relatively short - maybe 10 seconds or less. I have other photos with exposures ranging up to several minutes in which the effect is more pronounced.</p>

<p>It's difficult to recreate the same effect in daylight even with sufficiently long exposures (density filters are usually needed for this). Unless peripheral reflected light can be minimized, long exposure daylight photos don't look quite the same, depending on the relative brightness of the sky and surrounding reflective surfaces.</p>

<p>And in movies the mostly-obsolete <em>nuit américaine</em> "day for night" cinematic effect looks pretty cheesy now. It presumes a full or nearly full moon, and generally shows too much shadow detail compared with how the eye sees things at night. I've tried to mimic the effect with my own daylight photography and it takes a lot of work -- lots of selective burning, darkening of shadows, etc. -- to mimic the look that nighttime photography has naturally.</p>

<hr />

<p>Real long exposures at night, but not quite long enough to show exaggerated blurring of shadows. There's just a bit of elongation blurring visible in the horns of the goat skull.<br>

*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17893636-md.jpg" alt="Goat skull in moonlight, 2003 (on warm toned fiber paper)" width="650" height="680" border="0" /><br>

*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1616962-lg.jpg" alt="Bad Moon Wine 3" width="428" height="640" border="0" /></p>

<hr />

<p>And the <em>nuit américaine</em> "day for night" cinematic effect. These cemetery photos were taken near noon this summer and heavily retouched to emulate a nighttime effect. Not quite the same. Or maybe it seems less persuasive to me because I know what the original scene looked like.<br>

*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17860219-md.jpg" alt="Lake Como Cemetery" width="680" height="454" border="0" /><br>

*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17847970-md.jpg" alt="Lake Como Cemetery" width="680" height="455" border="0" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding the debate over the quality or characteristics of moonlight, I'd agree with Tom Mann's initial comments. I've done a lot of nighttime photography, film and digital, handheld candids with short exposures and <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=319616" rel="nofollow">tripod-mounted long exposures</a>. Moonlight tends to be more directional, contrasty and less diffuse than daylight.<br /> With daylight, the sky itself provides a lot of light. A nighttime sky provides very little light, other than a little reflected light from the moon and whatever artificial lights might be around. Pollution haze helps a bit in or near urban areas. Clear skies in sparsely populated areas provide very little light, even with visible stars.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, you didn't make a note on how to determine from memory the level of saturated color of objects lit under night time moonlight should be conveyed in post to make a night shot convincing. From your experience as a photographer how often did/do you notice how much color can be seen at night? Most of your shots posted are near black and white. Do you think most folks shoot night shots so they can create a B&W photograph? What is the appeal of shooting a night shot where you can hardly see anything?</p>

<p>Saturation and vibrancy of color does have an affect on the perception of ambiance imbued to night shots lit by a single moonlight source. Do you remember the hue of color temperature of moonlight at night?</p>

<p>From memory I always see neutrals and diminished color and black sky and very little blue. I also never see a blue night sky beyond dusk to the point it's considered a pitch black night with only the moon providing all the light.</p>

<p>When we view a sunlit scene or a photograph in typical lighting we employ our eyes cones, which are color sensitive. Moonlight illumination intensity, on the other hand, is only about 1/500,000 of that of the sun for a full moon, and we employ our eye's rods, which are more sensitive to illumination, but insensitive to color and more coarsely distributed. We view a moonlit scene as essentially black and white (although there is something called the Purkinje effect that makes full moonlight look slightly blue, due to some small activation of the eye's cones). The spectrum of moonlight is similar to that of sunlight (since it is sunlight reflected off the moons gray surface). Therefore, perhaps the only way to give a realistic impression of a moonlit scene in a photograph would be to present typical photographs of sunlit scenes in a very dark gallery and let the viewers adapt to the low illumination?</p>

Tim, i agree with Glenn: you are thinking too much about how eyes work in low light levels. Cameras are not eyes.<br><br>Moonlight and sunlight differ in level, the amount. Not much, if anything, else.<br>The diffusing effect of a sky is also present when it is the moon instead of the sun illuminating the scene. It works the same, does not depend on how much light there is. You can see it in the image that opened this thread: it's not a black sky, but one with the same colour and aerial perspective as in a sunlit scene.

