Emulating the effect of an ND filter on a Panasonic GH5M2/GH6

Since the GH5M2 it is now possible to shoot a timelapse without gaps in the exposures, this means it is possible to reproduce the effect of an ND filter by shooting a series of frames and then stacking them in post with Photoshop without gaps.

The realistic limit if you don't have an ND filter with you is 64 frames longer it is just tedious and too long winded. You will need photoshop or other stacking software

I have done several tests comparing the stacked shots with shooting an ND64 filter and applying DxO noise reduction in the 3 flavours available. Generally the stacking does not achieve better results of using a physical filter and then applying noise reduction however if you are outside and have a weak ND filter like an ND16 and want to have the look of an ND1000 this may help.

In this graph you can see a comparison between stacked shots with variable number of frames and a single shot with long shutter noise reduction and noise reduction in post.

The actual line is the outcome while the theoretical is the benefit you should have. As you can see past 8 shots in reality there is a limit to the improvement you can make but at the end what matters is that you end up in the same place as if you have an ND64 without having one. And if you did not have noise reduction software you end up in a better place more or less 2 stops better.

Broadly speaking an ND1000 filter is the landscape photographer best friend and if landscape is what you like to do you need to buy one there is no way around it.

I have been testing extensively however as I already have a whole set of ND8, ND64, ND1000 this gives me no benefit on my main landscape lens however for other lenses I only have an ND64 so taking 16 stacked exposure will get me the effect of an ND1000. I also apply noise reduction on the single frames so the stacking is just for the slow exposure look.

Interceptor121 wrote:

Since the GH5M2 it is now possible to shoot a timelapse without gaps in the exposures, this means it is possible to reproduce the effect of an ND filter by shooting a series of frames and then stacking them in post with Photoshop without gaps.

The realistic limit if you don't have an ND filter with you is 64 frames longer it is just tedious and too long winded. You will need photoshop or other stacking software

I have done several tests comparing the stacked shots with shooting an ND64 filter and applying DxO noise reduction in the 3 flavours available. Generally the stacking does not achieve better results of using a physical filter and then applying noise reduction however if you are outside and have a weak ND filter like an ND16 and want to have the look of an ND1000 this may help.

In this graph you can see a comparison between stacked shots with variable number of frames and a single shot with long shutter noise reduction and noise reduction in post.

The actual line is the outcome while the theoretical is the benefit you should have. As you can see past 8 shots in reality there is a limit to the improvement you can make but at the end what matters is that you end up in the same place as if you have an ND64 without having one. And if you did not have noise reduction software you end up in a better place more or less 2 stops better.

Broadly speaking an ND1000 filter is the landscape photographer best friend and if landscape is what you like to do you need to buy one there is no way around it.

I have been testing extensively however as I already have a whole set of ND8, ND64, ND1000 this gives me no benefit on my main landscape lens however for other lenses I only have an ND64 so taking 16 stacked exposure will get me the effect of an ND1000. I also apply noise reduction on the single frames so the stacking is just for the slow exposure look.

Did you apply any noise reduction to result of stacked images?

jrsforums wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Since the GH5M2 it is now possible to shoot a timelapse without gaps in the exposures, this means it is possible to reproduce the effect of an ND filter by shooting a series of frames and then stacking them in post with Photoshop without gaps.

The realistic limit if you don't have an ND filter with you is 64 frames longer it is just tedious and too long winded. You will need photoshop or other stacking software

I have done several tests comparing the stacked shots with shooting an ND64 filter and applying DxO noise reduction in the 3 flavours available. Generally the stacking does not achieve better results of using a physical filter and then applying noise reduction however if you are outside and have a weak ND filter like an ND16 and want to have the look of an ND1000 this may help.

In this graph you can see a comparison between stacked shots with variable number of frames and a single shot with long shutter noise reduction and noise reduction in post.

