"Sosumi" <> wrote:
>"Robert Brace" <> wrote:
>> What type of bracketing are you attempting? Exposure, flash or white
>> balance.
>> Normally, each push of the shutter (in single frame mode) produces one
>> exposure. That means a uniquely numbered exposure for each push. If you
>> set it for 3 exposures (normal, -1, +1) you get 3 separately numbered
>> frames. White balance bracketing would produce the 3 frames with a single
>> shutter push, but still 3 separately numbered frames.
>> Now viewing these frames in Bridge or ACR (except if shooting NEF, you
>> can't do white balance bracketing) you will see each separate frame the
>> same
>> as if you weren't bracketing.
>> There is no "only recognizing the first frame" as each frame is a
>> separate exposure as it normally would be.
>> What are we missing here?
>
>I'm talking about a combination of exposure bracketing with multiple
>exposure, both set to 9 frames. So what you get is *one* picture made of 9
>different exposures.
Assuming the D300 is the same as the D3, there is no
such thing as "a combination of exposure bracketing with
multiple exposures".
You can use "exposure bracketing", which will give you 9
different images, each with a different exposure; or you
can use "multiple exposures", which will give you 1
image made up of a combination from 9 separate
exposures.
If you first set bracketing, you can then set multiple
exposures but it will automatically reset the bracketing
to 0 frames. And if you first turn on multiple
exposures, you cannot access bracketing to set it until
multiple exposures is off. (You can further test that
by setting bracketing to some non-zero value, then turn
on multiple exposures followed by turning it off... and
checking the bracketing again, which will now be 0F.)
Hence I assume that what you actually have done is
enabled multiple exposures, fired off 9 shots, and
therefore have one NEF file generated from those 9
exposures. Is that correct?
If you continued to make exposures after that, without
changing either the bracketing or the multiple
exposures, those options will both be OFF as of the 9th
exposure above. Following exposures will generate their
own NEF files, none of which will be either bracketed or
made up of multiple exposures. Is that what you are
getting?
>After I worked on it in NX Capture, I wanted to add some filter effects in
>PS, but all the nice things I added in NX were lost in PS or better: not
>recognized by ACR.
I'm not specifically familiar with any of that software.
It doesn't appear to actually be a software problem,
other than perhaps one program is not showing you as
much of the Exif data as the others. But that does
*not* change what the images are.
I take it that you are working with the NEF files
produced. You should be able to convert them to an
image format using virtually any RAW conversion
software, and then save the resulting file in whatever
format (JPEG, TIFF, PPM, etc) format you choose for
further editing with PS.
>in NX Capture and NX View you see at the camera settings that it's a 9 frame
>picture: in ACR you don't have this information.
Does that make any difference? That's just a matter of
presentation of Exif data, not a difference in what the
images are or are not.
Here's a fairly simple test you can make to verify what
you are getting. Do this with an empty CF card in the
camera.
1) Set bracketing to 9 frames.
2) Set multiple exposures to 9 frames.
3) Make 8 exposures, and note that the light
indicating that it is writing to the CF card
does *not* go on.
4) Make the 9th exposure, and note that the
light now goes on indicating that it is
writing to the CF card. Wait for it to
finish and the light to go off.
5) Check the bracketing, by pushing down the
BKT button, and note that the display says
0F.
6) Make one more exposure, again noting that
the light again goes on. Wait for the light
to extinguish.
You can now take the CF card out, and download the two
images. If you have something like /exiftool/ to look
at the Exif data you will discover that the first image
indicates it was made with multiple exposures, while the
second image was not, and that both images used exactly
the same exposure (there was no bracketing).
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)