<p>Both Glenn and Q.G. offer insightful factual scientific info on how ours eyes work during night vision situations, but I have yet seen any descriptive info on what that looks like or at least a posted photo that conveys a realistic moonlit night.</p>

<p>Please be more helpful in this regard.</p>

<p>And Q.G. I don't need you to tell me what and how I think on any subject. I know my own mind and what I want to know regardless of your opinion on whether it's of value or necessary.</p>

<p>Tim, I have a bunch of color film - negative and slide - and digital color nighttime photos, including long exposures. The recording media pick up things that aren't readily apparent to the unaided eye. I don't trust what I think I see with my unaided eyes, especially in color, because my color perception depends on whether I'm fatigued, experiencing allergies, etc. I tend to "see" in b&w, in terms of photographic possibilities - composition, etc. - with color added on as a secondary characteristic. But color accuracy in recording media varies wildly depending on the medium and lighting.</p>

<p>For example, I found Fuji Sensia - their consumer grade slide film - somewhat more accurate than Provia in long exposure nighttime photography. Sensia showed somewhat less shifting toward blue. It behaved the same way in daylight with deep shadows - Sensia showed less blue shift than Provia. Sensia was a very underrated film. I actually miss it more than I do Provia and Astia, and I never liked Velvia.</p>

<p>Fuji Reala color negative film was capable of accurately recording colors at night, even with pollution from artificial lighting. I used it a lot during the 1990s-early 2000s for nighttime photos of older buildings in Texas that used petrified wood - you've probably seen some of those where you live as well, although it's more common in north Texas. When good professional labs were available they could make the necessary adjustments to get reasonably accurate colors in nighttime photos, despite odd mixes of street and parking lot lights, etc. Fuji's consumer grade Superia films with their vaunted 4th color layer emulsion were also very good for nighttime photography with mixed lighting. Unfortunately the demise of good labs here made it impractical to continue using those films.</p>

<p>My first digital cameras weren't really suitable for nighttime or low light photography. The Olympus C-3040Z showed horrendous noise and hot pixels in most exposures longer than around 1/2 second. The Nikon D2H was a huge disappointment after having been accustomed to color film. The D2H was capable of exposures up to 30 seconds, but the results were mediocre - noisy, with banding that couldn't be completely eliminated without blowing highlights due to the very limited dynamic range. HDR techniques helped a bit, but the results were still inferior to what I'd been getting with color negative and slide film. And the D2H sensitivity was completely out of whack. It couldn't handle mixed spectrum lighting as gracefully as Fuji color negative films. For example, under old fashioned type tube fluorescent lamps skin looks ghastly -- ranging from corpse-like greenish-gray to blotchy magenta, and shadows are desaturated gray. So normal shadows around noses, jawlines, etc., look bizarre. It was easier to convert to monochrome than to carefully and selectively brush-retouch photos of people to restore somewhat normal looking skin colors. And my Nikon V1 isn't much better. Skin colors under artificial light seem better, but shadows around noses, jawlines, etc., show the same grayish desaturation under old style fluorescent lights.</p>

<p>The Fuji X-A1 is the first digital camera I've used that could approach the quality and color fidelity I was accustomed to with Fuji color negative and slide films years ago for nighttime photography. I've used it several times this year for nighttime candid snaps and long exposures. In-camera JPEGs have pretty good color accuracy, if a bit oversaturated - other than reds, which tend to be much too saturated and shifted toward magenta. But the raw files can be tweaked as desired.</p>

<p>The following are all with the Fuji X-A1, and should be JPEGs straight from the camera although they've been resized in Lightroom. These all show more vivid color than I remember seeing with my eyes at the time, yet the colors are remarkably accurate, although a bit hyper-saturated by Fuji's in-camera JPEG processing. It's reminiscent of the results I used to get with Provia at night - which is why I generally preferred Reala or Sensia for long exposures at night for the more subdued colors.</p>

<p>These flower photos aren't very sharp between I was handholding the camera with slow shutter speeds around one second or so. I think I'd just received the X-A1 and was anxious to try it out. Mostly I was curious to see what the camera recorded at night. The next nearest lights, besides those on the corner store, were from an apartment complex around 100 yards away. This is a wild mix of lighting color temperatures, and I'm pleasantly surprised at how accurate the colors are. This same scene would be a horrid mess with my Nikon D2H, no matter how much I tweaked the raw files.<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17734087-md.jpg" alt="DSCF0058.JPG" width="680" height="453" border="0" /><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17740097-md.jpg" alt="DSCF0498.JPG - Fuji X-A1 ISO 3200 handheld 1 second" width="680" height="453" border="0" /></p>