The actual line is the outcome while the theoretical is the benefit you should have. As you can see past 8 shots in reality there is a limit to the improvement you can make but at the end what matters is that you end up in the same place as if you have an ND64 without having one. And if you did not have noise reduction software you end up in a better place more or less 2 stops better.

Broadly speaking an ND1000 filter is the landscape photographer best friend and if landscape is what you like to do you need to buy one there is no way around it.

I have been testing extensively however as I already have a whole set of ND8, ND64, ND1000 this gives me no benefit on my main landscape lens however for other lenses I only have an ND64 so taking 16 stacked exposure will get me the effect of an ND1000. I also apply noise reduction on the single frames so the stacking is just for the slow exposure look.

Did you apply any noise reduction to result of stacked images?

Stacked images in this process are tiff. So you can’t do more noise reduction and as mean stacking is noise reduction already and should not overlay other methods

Stacking is used to achieve a long exposure look as a by product it also works as noise reduction but mean stacking is not as good method for noise reduction as shown here
software these days is so good that stacking is really only worth when you can’t physically have a longer exposure i.e. astrophotography and of course is an emergency measure when you don’t have a filter strong enough

1. Interceptor121 wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Since the GH5M2 it is now possible to shoot a timelapse without gaps in the exposures, this means it is possible to reproduce the effect of an ND filter by shooting a series of frames and then stacking them in post with Photoshop without gaps.

The realistic limit if you don't have an ND filter with you is 64 frames longer it is just tedious and too long winded. You will need photoshop or other stacking software

I have done several tests comparing the stacked shots with shooting an ND64 filter and applying DxO noise reduction in the 3 flavours available. Generally the stacking does not achieve better results of using a physical filter and then applying noise reduction however if you are outside and have a weak ND filter like an ND16 and want to have the look of an ND1000 this may help.

In this graph you can see a comparison between stacked shots with variable number of frames and a single shot with long shutter noise reduction and noise reduction in post.

The actual line is the outcome while the theoretical is the benefit you should have. As you can see past 8 shots in reality there is a limit to the improvement you can make but at the end what matters is that you end up in the same place as if you have an ND64 without having one. And if you did not have noise reduction software you end up in a better place more or less 2 stops better.

Broadly speaking an ND1000 filter is the landscape photographer best friend and if landscape is what you like to do you need to buy one there is no way around it.

I have been testing extensively however as I already have a whole set of ND8, ND64, ND1000 this gives me no benefit on my main landscape lens however for other lenses I only have an ND64 so taking 16 stacked exposure will get me the effect of an ND1000. I also apply noise reduction on the single frames so the stacking is just for the slow exposure look.

Did you apply any noise reduction to result of stacked images?

Stacked images in this process are tiff. So you can’t do more noise reduction and as mean stacking is noise reduction already and should not overlay other methods

Stacking is used to achieve a long exposure look as a by product it also works as noise reduction but mean stacking is not as good method for noise reduction as shown here
software these days is so good that stacking is really only worth when you can’t physically have a longer exposure i.e. astrophotography and of course is an emergency measure when you don’t have a filter strong enough

I understand the process and the tiff result.  While the NR you used works on raw, Topaz AI works great on tiffs (or raw).

jrsforums wrote:

1. Interceptor121 wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Since the GH5M2 it is now possible to shoot a timelapse without gaps in the exposures, this means it is possible to reproduce the effect of an ND filter by shooting a series of frames and then stacking them in post with Photoshop without gaps.

The realistic limit if you don't have an ND filter with you is 64 frames longer it is just tedious and too long winded. You will need photoshop or other stacking software

I have done several tests comparing the stacked shots with shooting an ND64 filter and applying DxO noise reduction in the 3 flavours available. Generally the stacking does not achieve better results of using a physical filter and then applying noise reduction however if you are outside and have a weak ND filter like an ND16 and want to have the look of an ND1000 this may help.

