Post Processing

[twocoasttb]

I'm new to doing image post-processing and would appreciate any suggestions. Here's the original image, straight out of my D10 (JPEG):

http://www.twocoast.com/thomas/photos/lupin1.jpg

and here's the processed image. I messed around with levels and color balance (mostly green). Also cropped and applied some USM.

http://www.twocoast.com/thomas/photos/lupin2.jpg

[RedShoesGirl]

which colour is more accurately depicting the actual flower? Is that important to you?

just curious...

lara

[eland]

Lara makes a very valid point.

Which image is closer to the actual flower and scene ?

It seems disappointing that such a high proportion of digital images
have to be worked on to make them look "right".

The percentage seems very much higher than with film cameras. Even the 10 D images seem to need help.

We took a lot of shots with one over the weekend and
the post processing does get a bit boring.

eland

[twocoasttb]

That is a good point. Thinking back, I'd have to say the first image is pretty close to the actual scene.

[TimNYC24]

two, IMHO the first shot may suffer from too much flash, which washed out depth of color. I would adjust saturation and hue for Green,Yellow and Red.

[diyjoe]

Personally, I'd have done this...

http://www.diyjoe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photoprojects/images/flower.jpg

;)

[diyjoe]

eland wrote:

It seems disappointing that such a high proportion of digital images
have to be worked on to make them look "right".

The percentage seems very much higher than with film cameras. Even the 10 D images seem to need help.

We took a lot of shots with one over the weekend and
the post processing does get a bit boring.

eland


It's the end that counts, not the means of getting there...

I've taken more (decent) pictures in the 2 months since I bought my 10D than I took the 2 years before with my old negative EOS.

Digital SLR speeds up the learning cycle about 3000%* - you can see your picture instantly, learn from it, take it again, try something different.

The only reason we all dick around with our images in Photoshop is because we can!

* - figure based on best assumption following at least 15 seconds of thought on the matter

http://www.diyjoe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photoprojects/index.html

[TimNYC24]

diyjoe wrote:
eland wrote:

It seems disappointing that such a high proportion of digital images
have to be worked on to make them look "right".

The percentage seems very much higher than with film cameras. Even the 10 D images seem to need help.

We took a lot of shots with one over the weekend and
the post processing does get a bit boring.

eland


It's the end that counts, not the means of getting there...

I've taken more (decent) pictures in the 2 months since I bought my 10D than I took the 2 years before with my old negative EOS.

Digital SLR speeds up the learning cycle about 3000%* - you can see your picture instantly, learn from it, take it again, try something different.

The only reason we all dick around with our images in Photoshop is because we can!

* - figure based on best assumption following at least 15 seconds of thought on the matter

http://www.diyjoe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photoprojects/index.html




Joe, I agree with you 100% regarding the learning curve using digital camera. *sigh* all that money wasted over the years on film and development. Oh well, Shoot on now !

[twocoasttb]

diyjoe- looks terrific! But can you give a brief description of what you did?

[diyjoe]

twocoasttb wrote:
diyjoe- looks terrific! But can you give a brief description of what you did?

Adjusted the contrast very slightly by dragging the in the white and black points in levels, created a new layer with the mode set to 'soft light' at about 70% and put gradients in from each side and top and bottom to create a bit of a 'Lomo glow' around the flower, then USM (0.5 pixels 150% Threshold 0)

I do that gradient thing to a lot of my photos - it really helps draw the viewers eye into the main subject.

Hope that helps!

http://www.diyjoe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photoprojects/index.html

[RedShoesGirl]

Tim,

Don't ever regret the time you spent on shooting film. You may not realize how that has helped you now. I think one of the things facing young or new photogs that have never worked in a darkroom is how really good prints are made. How good images are created AFTER they are shot.

Learning to dodge and burn in the darkroom translates to understanding many of the tools in photoshop — and not necessarily the dodge and burn tool which tends to muddy up images.

Which is affected more by burning - highlights or shadows? Which is affected more by dodging - highlights or shadows.

