> Would some combination of power on/power off, ambient light on/off> stacked > images provide a more realistic or pleasing image?> > Happy New Year!> Tom
It would help if we had some background info, without the sales pitch. Here's a link of what I think you're talking about: http://keithwiley.com/astroPhotography/imageStacking.shtml There is also focus stacking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking This one, I ask, why not just tighten up your aperture (bigger number, smaller hole). Now as far as image stacking. Is that what you truly want ? In either case above, they are just subsets of multiple exposures. "Image stacking" for greater S/N & dynamic range, and "focus stacking" for depth of field (again make the aperture tighter). I guess I'm assuming people have a camera where this can be adjusted. It can if you have an SLR. And that might work for either case. I have a SLR and a cheap point-n-shoot. With the better camera (SLR btw), its not the megapixels, but the "glass" (optics). Also the extra control. I notice the point-n-shoot images are very noisy, even though it has more megapixels than my older SLR. In full manual mode I can adjust all aspects independently (shutter speed, aperture, flash ...). All that said, I'm not a photographer, by any stretch of the imagination. I do, however, understand the "mechanics". I just have no concept of composition. Oh yeah, get a tripod. This is a great asset. At Christmas, I love watching people take flash pictures with their point-n-shoots, only to have pictures of "what-the-heck-is-this". Plop you camera down with the tripod. Open up the lens for a second or two, and you don't need a flash, plus the image will be "integrated" (the math term), just like you eyeballs do it. You can also take multiple pictures of your subject, with different settings. You can then merge those images together, or simply just use the best one. Take a flash picture (1/60 second exposure nominally) of the image below: http://www.flickr.com/photos/20801462@N00/333576784/in/photostream and you get a picture of a stick. It takes 1/5 of a second to make one sweep. At 1/60, you only freeze a 1/12th of it (a stick). Math it works. Don't fear it. Use it. Use a tripod mounted camera, with a 1/2 second exposure, and you capture over one sweep. One sweep minimum, and the flash would have f*** it up. This tube is the merging of two photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/20801462@N00/260062132/in/photostream One with, and one without flash. The flash revealed the printing, and finer structures, but will wash out any light originating from the subject. So I took a picture without the flash, to show the tube flashing. Then merged them together. BTW: for you Coast-to-Coast fans, those photos of "rods", are just moths streaking across an image while the shutter is open. Its not a mystery life form. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neonixie-l" group. To post to this group, send an email to neonixie-l@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to neonixie-l+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/neonixie-l?hl=en-GB.