In this graph you can see a comparison between stacked shots with variable number of frames and a single shot with long shutter noise reduction and noise reduction in post.

The actual line is the outcome while the theoretical is the benefit you should have. As you can see past 8 shots in reality there is a limit to the improvement you can make but at the end what matters is that you end up in the same place as if you have an ND64 without having one. And if you did not have noise reduction software you end up in a better place more or less 2 stops better.

Broadly speaking an ND1000 filter is the landscape photographer best friend and if landscape is what you like to do you need to buy one there is no way around it.

I have been testing extensively however as I already have a whole set of ND8, ND64, ND1000 this gives me no benefit on my main landscape lens however for other lenses I only have an ND64 so taking 16 stacked exposure will get me the effect of an ND1000. I also apply noise reduction on the single frames so the stacking is just for the slow exposure look.

Did you apply any noise reduction to result of stacked images?

Stacked images in this process are tiff. So you can’t do more noise reduction and as mean stacking is noise reduction already and should not overlay other methods

Stacking is used to achieve a long exposure look as a by product it also works as noise reduction but mean stacking is not as good method for noise reduction as shown here
software these days is so good that stacking is really only worth when you can’t physically have a longer exposure i.e. astrophotography and of course is an emergency measure when you don’t have a filter strong enough

I understand the process and the tiff result. While the NR you used works on raw, Topaz AI works great on tiffs (or raw

The images look good already and at 64 frames you have exhausted the bit depth

again this is not about noise reduction is about long exposures

Dakotan wrote:

You have a camera, right? All these posts are all graphs and numbers, and not a single photo demonstrating what you are talking about. You say it's better than LIVE ND in another post also full of graphs and then adjusted graphs after you sort out median vs mean.

All most of us care about is the end product. Show a comparison image, or ANY image and then we can all judge. Until then, all the graphs you can supply are practically worthless.

You can’t do that with a real life image as the world doesn’t stand still on a long exposure so I shoot a grid as you do when you measure dynamic range. And I am saying it is the same there is no benefit which is normal why would there be?

in addition majority of users don’t have a clue of what to do anyway.

do you?

Dakotan wrote:

You have a camera, right? All these posts are all graphs and numbers, and not a single photo demonstrating what you are talking about. You say it's better than LIVE ND in another post also full of graphs and then adjusted graphs after you sort out median vs mean.

All most of us care about is the end product. Show a comparison image, or ANY image and then we can all judge. Until then, all the graphs you can supply are practically worthless.

There are lots of example articles & videos on the web….Google it….no need for more here. For example: https://fstoppers.com/education/using-long-exposures-without-help-neutral-density-filters-345545

A benefit of doing in post vs. in camera is you can adjust the effects by varying number of images used.  Plus, in many cases, can handhold if using for noise reduction (not so much for ND as longer exposures) as post auto alignment is excellent.

jrsforums wrote:

Dakotan wrote:

You have a camera, right? All these posts are all graphs and numbers, and not a single photo demonstrating what you are talking about. You say it's better than LIVE ND in another post also full of graphs and then adjusted graphs after you sort out median vs mean.

All most of us care about is the end product. Show a comparison image, or ANY image and then we can all judge. Until then, all the graphs you can supply are practically worthless.

There are lots of example articles & videos on the web….Google it….no need for more here. For example: https://fstoppers.com/education/using-long-exposures-without-help-neutral-density-filters-345545

A benefit of doing in post vs. in camera is you can adjust the effects by varying number of images used. Plus, in many cases, can handhold if using for noise reduction (not so much for ND as longer exposures) as post auto alignment is excellent.

When you can't see the wood from the trees it is easy to go and come out with statement like that person

Anyway just to give an example on how going and stacking frames is not a good idea unless required when you want to do a long exposure this is a comparison of the stack of 64 frames against a single frame treated with DxO Deep prime.

