HOME | DD

Published: 2007-05-27 15:37:44 +0000 UTC; Views: 630; Favourites: 17; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
This is more the exposure I had in mind when I shot this - amazing the differences in raw converters. First one was processed with Capture 1 pro, this was processed with ACR - which I usually don't care for. There's still a bunch of hot pixels that I just don't have the patience to clone out though...Anybody have tips or links on hot frame subtraction?
Related content
Comments: 17
SeaWhisper [2008-10-17 13:18:31 +0000 UTC]
I've featured your photo here: [link]
If you for some reason want me to remove it, tell me!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SeaWhisper [2008-01-06 23:48:00 +0000 UTC]
I've featured Your work in my journal, here: [link] , hope you don't mind
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
jerryhazard In reply to SeaWhisper [2007-12-21 21:19:52 +0000 UTC]
Thank you it was approximately 1 hour, give or take a few minutes....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
slimetrail [2007-05-31 03:57:04 +0000 UTC]
Extremely Awesome Wickedness...if that doesn't say it i don't know what else to say!
JB
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jerryhazard In reply to slimetrail [2007-05-31 04:41:03 +0000 UTC]
thank man good ol' "EAW" says it every time
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
rawimage [2007-05-28 20:11:54 +0000 UTC]
take a long exposure with the lid on the lense. then take this hot pixel template, invert it and multiply it onto your photo. maybe duplicate this layer. this method works fine with night shots since it darkens the hot pixels - at least...
great shot btw. I'm always fascinated by those long exposures of night skies. it illustrates so nicely the depth of space...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jerryhazard In reply to rawimage [2007-05-29 05:22:15 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for the hint/mini tutorial.. really appreciated! will have to try that once my shutter is repaired
I recently saw an image of the night sky taken from death valley, mind boggling, both in appearance, and whatever technique they used to get the image...
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
allenjmiller [2007-05-27 22:02:33 +0000 UTC]
crazy how much different the results are with different RAW processors isn't it? have you looked into CS3 yet? it has really wicked RAW processing tools
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jerryhazard In reply to allenjmiller [2007-05-28 03:27:39 +0000 UTC]
It's nutty for sure... I was never in a position to notice it like this though, such a huge difference. I still prefer Capture One though (actually, I prefer silky pix to them both, but my trial ran out and I am too lazy to look for a...).
There is no chance in hell now, that I will use CS3 or aperture anytime soon. Need a camera first
~ sorry I missed you this weekend too... we'll catch up though...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
allenjmiller In reply to jerryhazard [2007-05-28 03:38:00 +0000 UTC]
yeah man. just read your journal. ouch that really drags ass. anything i can do i'd be happy to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0