<hr />

<p>Compare this same scenario at different exposures, taken the same night - around 1-2 a.m. - one around 8 seconds long, the other 1/8th sec with flash. Generally in my semi-urban area there's little blue sky picked up by camera after midnight. Any color is usually light pollution. I'll see deep blue skies in photos within an hour or so after sunset, even when the sky didn't appear quite so brilliantly blue to the unaided eye.<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17769570-md.jpg" alt="DSCF1405_May 20, 2014_X-A1_LR4" width="680" height="453" border="0" /><br />*<em>Eight-second long time exposure, facing southeast, light from various street and parking lot lights</em>.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17769289-md.jpg" alt="PED XING" width="680" height="453" border="0" /><br />*<em>Shorter 1/8th sec exposure with flash, same night and time, facing southwest</em>.</p>

<hr />

<p>*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17838389-md.jpg" alt="No-so-super moon." width="680" height="453" border="0" /><br />This photo is from my cousin's home in the country. Very little light pollution. It was taken around 8:34 p.m. (Texas time) during the August 9, 2014, "super moon" event - which really doesn't appear like anything extraordinary in most photos. Just another full moon. In the city or with at least a porch light nearby there would be some color visible in the plants and wooden fence posts. It doesn't take much light for color to show at night, depending on the sensitivity of the camera, JPEG processing or post-processing of the raw file.</p>

<p>I think that Lex's last photo conveys a strong sense that the scene is moonlit because the moon is prominently placed in the photo, the scene is dark and essentially black and white with a dark blue sky, and there is no shadow detail. The blue sky helps with the sense that it is moonlit, although it is probably overdone if the intent is to match match visual perception late at night. If the photo was taken at late dusk, then the dark blue sky may be realistic.</p>

<p>Here is a digital photo of the Moon along with Venus and Jupiter taken during late dusk for comparison. There is a street light that gives the left side of the left tree a small bit of color. Diffraction of moonlight by ice particles in the cirrus clouds also provides a little color. If I am taking a photo of a moonlit scene I am always looking for something additional to straight moonlight, such as a fading sunset, high clouds, a star field, distant town lights, etc. to give it more interest. Does this photo match my visual perception?; I can't remember, and at the time I was not trying to remember a visual image. Trying to remember what I actually perceive in fading dusk and strict moonlight will make a mental exercise self assignment. </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Lex and Glenn, for the efforts in showing what a real moonlit night scene looks like. And Lex, I've got to thank you for introducing me to the Fuji X-A1 which I checked out on dpreview after you mentioned it in a thread several weeks ago. It does have a very unique color balanced palette that's very film like with regard to rendering traditional primary colors.</p>

<p>What's intriguingly surprising about this thread is it made me realize there are very few photos that can render realistic looking night scenes only lit by moonlight. Google image search supports my findings. I don't even have one image of a moonlit night scene in my entire 3000 or so image Picture folder on my hard drive.</p>

<p>Most of the results in a Google Image search entering "moonlit night scenes"... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Eiwce13X738/R5L78IhFV_I/AAAAAAAABXc/FVruvYNktr8/s1600-h/Remington_Frederic_Pretty_Mother_of_the_Night.jpg ...shows stylized, color graded treatments in order to evoke a dreamlike ambiance which makes most look like a painting. Ironically a painting of an old western scene delivers a more convincing look except it's bit too cyan... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Eiwce13X738/R5L78IhFV_I/AAAAAAAABXc/FVruvYNktr8/s1600-h/Remington_Frederic_Pretty_Mother_of_the_Night.jpg ...which are old color constancy optical tricks using complimentary hues in neutrals to accentuate warm colors as in the skin tones and white of the horse. Digital tends to remove this optical color trick.</p>

<p>These two actual photos IMO give the most accurate looking renderings in both color and luminance I could find on the Google Image search page... http://www.photographyblackwhite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Windmill-in-Moonlight-BEFORE.jpg</p>

<p>http://davidpj.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shack-trail.jpg</p>

<p> </p>