Even with film we were always dinking around with the photo in the darkroom...photoshop is just a fancier darkroom in many ways.

Images are not perfect coming right out a digital camera - I use a Nikon D1 at the newspaper, an EOS1n film for transparencies for some personal clients and the new G3 for digital projects where film is not required.

Both digital cameras do not produce perfect images. Either the colour is off a bit, or the contrast in the scene excedes the capabilities of the camera or something else needs tweaking. All those years in a darkroom ( and I am glad I don't have to do that any longer!) gave me a more precise way of looking at images and how to produce a quality product.

So we use Photoshop not because we can, but because we have to in order to perfect the image. Many of the shots I see in these forums really need some tweaking. Again, usually exposure, contrast, or colour balance.

Sorry if this is too long-winded!

lara

[TimNYC24]

Red,
Thanks again for your insightful input.

maybe I wish I had back the $ spent on bad images that were developed :)

[diyjoe]

So we use Photoshop not because we can, but because we have to in order to perfect the image.

I agree to a certain extent...

For you, me and many others, PhotoShop has simply become a natural part of the process of creating an interesting and personally satisfying image. Other people see the software as something they shouldn't need to use and are dissappointed if they have to in order to acheive good results.

To me this is like saying there is an argument for no longer producing cars with a manual gear shift - some people like automatic transmission because their car takes them from A to B with the least hassle, other people like the control a manual gear shift provides.

This post is an excerpt from my forthcoming novel, 'Zen and at the Art of Digital Photography' ;-)

http://www.diyjoe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photoprojects/index.html

[RedShoesGirl]

diyjoe wrote:
So we use Photoshop not because we can, but because we have to in order to perfect the image.

I agree to a certain extent...

For you, me and many others, PhotoShop has simply become a natural part of the process of creating an interesting and personally satisfying image. Other people see the software as something they shouldn't need to use and are dissappointed if they have to in order to acheive good results.


I look at it like this - people who are happy with the film/negative prints they get from WallyWord or CostCo are those that are disappointed that the digital makes them work a litte harder to get good prints. Notice I said GOOD prints.

As for the analogy between manual shift and automatic...well, the cars still requires one to do SOME driving....just as digital or any printmaking process requires one to do some tweaking...unless they are happy with the aforementioned 1 hour photo places.

:-)

lara

[RedShoesGirl]

Have you tried doing the USM JUST in the luminence channel in LAB mode? It works very well and it doens't create the colour shift that USM can create when working with the plain RGB image. After the sharpening process then convert back to RGB. Also colour correcting in LAB reduces unwanted artifacts and colour shifting.

lara

[diyjoe]

RedShoesGirl wrote:
Have you tried doing the USM JUST in the luminence channel in LAB mode? It works very well and it doens't create the colour shift that USM can create when working with the plain RGB image. After the sharpening process then convert back to RGB. Also colour correcting in LAB reduces unwanted artifacts and colour shifting.

lara

That's a good tip - I sometimes work on individual channels, but I never thought about shifting to a different colour mode before doing this.

I just having a look at your work BTW - very impressed!

[chris.bailey]

RedShoesGirl wrote:
Have you tried doing the USM JUST in the luminence channel in LAB mode? It works very well and it doens't create the colour shift that USM can create when working with the plain RGB image. After the sharpening process then convert back to RGB. Also colour correcting in LAB reduces unwanted artifacts and colour shifting.

lara

Lara

I would agree but be aware that you do loose a bit of info each time you change mode in Photoshop therefore obey the golden rule and work on a copy.

Chris

[RedShoesGirl]

chris.bailey wrote:
RedShoesGirl wrote:
Have you tried doing the USM JUST in the luminence channel in LAB mode? It works very well and it doens't create the colour shift that USM can create when working with the plain RGB image. After the sharpening process then convert back to RGB. Also colour correcting in LAB reduces unwanted artifacts and colour shifting.

lara

Lara

I would agree but be aware that you do loose a bit of info each time you change mode in Photoshop therefore obey the golden rule and work on a copy.

Chris


Well of course, that goes unsaid. I have so many different copies of one image!