The whole idea that a primitive system like mean stacking all of a sudden is better than new noise reduction software is ludicrous

Here you can see that mean stacking of course smudges detail everywhere not just where things move the mountain and the bridge have less details

Another claim is that mean stacking all of a sudden is comparable to HDR and that the shadows are amazing well they are not really as in the example here DxO matches and beats it

So while it may be useful to use stacking if you don't have a strong enough filter with you to achieve the long exposure you want it is not true that you should be systematically stack exposure as it makes the images look amazing, it does not and it softens them

I was curious about those claims so I was looking for something that 'would be more subtle but equally effective than HDR' as suggested here. So I though let's give it a go and also get a bit of a long exposure effect (not desired)

Bracketed shot

Stacked shot

Single shot

I would argue that the single shot looks better than the stacked shot in the end and the HDR shot is in another category but that was a 3 stops gap bracket

Interceptor121 wrote:

The realistic limit if you don't have an ND filter with you is 64 frames longer it is just tedious and too long winded. You will need photoshop or other stacking software

Or e.g. a OM1 with in camera LiveND.

I have done several tests comparing the stacked shots with shooting an ND64 filter and applying DxO noise reduction in the 3 flavours available. Generally the stacking does not achieve better results of using a physical filter and then applying noise reduction

Well, actually you've only shown that using a single ND64 exposure plus the best noise reduction tools available to you produces no better results than a stack of 64 ND1 exposures without any additional noise reduction.

And if you did not have noise reduction software you end up in a better place more or less 2 stops better.

OK, so if I don't use additional top notch noise reduction with a single ND64 exposure, then a stack of 64 exposures without any ND filter and without any additional noise reduction is more or less 2 stops better.

Well, i do own neither DXO software nor a ND1000 filter.

However, I've got an OM1, so I can obviously safely assume I'll get better results using 16 LiveND64 exposures stacked together with some additional noise reduction. Saves me some money.

Interceptor121 wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

Dakotan wrote:

You have a camera, right? All these posts are all graphs and numbers, and not a single photo demonstrating what you are talking about. You say it's better than LIVE ND in another post also full of graphs and then adjusted graphs after you sort out median vs mean.

All most of us care about is the end product. Show a comparison image, or ANY image and then we can all judge. Until then, all the graphs you can supply are practically worthless.

There are lots of example articles & videos on the web….Google it….no need for more here. For example: https://fstoppers.com/education/using-long-exposures-without-help-neutral-density-filters-345545

A benefit of doing in post vs. in camera is you can adjust the effects by varying number of images used. Plus, in many cases, can handhold if using for noise reduction (not so much for ND as longer exposures) as post auto alignment is excellent.

When you can't see the wood from the trees it is easy to go and come out with statement like that person

Anyway just to give an example on how going and stacking frames is not a good idea unless required when you want to do a long exposure this is a comparison of the stack of 64 frames against a single frame treated with DxO Deep prime.

The whole idea that a primitive system like mean stacking all of a sudden is better than new noise reduction software is ludicrous

Here you can see that mean stacking of course smudges detail everywhere not just where things move the mountain and the bridge have less details

Another claim is that mean stacking all of a sudden is comparable to HDR and that the shadows are amazing well they are not really as in the example here DxO matches and beats it

So while it may be useful to use stacking if you don't have a strong enough filter with you to achieve the long exposure you want it is not true that you should be systematically stack exposure as it makes the images look amazing, it does not and it softens them

I was curious about those claims so I was looking for something that 'would be more subtle but equally effective than HDR' as suggested here. So I though let's give it a go and also get a bit of a long exposure effect (not desired)

Bracketed shot

Stacked shot

Single shot

I would argue that the single shot looks better than the stacked shot in the end and the HDR shot is in another category but that was a 3 stops gap bracket

I can see your examples. However, I have the feeling That it is an apples to oranges comparison. You used DXO routines (probably noise & sharpening AI routines under the covers…no sure as I have not used) and have not applied AI routines, such as Topaz denoise & sharpen, to the tiff. If you have not used them, I believe you would be surprised with the results.

