View Full Version : Is this info (from Facebook) for removing tourists from a photo correct

15-07-2013, 5:09pm
This info in the form of a photo, came up on my facebook feed from a friend (you may need to have Facebook to view it)
Just in case you can't view it, it basically shows two photos of a touristy ruins site, with and without tourists in the shot, and says basically that you can remove tourists (or other moving objects) from a photo by setting up the camera on a tripod, taking multiple shots every few seconds till you have about 15 images of the area, loading them all into Photoshop by choosing FILE > SCRIPTS > STATISTICS > "Median", and that it then produces a sort of "average" shot that removes anything from the series that keeps changing (the moving objects) and gives you a shot without those things in it.


I don't have a series of photos to test it with, but the feature file>scripts>statistics>median does exist as an option in my copy of PS.
It would of course depend on you getting enough shots to actually GET all the background in over the whole series of shots, if there was any part of the scene that was never free from tourists in any of the shots, it would probably make a mess of that part.

Can anyone confirm if it would work?

15-07-2013, 5:48pm
Many people use the ol trick of multiple minutes of exposure time.

basically the same thing as described here.
The assumption with the couple of minutes exposure is that no tourist will linger in the exact same spot for more than the exposure time ... and that you have adequate exposure leverage for doing a multiple minute exposure(eg, small aperture, dark ambient conditions, appropriate filtering).

Can't answer your actual question as to whether this median operation in Cs would work or not .. don't currently have access to Cs .. nor any images to try it .. but it sounds plausible.

15-07-2013, 5:51pm
Sounds feasible, though I wonder what it would do if there is just a tiny wobble/shake between photos.

15-07-2013, 6:38pm
You could also set each layer to lighten, that way any pixels lighter than the previous layer would be replaced. Id wouldn't be perfect but may help if the scripts options doesn't work.

15-07-2013, 8:22pm
Yes – it is true!

I recently took a series of (fixed tripod mounted) photos of me whilst painting the eaves.

The 1st image is a contact sheet of some 7 photos within the series.
The 2nd is a Median Combine of a sub-set (4) of the photos (2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th) and as a result, 3 instances of me have disappeared.
The 3rd is a CS6 stitch from all the 7 photos in the contact sheet.

All taken with 5D Mk III and 17-40mm at the 17mm end. It was quite tricky sprinting up and down the ladder using the 10 sec timer mode.:)



aussie girl
15-07-2013, 10:43pm
I bet you had wished that you could have "cloned" yourself so that you had lots of little helpers to get the painting done:lol::lol:

Ms Monny
16-07-2013, 11:17am
I too saw this on my fb page and wondered the same. I laughed when I saw some of the comments to that post though..... ones like "I don't use a tripod" or "why not wait until all the people have gone?" :D

Looks like Elements doesn't have this Scripts function. Ah well, back to doing it the old fashioned way!! :rolleyes:

16-07-2013, 3:12pm
I've certainly done it a couple of times manually, even without a tripod at the Moreaki Boulders as I hadn't taken one to NZ (how dumb huh! ). I'll have to give this method a try

16-07-2013, 8:14pm
I could have used this information a little bit earlier, I was at "Cock Rock" with a bunch of other photographers, but wanted a shot of just the rock itself without 30 people around, and on top, of the rock. I ended up waiting till the group - which I was with - had left and headed back to the vehicles, rushed off a few very very quick photos, then had to sprint after them to catch back up to them. Sprinting with a camera through the bush isn't a great idea, or easy to do for that matter.
It would have been easier just to use this technique to remove everyone later.
The rock loses its phallic look with a bunch of people all in front of, and standing on top of, it. So almost pointless to take it with people blocking the view.

If you don't know this rock, it looks rather disconcertingly like the male genitalia complete with testes.
It looks small here, but it's probably about the height of 4 people (I should have left ONE of the people in the shot for perspective).


Mark L
17-07-2013, 7:15pm
^ I think that photo should be posted elsewhere on AP for more general viewing.
(see, I didn't make a terrible pun or ...... .):)

17-07-2013, 10:21pm
Ezookiel ... you have any gps coordinate for that 'landmark'? .. any format, I'll convert it to a usable form.

That's hilarious :D

17-07-2013, 11:19pm
No coordinates unfortunately, but you'll easily find it. It's on "Dilgry Circle" in the Barrington Tops National Park.
That's a loop road of about 14kms apparently, so if you miss it the first time round - it's well enough signposted - the worst case scenario would be going around again.
If you google search it up, use "The Rock" rather than "Cock Rock" as most respectable sites refer to it by the more polite name.

I rushed the shots and blew out the sky, and didn't really have time to try exposure bracketing or the like, so haven't shared any photos of it on here as I wasn't happy with the photos. If you thought this one was funny, you should see the one where I held my hand out in front of the camera so that I've got my hand around the shaft.