Are there established techniques for removing foreground objects using stereo photography?
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 '18 at 13:42
lijatlijat
580312
add a comment |
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 '18 at 13:42
lijatlijat
580312
add a comment |
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 '18 at 13:42
lijatlijat
580312
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 '18 at 13:42
lijatlijat
580312
asked Nov 14 '18 at 13:42
lijatlijat
580312
edited Nov 15 '18 at 7:30
lijat
asked Nov 14 '18 at 13:42
lijatlijat
580312
asked Nov 14 '18 at 13:42
lijatlijat
580312
asked Nov 14 '18 at 13:42
lijatlijat
580312
580312
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
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 '18 at 15:52
LightBenderLightBender
649415
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 '18 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 '18 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 '18 at 17:22
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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 '18 at 15:52
LightBenderLightBender
649415
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 '18 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 '18 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 '18 at 17:22
add a comment |
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 '18 at 15:52
LightBenderLightBender
649415
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 '18 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 '18 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 '18 at 17:22
add a comment |
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 '18 at 15:52
LightBenderLightBender
649415
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 '18 at 15:52
LightBenderLightBender
649415
answered Nov 14 '18 at 15:52
LightBenderLightBender
649415
answered Nov 14 '18 at 15:52
LightBenderLightBender
649415
answered Nov 14 '18 at 15:52
LightBenderLightBender
649415
649415
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 '18 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 '18 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 16:39
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 16:39
3
3
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 '18 at 17:22
Vertical parallax,... clever, will think about it next time.
– xenoid
Nov 14 '18 at 17:22
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
