Are there established techniques for removing foreground objects using stereo photography?
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
I often find compositions that I think would look really nice if not for some thin object in the foreground, such as a tree or lamp post.
For example, a nice scene 100 meters away but with a light post 30 meters in front of it. If I move a meter to the side, the position of the light post moves within the composition.
- Are there techniques for using multiple images from slightly different vantage points to remove foreground objects?
- Does this concept have a name in common usage?
post-processing shooting-technique
asked Nov 14 at 13:42
lijat
528212
add a comment |
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
I often find compositions that I think would look really nice if not for some thin object in the foreground, such as a tree or lamp post.
For example, a nice scene 100 meters away but with a light post 30 meters in front of it. If I move a meter to the side, the position of the light post moves within the composition.
- Are there techniques for using multiple images from slightly different vantage points to remove foreground objects?
- Does this concept have a name in common usage?
post-processing shooting-technique
asked Nov 14 at 13:42
lijat
528212
add a comment |
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
I often find compositions that I think would look really nice if not for some thin object in the foreground, such as a tree or lamp post.
For example, a nice scene 100 meters away but with a light post 30 meters in front of it. If I move a meter to the side, the position of the light post moves within the composition.
- Are there techniques for using multiple images from slightly different vantage points to remove foreground objects?
- Does this concept have a name in common usage?
post-processing shooting-technique
asked Nov 14 at 13:42
lijat
528212
I often find compositions that I think would look really nice if not for some thin object in the foreground, such as a tree or lamp post.
For example, a nice scene 100 meters away but with a light post 30 meters in front of it. If I move a meter to the side, the position of the light post moves within the composition.
- Are there techniques for using multiple images from slightly different vantage points to remove foreground objects?
- Does this concept have a name in common usage?
post-processing shooting-technique
post-processing shooting-technique
asked Nov 14 at 13:42
lijat
528212
asked Nov 14 at 13:42
lijat
528212
edited Nov 15 at 7:30
asked Nov 14 at 13:42
lijat
528212
asked Nov 14 at 13:42
lijat
528212
asked Nov 14 at 13:42
lijat
528212
528212
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
The phenomenon you're describing is called parallax. I've heard the technique called either "Parallax Removal" or the "X-Ray Brush."
Taking 2 or more pictures of an object in one plane by moving the camera in a second, parallel plane. Objects not on the target plane will "move" relative to the target plane as a result.
You can do layer them into a "clean" image manually by lining up the layers and erasing the top layer to reveal the underlying layer without the offending object.
I generally leverage Smart Objects in Photoshop for this. You'll need to take at least 3 images, being careful to keep your camera and subject on their own planes, then line them up and convert the layers into a smart object. Then select Layer > Smart Objects > Stack Mode > Median to automatically select the average pixel, and because you have two pixels of the desired object, and one of the offending object, you'll get the desired pixel every time.
This doesn't work well with things that aren't stationary (leaves, water, etc).
answered Nov 14 at 15:52
LightBender
47348
1
Cool technique but unless you have a dolly on rails your chances of keeping the camera alignment on the 3 pictures are small, so you won't get exactly the same perspective on all three shots, but you can use tools such as Hugin to align the pictures....
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 16:27
3
@xenoid Very true, but I never said it was easy :) I've had reasonably good results even hand held with this method using only Photoshop's internal alignment tool. At the very least, far superior (and faster) results to trying to hand clone the objects out. I generally use this for removing power lines or chain link fences, which is much easier top accomplish because you can raise or lower the post on a tripod and keep things pretty much in alignment.
– LightBender
Nov 14 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 17:22
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
The phenomenon you're describing is called parallax. I've heard the technique called either "Parallax Removal" or the "X-Ray Brush."
Taking 2 or more pictures of an object in one plane by moving the camera in a second, parallel plane. Objects not on the target plane will "move" relative to the target plane as a result.
You can do layer them into a "clean" image manually by lining up the layers and erasing the top layer to reveal the underlying layer without the offending object.
I generally leverage Smart Objects in Photoshop for this. You'll need to take at least 3 images, being careful to keep your camera and subject on their own planes, then line them up and convert the layers into a smart object. Then select Layer > Smart Objects > Stack Mode > Median to automatically select the average pixel, and because you have two pixels of the desired object, and one of the offending object, you'll get the desired pixel every time.
This doesn't work well with things that aren't stationary (leaves, water, etc).
answered Nov 14 at 15:52
LightBender
47348
1
Cool technique but unless you have a dolly on rails your chances of keeping the camera alignment on the 3 pictures are small, so you won't get exactly the same perspective on all three shots, but you can use tools such as Hugin to align the pictures....
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 16:27
3
@xenoid Very true, but I never said it was easy :) I've had reasonably good results even hand held with this method using only Photoshop's internal alignment tool. At the very least, far superior (and faster) results to trying to hand clone the objects out. I generally use this for removing power lines or chain link fences, which is much easier top accomplish because you can raise or lower the post on a tripod and keep things pretty much in alignment.
– LightBender
Nov 14 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 17:22
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
The phenomenon you're describing is called parallax. I've heard the technique called either "Parallax Removal" or the "X-Ray Brush."
Taking 2 or more pictures of an object in one plane by moving the camera in a second, parallel plane. Objects not on the target plane will "move" relative to the target plane as a result.
You can do layer them into a "clean" image manually by lining up the layers and erasing the top layer to reveal the underlying layer without the offending object.
