With a digital SLR camera your images are saved to a memory card There are two ways to connect your card to the computer The cameras USB cable A memory card reader Keyboard shortcuts speed up production with quick access to repeated menu selections. Most tools and menus list.
Home > Articles > Design > Adobe Photoshop
␡- Method 1: Using the Statistics Script
< BackPage 3 of 6Next >
From the author of Way of the Digital Photographer, The: Walking the Photoshop post-production path to more creative photography
Way of the Digital Photographer, The: Walking the Photoshop post-production path to more creative photography
Method 1: Using the Statistics Script
Now that you have the basic concepts of star trail exposures under your belt, it's time to get started with the mechanics of stacking. A number of standalone programs can be used to stack star trails, but Photoshop CC is probably the best bet for creating high-resolution images.
One of the ways I like to stack star trails in Photoshop CC is to use the Statistics script. In previous versions of Photoshop, you needed the Extended Version to run Statistics, but Photoshop CC makes Statistics available to all Photoshop users.
With Photoshop running, choose File > Scripts > Statistics (see Figure 4) to start the Statistics application.
Figure 4 The Statistics script is loaded from the Photoshop Scripts menu.
The Statistics application is fairly simple (see Figure 5). Using the Browse button, choose the files that you want to stack. Then use the Choose Stack Mode drop-down list to select the stacking method that the Statistics program will use to combine the selected images (see Figure 6).
Figure 5 The Statistics application allows you to select the files to stack and the statistical method that the application will use to combine the files.
You might be confused by the combination options in the Choose Stack Mode drop-down list (see Figure 6). It helps to understand that the Statistics application blends the images in the stack pixel by pixel, using the statistical method that you chose. The most useful statistical method for stacking star trails is Maximum, which chooses the brightest pixel at every point of the blend. By contrast, Minimum chooses the darkest pixel at every possible point.
Figure 6 Some of the statistical methods may seem pretty obscure, but usually you only need Maximum.
After you've selected the files that you want to combine and the statistical method for combining them, click OK to close the Image Statistics dialog box and start combining the files. Depending on the number of files and your computing power, this process may take a while. (Sometimes I have time to go out for lunch!)
When the Statistics application finishes the stacking process, Photoshop displays a Smart Object in the Layers panel (like the one in Figure 7), showing the combined images. Because this is a Smart Object, you can experiment with changing the stacking mode (method of statistical combination) after the fact, without reloading the image files.
Once you've selected the stacking mode that makes your star trails look their best, you should merge down the layers within the Smart Object before finishing the star trail image. If you don't merge down the layers, this image can be hugely resource-consumptive for your computer, slowing your image editing to a crawl.
Figure 7 Using the Statistics application, I combined this stack of 10 files using the Maximum stack mode. The stacked files appear as a Smart Object in the Layers panel in Photoshop CC.
Related Resources
- Book $43.99
- eBook (Watermarked) $35.19
- Book $47.99
Most women wish that fashion magazines and websites did not Photoshop their models. It creates an unrealistic beauty standard, which is harmful and ridiculous. Unfortunately, while some publications may decide to cut down on the amount of retouching they give their photographs, it seems unlikely that Photoshopping will ever truly go out of style.
Given this reality, the media obsession with policing Photoshopping is starting to wear a little thin. In recent months, sites have made a point of picking over fashion photography, pointing out every blemish artificially covered up and asset altered.
At one time there was a point to all of this. Before awareness of Photoshopping was widespread, these types of stories called attention to an important hypocrisy in American pop culture: the perpetuation of beauty standards so unrealistic they literally had to be painted on celebrities and models.
Then there are the Photoshopping jobs that are damaging because they are anatomically impossible, like this terrible clothing advertisement from Target that created an artificial 'thigh gap.' Not only are thigh gaps exceedingly rare, impressionable teens need to realize that the body mass necessary to be so thin your inner thighs do not touch is bordering on the skeletal.
Image Credit: Target
However in recent months, it seems like this trend has gotten a bit out of control. With titles incredulously trying to convey some quality of journalism—'The Enigmatic Mystery of Beyoncé's Golf Thighs' — the 'feminist' media in particular have latched onto the bodies of celebrities, not the practice, in a way that is disappointingly disempowering. In fact, there is no 'mystery' to Photoshop — it is a graphics editing program, and its use has become commonplace in the realm of digital photography.
After years of exposure, why do we still seem so utterly amazed by Photoshop's capabilities and its use by celebrity individuals (Beyoncé), high fashion editorial (Lena Dunham) and high fashion advertorial (Lady Gaga)?
This week, Jezebel ran a widely read piece entitled 'What Lady Gaga's Versace Ads Look Like Without Photoshop' in which the author literally explains how Photoshop works. 'The finalized images look like they've been color corrected and that the contrast has been upped considerably to give them that glossy Versace feel,' notes the author. 'Gaga's makeup and wig have also been punched up and some bruising on her knees was removed. Her arms appear slimmer in the final product.'
Is this legitimate concern for the female body image? Or has it morphed into something else, something arguably antithetical to feminism — because who is the one actually dissecting women's bodies in a public, (albeit) virtual space? It's not Anna Wintour.
Image Credit: Jezebel
The Dunham item, like the one critiquing Lady Gaga, noted that not that much had been changed, although in general the magazine image made the subject prettier. 'While Dunham has not been radically Photoshopped, it's clearer than ever what kind of woman Vogue finds Vogue-worthy: The taller, longer-limbed, svelter version of reality. Vogue is not interested in reality, of course.'
This is true. Vogue is not actually interested in reality, nor is it in the business of reality. Vogue is in the business of selling fashion, an art form that is almost never anchored in reality. When was the last time you saw someone walking to the local bodega in an Alexander McQueen gown?
Perhaps everyone needs to take a step back and think about what all this policing is really doing to elevate women. At the end of the day, pointing out that Lady Gaga has bruises on her knees and circles around her eyes don't do much in the way of empowerment. But it does make Lady Gaga look bad. The same holds true for Lena Dunham. After her own Vogue controversy, Dunham noted that the media's hunt for her un-retouched photos seemed like 'a monumental error in [its] approach to feminism … It felt gross.' Working to hold magazines to high standards of photographic integrity is a noble goal, but let's not become so obsessed that we lose sight of what's really important.