Edit: how about a view of the ND image just processed through LR, without the DxO routines?

I use stacking from time to time for noise reduction, mimic ND filter effect and to remove unwanted moving objects in the frame.

I have saved a C mode specially for this on my GX85 and G85: A mode, manual ISO @25600 (changed to Auto ISO for purpose other than low lighting), Burst mode = M (G85 needs to switch Drive Dial physically).

Switch to use such C mode when I need it, hit button and hold it for a second or longer to let burst firing. I could have 10~20 shots (depending on how I shall use them) for the stacking. My vintage Photoshop CS4 can handle the stacking well.

finnan haddie wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The realistic limit if you don't have an ND filter with you is 64 frames longer it is just tedious and too long winded. You will need photoshop or other stacking software

Or e.g. a OM1 with in camera LiveND.

I have done several tests comparing the stacked shots with shooting an ND64 filter and applying DxO noise reduction in the 3 flavours available. Generally the stacking does not achieve better results of using a physical filter and then applying noise reduction

Well, actually you've only shown that using a single ND64 exposure plus the best noise reduction tools available to you produces no better results than a stack of 64 ND1 exposures without any additional noise reduction.

And if you did not have noise reduction software you end up in a better place more or less 2 stops better.

OK, so if I don't use additional top notch noise reduction with a single ND64 exposure, then a stack of 64 exposures without any ND filter and without any additional noise reduction is more or less 2 stops better.

yes but mean average also reduces sharpness so the whole image is softer

and stacking IS noise reduction

Well, i do own neither DXO software nor a ND1000 filter.

However, I've got an OM1, so I can obviously safely assume I'll get better results using 16 LiveND64 exposures stacked together with some additional noise reduction. Saves me some money.

You can stop at 8 really afterwards the benefit is almost invisible

jrsforums wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

Dakotan wrote:

You have a camera, right? All these posts are all graphs and numbers, and not a single photo demonstrating what you are talking about. You say it's better than LIVE ND in another post also full of graphs and then adjusted graphs after you sort out median vs mean.

All most of us care about is the end product. Show a comparison image, or ANY image and then we can all judge. Until then, all the graphs you can supply are practically worthless.

There are lots of example articles & videos on the web….Google it….no need for more here. For example: https://fstoppers.com/education/using-long-exposures-without-help-neutral-density-filters-345545

A benefit of doing in post vs. in camera is you can adjust the effects by varying number of images used. Plus, in many cases, can handhold if using for noise reduction (not so much for ND as longer exposures) as post auto alignment is excellent.

When you can't see the wood from the trees it is easy to go and come out with statement like that person

Anyway just to give an example on how going and stacking frames is not a good idea unless required when you want to do a long exposure this is a comparison of the stack of 64 frames against a single frame treated with DxO Deep prime.

The whole idea that a primitive system like mean stacking all of a sudden is better than new noise reduction software is ludicrous

Here you can see that mean stacking of course smudges detail everywhere not just where things move the mountain and the bridge have less details

Another claim is that mean stacking all of a sudden is comparable to HDR and that the shadows are amazing well they are not really as in the example here DxO matches and beats it

So while it may be useful to use stacking if you don't have a strong enough filter with you to achieve the long exposure you want it is not true that you should be systematically stack exposure as it makes the images look amazing, it does not and it softens them

I was curious about those claims so I was looking for something that 'would be more subtle but equally effective than HDR' as suggested here. So I though let's give it a go and also get a bit of a long exposure effect (not desired)

Bracketed shot

Stacked shot

Single shot

I would argue that the single shot looks better than the stacked shot in the end and the HDR shot is in another category but that was a 3 stops gap bracket

I can see your examples. However, I have the feeling That it is an apples to oranges comparison. You used DXO routines (probably noise & sharpening AI routines under the covers…no sure as I have not used) and have not applied AI routines, such as Topaz denoise & sharpen, to the tiff. If you have not used them, I believe you would be surprised with the results.

Edit: how about a view of the ND image just processed through LR, without the DxO routines?

Averaging frames IS noise reduction so the comparison is totally appropriate as this was the claim being made

the single exposure in lightroom visually looks almost ok even if the chart tells you it is 2 stops worse

i will publish it later

the point is exactly that stacking frames is not a proxy for HDR and is fairly poor as noise reduction it is only worth doing if you have adobe software and nothing else

re topaz the results are usually horrid is a software i tried and discarded time ago

SrMi wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

Dakotan wrote:

You have a camera, right? All these posts are all graphs and numbers, and not a single photo demonstrating what you are talking about. You say it's better than LIVE ND in another post also full of graphs and then adjusted graphs after you sort out median vs mean.

All most of us care about is the end product. Show a comparison image, or ANY image and then we can all judge. Until then, all the graphs you can supply are practically worthless.

There are lots of example articles & videos on the web….Google it….no need for more here. For example: https://fstoppers.com/education/using-long-exposures-without-help-neutral-density-filters-345545

A benefit of doing in post vs. in camera is you can adjust the effects by varying number of images used. Plus, in many cases, can handhold if using for noise reduction (not so much for ND as longer exposures) as post auto alignment is excellent.

When you can't see the wood from the trees it is easy to go and come out with statement like that person

Anyway just to give an example on how going and stacking frames is not a good idea unless required when you want to do a long exposure this is a comparison of the stack of 64 frames against a single frame treated with DxO Deep prime.

The whole idea that a primitive system like mean stacking all of a sudden is better than new noise reduction software is ludicrous

Here you can see that mean stacking of course smudges detail everywhere not just where things move the mountain and the bridge have less details

Another claim is that mean stacking all of a sudden is comparable to HDR and that the shadows are amazing well they are not really as in the example here DxO matches and beats it

So while it may be useful to use stacking if you don't have a strong enough filter with you to achieve the long exposure you want it is not true that you should be systematically stack exposure as it makes the images look amazing, it does not and it softens them

I was curious about those claims so I was looking for something that 'would be more subtle but equally effective than HDR' as suggested here. So I though let's give it a go and also get a bit of a long exposure effect (not desired)

Bracketed shot

Stacked shot

Single shot

I would argue that the single shot looks better than the stacked shot in the end and the HDR shot is in another category but that was a 3 stops gap bracket

I can see your examples. However, I have the feeling That it is an apples to oranges comparison. You used DXO routines (probably noise & sharpening AI routines under the covers…no sure as I have not used) and have not applied AI routines, such as Topaz denoise & sharpen, to the tiff. If you have not used them, I believe you would be surprised with the results.

Edit: how about a view of the ND image just processed through LR, without the DxO routines?

Averaging frames IS noise reduction so the comparison is totally appropriate as this was the claim being made

There is a difference as averaging frames does not lose details, while noise reduction in the post (on noise image) loses details.

the single exposure in lightroom visually looks almost ok even if the chart tells you it is 2 stops worse

i will publish it later

the point is exactly that stacking frames is not a proxy for HDR and is fairly poor as noise reduction it is only worth doing if you have adobe software and nothing else

re topaz the results are usually horrid is a software i tried and discarded time ago

As shown in this examples thats not the case in reality as the crop shows the mean average is softer

in fact it is softer even compared to the single frame because mean average IS noise reduction and smooths details

Median stacking will preserve sharpness but mean doesn’t

SrMi wrote:

- ND filter cannot improve image quality. It can only deteriorate it.

- Frame averaging improves image quality.

- A noisy image has always lower image quality than a "noise-free" image, regardless of the noise reduction.

- The difference in image quality is sometimes small, sometimes significant.

ND filter doesn’t do anything to image quality and if it is crap it ruins it

mean stacking is the least effective method of noise reduction and destroys details because in very dark area or bright area it mixes everything

you need to start from a good image

using stacking in camera as a noise reduction method or a way to enhance dynamic range is not worth it as post processing obtains better results due to the limitation of the camera

using stacking in software does provide the benefit that you can manipulate the entire data set but at the end this takes away time and there is a limit to how many exposures you can manage

but

more generally mean and median stacking are methods to create a slow exposure not proxy for something else

will post the median stacking example so we can all see hot that looks

SrMi wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

SrMi wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

Dakotan wrote:

You have a camera, right? All these posts are all graphs and numbers, and not a single photo demonstrating what you are talking about. You say it's better than LIVE ND in another post also full of graphs and then adjusted graphs after you sort out median vs mean.

All most of us care about is the end product. Show a comparison image, or ANY image and then we can all judge. Until then, all the graphs you can supply are practically worthless.

There are lots of example articles & videos on the web….Google it….no need for more here. For example: https://fstoppers.com/education/using-long-exposures-without-help-neutral-density-filters-345545

A benefit of doing in post vs. in camera is you can adjust the effects by varying number of images used. Plus, in many cases, can handhold if using for noise reduction (not so much for ND as longer exposures) as post auto alignment is excellent.

When you can't see the wood from the trees it is easy to go and come out with statement like that person

Anyway just to give an example on how going and stacking frames is not a good idea unless required when you want to do a long exposure this is a comparison of the stack of 64 frames against a single frame treated with DxO Deep prime.

The whole idea that a primitive system like mean stacking all of a sudden is better than new noise reduction software is ludicrous

Here you can see that mean stacking of course smudges detail everywhere not just where things move the mountain and the bridge have less details

Another claim is that mean stacking all of a sudden is comparable to HDR and that the shadows are amazing well they are not really as in the example here DxO matches and beats it

So while it may be useful to use stacking if you don't have a strong enough filter with you to achieve the long exposure you want it is not true that you should be systematically stack exposure as it makes the images look amazing, it does not and it softens them

I was curious about those claims so I was looking for something that 'would be more subtle but equally effective than HDR' as suggested here. So I though let's give it a go and also get a bit of a long exposure effect (not desired)

Bracketed shot

Stacked shot

Single shot

I would argue that the single shot looks better than the stacked shot in the end and the HDR shot is in another category but that was a 3 stops gap bracket

I can see your examples. However, I have the feeling That it is an apples to oranges comparison. You used DXO routines (probably noise & sharpening AI routines under the covers…no sure as I have not used) and have not applied AI routines, such as Topaz denoise & sharpen, to the tiff. If you have not used them, I believe you would be surprised with the results.

Edit: how about a view of the ND image just processed through LR, without the DxO routines?

Averaging frames IS noise reduction so the comparison is totally appropriate as this was the claim being made

There is a difference as averaging frames does not lose details, while noise reduction in the post (on noise image) loses details.

the single exposure in lightroom visually looks almost ok even if the chart tells you it is 2 stops worse

i will publish it later

the point is exactly that stacking frames is not a proxy for HDR and is fairly poor as noise reduction it is only worth doing if you have adobe software and nothing else

re topaz the results are usually horrid is a software i tried and discarded time ago

As shown in this examples thats not the case in reality as the crop shows the mean average is softer

in fact it is softer even compared to the single frame because mean average IS noise reduction and smooths details

Median stacking will preserve sharpness but mean doesn’t

How do you do the stacking in the post? Something like this? Median is useful to eliminate movements from the images. Means is better for noise, AFAIK.

Both mean and median eliminate objects from images.

Median images are typically sharper as they discard values on the periphery while mean averages everything

I will post examples in the main thread so that it is clearer

I have a lot of experience in stacking as I do that for astrophotography. Mean and Median are primitive methods that are not used because they are not that good. Sigma clipping is what is used in various sauces but that is not available through photoshop