Clean and Easy Exposure Blending in Photoshop

[@kylepetersen1915]

This is a great way of approaching blending multiple exposures. Thanks for making this :)

[@evertking1]

This right here is what separates the good from the amazing. Patient, attention to detail, passion and willingness to take many frames and take the time to make the image art.

[@sweetscience1988]

Hi Michael, Thank you for this video this will improve my workflow and my understanding of how to blend images. really great work, cheers!

[@zackstanton4654]

Awesome! Thanks Michael. I've been struggling some with this. Can't wait to try your method.

[@ninjaexp8084]

Great video Micheal it was very helpfull

[@wikyo9765]

Very easy.Thank you Michael. :)

[@michaelbecker4396]

Conan ist wirklich der Rauschmeister Nr. 1 ! :-) mit ein wenig Ausnahme der 5D MK IV. Ich bin echt fasziniert, was die aktuelle Modelle von Sony und Nikon im Vergelich zu Canon in Reserve haben. Natürlich macht die Technik nicht das Bild aber kann helfen ! :-) Danke für Deinen Weg.

[@mibreit-photo]

Bei Sony und Nikon hätten vermutlich zwei Belichtungen gereicht ;-)

[@thorstenwestheiderphotogra7722]

Meistens, ja. Bei direktem Sonnenlicht ist das Ausfressen einzelner Farbkanäle das Problem, das kann locker über 4-6EV gehen.

[@MaciejMarkiewicz]

Catching up with your videos Michael :)

[@Justas49]

Thank You!

[@doublebindphotography882]

Hi Michael, thanks for sharing this clever approach. I'm assuming that even after you've flattened the blended image, PS is able to retrieve the "original" exposure levels from the images you've increased or deceased in LR?

[@mibreit-photo]

Hello. My workflow is destructive in that regard. The flattened image cannot be decomposed into the individual images again. Would I want a non-destructive approach, I would use a Smart-Object in Photoshop. If you are new to exposure blending, this is what I would suggest you to do. You could even load all the exposures as smart-objects in photoshop if you are using a newer version. But the files will get larger. PS: I always keep the original Raw files, so in case I ever want to do it differently I can start over completely, but this has never happened. After processing over 1000 photos you get kind of a routine. cheers

[@doublebindphotography882]

Michael Breitung, thanks for your reply. In which case, I don't quite understand how DR is being greatly improved. If you are increasing an exposure that was bracketed to preserve the highlights by two stops in LR, where is the advantage over using an image that was just shot 2 stops higher? Sorry if I'm not understanding things correctly.

[@mibreit-photo]

I suggest you play around with some raw files. The bright photo, when brought down does contain 0 details in the sky, but many clean details in the darker areas. I can just use 100% of it in those areas. The darker photos when exposure increased contain a ton of noise in the dark tones, but perfect details in the bright areas with no noise visible. The aim of exposure blending is to get a clean exposure throughout the frame with close to 0 noise for me. A photo just shot two stops higher is overexposed for the sky

[@doublebindphotography882]

Michael Breitung and so the shadow details in a +2 exp brought down by 2 stops in LR and then blended and flattened is better than the shadow details from a 0 exp image? I will experiment some more myself with this, just interested in your experience. Cheers.

[@mibreit-photo]

@@doublebindphotography882 exactly, especially with Canon;-) Some cameras do better but brighter exposures brought down contain usually less noise. Also search for expose to the right.

[@barry6117]

Thanks Michael. How do the results from your method compare to using automated HDR in LR or PS and then adjusting highlights and shadows? I’m sure you have a reason why you like to manually blend? Thanks.

[@mibreit-photo]

Hello Barry, the method I show here is far superior, if you have any movement in the scene and want to target very specific areas. Lightroom would have worked for blending this image I guess and I could have then used the image for the waves and blended that manually in Photoshop. (I also have a video on HDR with Lightroom -> kzbin.info/www/bejne/raWpqYSveph2gMk) But with LR, the blend always affects the whole image. I cannot just decide, ok I want to have 100% for the bushes on the left from one exposure (there was also slight movement), or I don't want to have any blend for the water and so on. Even when working with adjustment brushes in LR it's always a bit of a mix. And if I start doing that, then Photoshop is faster from the workflow anyway. PS: you can always try LR first and see what you get from it. You could even combine it, use LR and then only for the problematic areas you blend in some stuff manually.

[@barry6117]

Good points. Thanks for the explanation Michael!

[@thorstenwestheiderphotogra7722]

Ich musste schmunzeln, den Trick mit dem direkten Ausgleichen der Belichtungen mache ich jetzt schon seit fast einem Jahr - trotzdem klasse Tutorial Michael!

[@evertking1]

Dang is that CA on the palm tree? At about 3:45? I also use Canon and have a problem with that on my 85 when shooting back lit. Anyway, awesome video and thank you.

[@mibreit-photo]

Hello Bobby, What you see there is just LR trying to render this photo properly, when I zoom in you don't see it that much anymore. It's actually the bright exposure which was totally overexposed and brought down a few stops. There is basically white sky without any data. A proper exposure doesn't show such amounts of CA, as you can see in the rest of the video.

[@motivationtube5848]

Great information but not clean and easy if you haven't got the luminosity plug-ins.

[@mibreit-photo]

I have a video on how to create the masks from scratch too

[@mrrcassidy]

Lumenzia is good value and less confusing than other panels. Had it for a few years. Updates are regular and free.