I generally leverage Smart Objects in Photoshop for this. You'll need to take at least 3 images, being careful to keep your camera and subject on their own planes, then line them up and convert the layers into a smart object. Then select Layer > Smart Objects > Stack Mode > Median to automatically select the average pixel, and because you have two pixels of the desired object, and one of the offending object, you'll get the desired pixel every time.
This doesn't work well with things that aren't stationary (leaves, water, etc).
answered Nov 14 at 15:52
LightBender
47348
1
Cool technique but unless you have a dolly on rails your chances of keeping the camera alignment on the 3 pictures are small, so you won't get exactly the same perspective on all three shots, but you can use tools such as Hugin to align the pictures....
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 16:27
3
@xenoid Very true, but I never said it was easy :) I've had reasonably good results even hand held with this method using only Photoshop's internal alignment tool. At the very least, far superior (and faster) results to trying to hand clone the objects out. I generally use this for removing power lines or chain link fences, which is much easier top accomplish because you can raise or lower the post on a tripod and keep things pretty much in alignment.
– LightBender
Nov 14 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 17:22
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
The phenomenon you're describing is called parallax. I've heard the technique called either "Parallax Removal" or the "X-Ray Brush."
Taking 2 or more pictures of an object in one plane by moving the camera in a second, parallel plane. Objects not on the target plane will "move" relative to the target plane as a result.
You can do layer them into a "clean" image manually by lining up the layers and erasing the top layer to reveal the underlying layer without the offending object.
I generally leverage Smart Objects in Photoshop for this. You'll need to take at least 3 images, being careful to keep your camera and subject on their own planes, then line them up and convert the layers into a smart object. Then select Layer > Smart Objects > Stack Mode > Median to automatically select the average pixel, and because you have two pixels of the desired object, and one of the offending object, you'll get the desired pixel every time.
This doesn't work well with things that aren't stationary (leaves, water, etc).
answered Nov 14 at 15:52
LightBender
47348
The phenomenon you're describing is called parallax. I've heard the technique called either "Parallax Removal" or the "X-Ray Brush."
Taking 2 or more pictures of an object in one plane by moving the camera in a second, parallel plane. Objects not on the target plane will "move" relative to the target plane as a result.
You can do layer them into a "clean" image manually by lining up the layers and erasing the top layer to reveal the underlying layer without the offending object.
I generally leverage Smart Objects in Photoshop for this. You'll need to take at least 3 images, being careful to keep your camera and subject on their own planes, then line them up and convert the layers into a smart object. Then select Layer > Smart Objects > Stack Mode > Median to automatically select the average pixel, and because you have two pixels of the desired object, and one of the offending object, you'll get the desired pixel every time.
This doesn't work well with things that aren't stationary (leaves, water, etc).
answered Nov 14 at 15:52
LightBender
47348
answered Nov 14 at 15:52
LightBender
47348
answered Nov 14 at 15:52
LightBender
47348
answered Nov 14 at 15:52
LightBender
47348
47348
1
Cool technique but unless you have a dolly on rails your chances of keeping the camera alignment on the 3 pictures are small, so you won't get exactly the same perspective on all three shots, but you can use tools such as Hugin to align the pictures....
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 16:27
3
@xenoid Very true, but I never said it was easy :) I've had reasonably good results even hand held with this method using only Photoshop's internal alignment tool. At the very least, far superior (and faster) results to trying to hand clone the objects out. I generally use this for removing power lines or chain link fences, which is much easier top accomplish because you can raise or lower the post on a tripod and keep things pretty much in alignment.
– LightBender
Nov 14 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 17:22
add a comment |
1
Cool technique but unless you have a dolly on rails your chances of keeping the camera alignment on the 3 pictures are small, so you won't get exactly the same perspective on all three shots, but you can use tools such as Hugin to align the pictures....
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 16:27
3
@xenoid Very true, but I never said it was easy :) I've had reasonably good results even hand held with this method using only Photoshop's internal alignment tool. At the very least, far superior (and faster) results to trying to hand clone the objects out. I generally use this for removing power lines or chain link fences, which is much easier top accomplish because you can raise or lower the post on a tripod and keep things pretty much in alignment.
– LightBender
Nov 14 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 17:22
1
1
Cool technique but unless you have a dolly on rails your chances of keeping the camera alignment on the 3 pictures are small, so you won't get exactly the same perspective on all three shots, but you can use tools such as Hugin to align the pictures....
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 16:27
Cool technique but unless you have a dolly on rails your chances of keeping the camera alignment on the 3 pictures are small, so you won't get exactly the same perspective on all three shots, but you can use tools such as Hugin to align the pictures....
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 16:27
3
3
@xenoid Very true, but I never said it was easy :) I've had reasonably good results even hand held with this method using only Photoshop's internal alignment tool. At the very least, far superior (and faster) results to trying to hand clone the objects out. I generally use this for removing power lines or chain link fences, which is much easier top accomplish because you can raise or lower the post on a tripod and keep things pretty much in alignment.
– LightBender
Nov 14 at 16:39
@xenoid Very true, but I never said it was easy :) I've had reasonably good results even hand held with this method using only Photoshop's internal alignment tool. At the very least, far superior (and faster) results to trying to hand clone the objects out. I generally use this for removing power lines or chain link fences, which is much easier top accomplish because you can raise or lower the post on a tripod and keep things pretty much in alignment.
– LightBender
Nov 14 at 16:39
3
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 17:22
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 at 17:22
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f102832%2fare-there-established-techniques-for-removing-foreground-objects-using-stereo-ph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
