mristuccia
Well-known member
Doug,This is much easier said before you have used the Automated in-camera Frame Averaging of the IQ4.
Once you've done it in-camera, with a single click, resulting in a "normal" raw file you can treat like any other (that just happens to be unbelievably clean in the shadows and allows long exposure without an ND filter), it's hard to view the capture-a-bunch-of-raws-convert-to-tiffs-manually-keep-track-of-which-ones-belong-to-which-stack-then-load-into-huge-photoshop-document-and-average method as "easily achievable".
It's like learning to do calculus or standard deviations by long-hand vs pushing a button and having the answer. Maybe some will enjoy the extra work. But for most people they just want the end result, and in-camera Automated Frame Averaging is just a way faster, easier, less distracting way of getting there.
don't put this so bad.
I understand that the automated FA experience is night and day in respect to doing it manually. But there are people like me who doesn't bother at all, the pace is slow in any case when I use digital backs and technical cameras. And I have time and patience. A simple macro automation would do the job, and I'm a software developer, so I could automate the FA post further if I'd really need it. But I don't need it.
I just photograph my hand between each stack group. The rest is done by the image counter. Easy-peasy.keep-track-of-which-ones-belongs-to-which-stack?
But what I wanted to say in my quoted post is that trading a thing that cannot be manually done (pixel-shift) with one that can be (FA) is not my way of thinking.
Of course both our biased mileage may vary...
Last edited: