Photoshop question: Adding a lamp to an existing image

[Dark Penguin]

Hello all.

I have an antique statue clock in dark bronze. The figure has one arm upraised, and she's holding a sort of rod on which you hang the clock, which swings back and forth, as a pendulum. (Or it would if it were working, but that's beside the point.) Without the clock it looks like she's holding a socket wrench.

In Photoshop, I want to add a full moon from another image, and make it look like she's holding a spherical lamp that looks like the moon. That part is simple; I just copied the moon from the other photo and pasted it to the end of the "socket wrench", made a few other adjustments, and it looks really good. But obviously the light isn't right. I need to make it look like the "moon" is shining on the other objects in the photo...the statue, the table, the curtains behind, and so on. We'll call this Image A.

Is this something that can be done in Photoshop? It won't work if I just make the whole scene brighter.

Taking another approach, the next day I took more photos of the statue, this time with a lightbulb just behind where the moon would go. The lightbulb is at the end of a long articulated table lamp which I think at one time had a shade, but now it's just the bulb. I set up the photo so the figure is holding the socket wrench just in the right position, so when I pasted in the moon, it would cover up the bulb. This way, the light in the original exposure looks like it's coming from the moon lamp. We'll call this Image B.

But now I have to remove the arm of the lamp. And because the whole scene was set up in front of a corner, with slightly glossy walls, the brightness of the wall is highly variable. It's easy enough to get rid of the lamp support, but filling in the background seems difficult. If I'd only thought of taking another exposure with the lamp base on the other side, but with the bulb still in the same position, I could just paste in that part of the wall as is. But alas, I did not.

So how should I approach this? Is it more feasible to remove the lamp support from Image B, and repair the background, or to add the light effect from the moon lamp to Image A?

Is either one of these solutions possible at all?

 

[Dark Penguin]

It does look like there are some interesting possibilities here.

As for astro stacking software, I think the best one for general purposes is Astro Pixel Processor, but it costs a yearly license fee 60 Euros, so whatever that is in our currencies., You can also get a permanent license for 165 Euros, which I'm now kicking myself because I didn't buy that when I could have afforded it more easily.

My go-to now is Sequator which works remarkably well, considering it's free; and it's fast as well. I ignored this software for a long time thinking it was for star trails only, but it stacks very well too. In the image I posted above I apparently had some focus issues, or possibly I left the shutter open one second too long. Either or both of those possible causes must account for the chromatic distortion that resulted in most of the stars being magenta-ish. Usually when I do this, the stars come out with their proper tints, or at least the colors are merely shifted in a consistent way, like a guitar that is in tune with itself but out of tune in relation to the standard. After stacking, I use two third party Ps filters from Pro Digital, AstroFlat and StarSpikes, to add in points and ring fliares.

IIRC to make the image I took the output from Sequator and did a simple autocorrect on it, which really brought out the Milky Way. Having saved the original, I ran the Pro Digital filters on that, after which I copied and pasted the Milky Way from the autocorrected version onto it. I'm in a Bortle 5 area, or so the map tells me, so I was pleasantly astonished that the Milky Way came out as well as it did, and that the dark matter is apparently accurate based on what Sky Safari and Stellarium tell me. Who says you have to go to Australia to see "dark constellations"? We've got them right here. In the photo, I see a very squat person seated on a low bench, leaning forward. If you look closely you may notice "rivers" of complete darkness, presumably where tendrils of dust and other dark matter are spilling out from the main mass. Or were spilling out, I suppose I should say.

Deep Sky Stacker didn't seem to work very well for simple nighttime sky shots. I think I read somewhere that it's really intended more for serious deep sky photography--hence the name.

 

[Rodger in Edmonton]

It does look like there are some interesting possibilities here.

As for astro stacking software, I think the best one for general purposes is Astro Pixel Processor, but it costs a yearly license fee 60 Euros, so whatever that is in our currencies., You can also get a permanent license for 165 Euros, which I'm now kicking myself because I didn't buy that when I could have afforded it more easily.

I have not tried AP - internet/ cell is expensive here in Canada so I too use Sequator for stacking then PS fpr PP.

I have RegiStax and used it for the Grand Alignment - it can stack videoframes which I wondered if that or any of these programs would be useful for macro?

There is the law of diminishing return with human vision - just like the buddy with the 200W stereo in a 1 BDRM Apt . We see and hear our expectations in many ways.

CBC and Oxford I think did a great study on the vaunted Stradivarius Violin brand -

the experts ALL said " people just don't understand" " it is like no other" etc etc so they made cheap violin replicas and tested them blinded to which they knew was which.

They could not tell the Strad from a $ 500 violin and they launch into eloquent imagery as they say " there! hear that! that's the Stad sound etc" wrong.

There was no correlation

. In the image I posted above I apparently had some focus issues, or possibly I left the shutter open one second too long. Either or both of those possible causes must account for the chromatic distortion that resulted in most of the stars being magenta-ish. Usually when I do this, the stars come out with their proper tints, or at least the colors are merely shifted in a consistent way, like a guitar that is in tune with itself but out of tune in relation to the standard.

I am always suspect of of upper level haze, diffuse clouds etc because almost everytime the forecast says its clear - its not - its Sesame Street clear but not astro clear

After stacking, I use two third party Ps filters from Pro Digital, AstroFlat and StarSpikes, to add in points and ring fliares.

IIRC to make the image I took the output from Sequator and did a simple autocorrect on it, which really brought out the Milky Way.

I find the Autocorrect in my cheesy MS Photo Viewer improves 40 % or more of my shots, can't explain it but - it struggles with high dynamic range but that little tweak really helps many times.

Having saved the original, I ran the Pro Digital filters on that, after which I copied and pasted the Milky Way from the autocorrected version onto it. I'm in a Bortle 5 area, or so the map tells me, so I was pleasantly astonished that the Milky Way came out as well as it did, and that the dark matter is apparently accurate based on what Sky Safari and Stellarium tell me. Who says you have to go to Australia to see "dark constellations"? We've got them right here.

I am moved.

"You may notice "rivers" of complete darkness, presumably where tendrils of dust and other dark matter are spilling out from the main mass."

Any visit to the festoons, back eddies, rivers and dust lanes lanes of the Milky way is really a homecoming- a homecoming to that glorious stardust which so solemnly bears the chemistry of our maternity and pedigree.

The night sky whispers to us " Welcome home my children , welcome home"

DSS is sure old school vs SQ - like those old FTP sites or something with the bare tab interface - one wrong click and the user is toast whereas almost any combo in SQ works and its pretty hard NOT to get some ouput that is encouraging - nothing like a DSS black slab to start.

I need some clean lines for a Milky Way astro timelapse or stack - I find SQ Ground freeze is no match for tree lines. I thought I had a good site but when I got there the zillions of tree branches mad it way too busy.

--
Best Regards, Rodger
Save Lives - Be an Organ or Stem Cell Donor.
Quaecumque vera

 

[Dark Penguin]

Found a GREAT video for what I was trying to do:

And basically followed it to create the image below. I didn't use everything in the video, plus I had to do some other tweaks not used in the video. From what I've seen, the best way to create these images is to start with a photo taken in fairly strong and diffuse light, such as early twilight. The lamplight effect is then accomplished more by adding darkness than by adding light. I hadn't done this with this photo, but compensated as best I could.


Lamp Off


Lamp On

I think this is probably the same basic approach that @Rodger was advising.

 

[Dark Penguin]

I have not tried AP - internet/ cell is expensive here in Canada so I too use Sequator for stacking then PS fpr PP.

I don't understand why the cost of data would be an issue. You don't need online data to run APP, though obviously you have to download it once.

I'm surprised it's expensive up there, but then maybe I shouldn't be, considering the sparseness of your population away from coasts and the Great Lakes.

I have RegiStax and used it for the Grand Alignment - it can stack videoframes which I wondered if that or any of these programs would be useful for macro?

There is the law of diminishing return with human vision - just like the buddy with the 200W stereo in a 1 BDRM Apt . We see and hear our expectations in many ways.

CBC and Oxford I think did a great study on the vaunted Stradivarius Violin brand -

the experts ALL said " people just don't understand" " it is like no other" etc etc so they made cheap violin replicas and tested them blinded to which they knew was which.

They could not tell the Strad from a $ 500 violin and they launch into eloquent imagery as they say " there! hear that! that's the Stad sound etc" wrong.

There was no correlation

. In the image I posted above I apparently had some focus issues, or possibly I left the shutter open one second too long. Either or both of those possible causes must account for the chromatic distortion that resulted in most of the stars being magenta-ish. Usually when I do this, the stars come out with their proper tints, or at least the colors are merely shifted in a consistent way, like a guitar that is in tune with itself but out of tune in relation to the standard.

I am always suspect of of upper level haze, diffuse clouds etc because almost everytime the forecast says its clear - its not - its Sesame Street clear but not astro clear

It was in fact unsually clear the night I got the Milky Way. I could almost see it with the naked eye. But even on an ordinarily clear moonless night, I'll get something on the sensor.

After stacking, I use two third party Ps filters from Pro Digital, AstroFlat and StarSpikes, to add in points and ring fliares.

IIRC to make the image I took the output from Sequator and did a simple autocorrect on it, which really brought out the Milky Way.

I find the Autocorrect in my cheesy MS Photo Viewer improves 40 % or more of my shots, can't explain it but - it struggles with high dynamic range but that little tweak really helps many times.

Having saved the original, I ran the Pro Digital filters on that, after which I copied and pasted the Milky Way from the autocorrected version onto it. I'm in a Bortle 5 area, or so the map tells me, so I was pleasantly astonished that the Milky Way came out as well as it did, and that the dark matter is apparently accurate based on what Sky Safari and Stellarium tell me. Who says you have to go to Australia to see "dark constellations"? We've got them right here.

I am moved.

"You may notice "rivers" of complete darkness, presumably where tendrils of dust and other dark matter are spilling out from the main mass."

Any visit to the festoons, back eddies, rivers and dust lanes lanes of the Milky way is really a homecoming- a homecoming to that glorious stardust which so solemnly bears the chemistry of our maternity and pedigree.

The night sky whispers to us " Welcome home my children , welcome home"

DSS is sure old school vs SQ - like those old FTP sites or something with the bare tab interface - one wrong click and the user is toast whereas almost any combo in SQ works and its pretty hard NOT to get some ouput that is encouraging - nothing like a DSS black slab to start.

I need some clean lines for a Milky Way astro timelapse or stack - I find SQ Ground freeze is no match for tree lines. I thought I had a good site but when I got there the zillions of tree branches mad it way too busy.

BTW I think you're in for a grand show this Sunday. They're predicting a major aurora display.

 

[Rodger in Edmonton]

Found a GREAT video for what I was trying to do:

And basically followed it to create the image below. I didn't use everything in the video, plus I had to do some other tweaks not used in the video. From what I've seen, the best way to create these images is to start with a photo taken in fairly strong and diffuse light, such as early twilight. The lamplight effect is then accomplished more by adding darkness than by adding light. I hadn't done this with this photo, but compensated as best I could.


Lamp Off


Lamp On

I think this is probably the same basic approach that @Rodger was advising.

I likeit Penguin - the moon looks too bright is my only niggle - your blue tone idea is the right one IMHO most people see the moon with blue scatter.



Love the curtain effect for DOF, the light & shadows really putting the viewer there.

--
Best Regards, Rodger
Save Lives - Be an Organ or Stem Cell Donor.
Quaecumque vera

 

[Rodger in Edmonton]

BTW I think you're in for a grand show this Sunday. They're predicting a major aurora display.

I hope so Wednesday fizzled.







--
Best Regards, Rodger
Save Lives - Be an Organ or Stem Cell Donor.
Quaecumque vera

 

[Dark Penguin]

Inspired by the video I linked to, I tried another image in our front garden. This version is slightly desaturated to better portray the character of moonlight, although not by color because I wanted to give the impression of a[n incandescent] lamp.


Moondance

The statue has been in my family as long as I've been alive, but I never noticed until now that, from this vantage point, it looks like she's dancing, or about to dance.

Funnily enough, what she was actually doing was carrying fish. From her left hand, there used to be a chain leading down to a clump of fish, as on a line. The fish are still there though the chain is long gone.

 

[Dark Penguin]

I have not tried AP - internet/ cell is expensive here in Canada so I too use Sequator for stacking then PS fpr PP.

I'm not sure why that would be an issue. You have to download the software, obviously, but after that all processing is local.

I have RegiStax and used it for the Grand Alignment - it can stack videoframes which I wondered if that or any of these programs would be useful for macro?

I'll have to try that one.

There is the law of diminishing return with human vision - just like the buddy with the 200W stereo in a 1 BDRM Apt . We see and hear our expectations in many ways.

CBC and Oxford I think did a great study on the vaunted Stradivarius Violin brand -

the experts ALL said " people just don't understand" " it is like no other" etc etc so they made cheap violin replicas and tested them blinded to which they knew was which.

They could not tell the Strad from a $ 500 violin and they launch into eloquent imagery as they say " there! hear that! that's the Stad sound etc" wrong.

There was no correlation

Very true. I'm sure nearly everyone can tell the difference between the built-in TV speakers versus an inexpensive soundbar and subwoofer set that you can buy at any big box store. But when you go above and beyond soundbar quality, fewer and fewer people can tell the difference between high-end and average quality audio.

 

[Dark Penguin]

I want to nail a good astroscape with a barn but not sure where to go, I find a sparse foreground makes it a bust but I digress -

I was about to say I was surprised you'd have difficulty finding a site for this, but on considering my own problems finding a good site where I live, I demurred. We have plenty of dark sky sites, and I wouldn't have to drive out very far to reach them. But the difficulty lies in the fact that, as far as I've seen, the country roads around here have no shoulders and no turnouts, anywhere. There's no safe place to pull over and set up your equipment. And if you do find a safe place to park, chances are it'll be the parking lot of a business, shuttered for the night but with bright outdoor lights left on overnight.

By contrast, in California the small roads almost always had ample shoulders and turnouts. Once I found a great site outside of Escondido, but I didn't have the right lenses then and the pics didn't come out.