Photoshop post-processing for beginners

[curiousgeorge]

I've got my holiday photos ready for post processing, and I heard here that all photos need to at least be sharpened in Photoshop. I've not used the tool before (I've always used Paint Shop Pro).

Is there a general all purpose method of sharpening?

ANy other post processing techniques that are recommended?

Thanks,
George

[MagicallyDelicious]

You can download some actions from http://www.atncentral.com/

some tutorials there as well for ps that ive found helpful

[Pete]

most of what you need to know is in this thread...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34606

But... If you want to learn about post processing, then it's wise to buy a book on the subject (or several) and work your way through them. You'll learn a huge amount and your photography will improve no end.

[rabidcow]

Not to sound too rude, but no amount of post processing will improve your photography. Minimal sharpening and some crop-for-print I can see, but failing to capture the image properly the first time and then relying on photoshop is not an option for those who care about their photography.

[Pete]

Sorry, I misrepresented what I wrote. I should really have made it clear that books on photography would probably improve the finished product. Taking good photos with the camera helps what PP work you need immensly..

[Virtual_D]

Not to sound too rude, but no amount of post processing will improve your photography. Minimal sharpening and some crop-for-print I can see, but failing to capture the image properly the first time and then relying on photoshop is not an option for those who care about their photography.

Thats a bit harsh. Photography has always been a marriage between the camera and the darkroom or software. A good photograph will always need good post processing to bring the vision to print.

Someday you should research the works of someone like Ansel Adams. His work is widely recognized as great works of art. He cared deeply about his photography. The amount of post processing he did is proof that you dont know what you are talking about.

[rabidcow]

Yes it was harsh, but as I stated, I did not want to come off as rude.

I am fully aware that PP is a part of photography, but my point is that your photograpghy should not hinge on photoshop. Soft focus, vignette, dodging, burning, touch-up, contrast and saturation enhancement are all a part of the game, but a well exposed properly composed shot should always be a starting point.

"Just take it and fix it in Photoshop" is an attitude that kills good out of camera photography. I was one who relied heavily on PP most of the time in order to salvage poor photographic skill. Now I don't need to worry about it because I have taken the time to learn how to get it right the first time.

I'll be the first to admit that I PP the hell out of my wedding pics, but this is done to add effects that I cannot add without tossing filter after filter in front of my lens all day.

Post processing is a wonderful thing to learn, but do not lean on it so much that it becomes a crutch.

So maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but my photography has landed me right where I want to be, a full time paid photographer.

[curiousgeorge]

rabidcow - Where did I say I'm trying to rescue crap prints??

I just heard from people here that a raw image will always need to be post-processed.

Thanks to the others for the info.

[rabidcow]

Is there a general all purpose method of sharpening?



BTW, to respond to the OP, LAB SHARPENING (http://www.tutorialized.com/tutorial/Lab-Color-Sharpening/11943) is in my experience one of the best methods to sharpen an out of camera digital image.

[rabidcow]

rabidcow - Where did I say I'm trying to rescue crap prints??

I just heard from people here that a raw image will always need to be post-processed.

Thanks to the others for the info.

I never said that. My response was to Pete-30D and then to Virtual_D. I just don't want to see another photographer go down the path of "fix it later" as it is easy to do.

[Pete]

Yes, RAW images will always need to be processed to some extent to make them look better, even if you've taken the best exposure you possibly can.

RAW basically is the image with no processing done by the camera. P&S cameras and D-SLRs in the "Creative Zone" will process your jpgs in-camera with somewhat arbitary settings. Digital photographers know that to get the best results out of each photo, different PP work should be applied, according to the individual needs of the shots.

Yes, good technical photography is extremely important, but taking RAW photos and processing them yourself gives you the edge where the in-camera algorythms might give you slightly less than perfect images.

[Pete]

I never said that. My response was to Pete-30D and then to Virtual_D. I just don't want to see another photographer go down the path of "fix it later" as it is easy to do.

I never, ever assume for a second that taking pictures in RAW is an excuse for sloppy photography, the shots I take are the result of me trying to take the best exposure that I can.

However, post production work is not solely about correcting problems with vignetting, white balance, sharpness etc. Used creatively, it can also improve photos where no amount of photographic technique can capture the image perfectly in one shot. There's cases where I might want to slightly dodge and burn parts where they're slightly too dark or light. I might want to warm or cool the shot, I might want to remove items that I couldn't work around while I was taking the shot. There's no end of good, productive PP work that can be done that has nothing at all to do with the ability of the person pressing the shutter or the quality of the body/lens.

RAW processing was never intended to be a way of correcting incorrectly exposed photos.

[rabidcow]

RAW processing was never intended to be a way of correcting incorrectly exposed photos.


Exactly. I responded to your original post because it souded like you were saying that good PP made your photography better. I think that it was just a matter of wording.

The problem is that many photographers think that shooting RAW is a good workaround to good photography, and I really want to discourage this way of thinking. I am very "in your face" about this because I was one of those guys who thought that RAW was the only way to get good images, and I thought that it would make up for my shortcomings.

I am not accusing anyone in this thread of doing that, I just don't want to see another person go down that path.

I am now a jpeg shooter because I don't have the time to process 300+ images RAW. I need to shoot and turn in the shots that day, this means that I MUST get it right in jpeg, in a way it has forced me to become better.

[Pete]

Respect, RC, see where you're coming from...

[curiousgeorge]

It's interesting to hear a pro photographer say they don't shoot in RAW.

I never did like the idea of having to do a lot of the work post-exposure, that everyone on this forum seemed to endorse.

[Pete]

As RC said, he doesn't use RAW simply because it takes too long to process for his tight timescales. He's probably be the first to admit that he could improve the quality of his shots if he had the time to process the raw files to their full potential.

Swings and roundabouts really - it's quality v expediancy.

[rabidcow]

Time is money, plain and simple. Post processing takes time that my boss can't afford. The images need to be ready as soon as possible after the event is over.

I have NEVER ran into a photojournalist working for a big paper who shoots in RAW, it's all jpeg medium. Smaller files means that image servers don't get clogged up.

But, it all comes down to what you do as a photographer. In my case, I might shoot at the studio all day, and then cover a game and then later on that same night a dance. I really don't have time to muddle through hundreds of RAW files, because it all starts back up the next day.

Photographers with only a few jobs per week will more than likely have the time to work on images.

[Pete]

I guess it's only CNN photographers that have time to manipulate images, right? ;)

[rabidcow]

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Virtual_D]

I am now a jpeg shooter because I don't have the time to process 300+ images RAW. I need to shoot and turn in the shots that day, this means that I MUST get it right in jpeg, in a way it has forced me to become better.

Rabid. With a workload such as that, I can understand why PP is not suitable for you. And I'm sure I would feel the same. But we are not all shooting 300+ images per day.

There are a good many photographers, like myself, that care deeply about their images and will spend the time necessary "in the darkroom" to acheive a desired result. I am not discounting good camera practice but the exposure is only the begining. For me the image doesnt end at the push of a button no matter how carefully I compose/expose.

[CARSJ]

I think that rabidcow makes some excellent statements. I know that for a long time I relied mainly on Photoshop manipulation to improve my at times badly taken pictures. Since I started spending more time and effort trying to get the photograph right the first time, my photography has improved 100%

[MHP]

if the image is in raw, and taken properly, then there is only slight adjustments to be made, which would also be made for jpeg.

saturation
contrast
wb

all in r/c

a sharpenning action
8 bits

done, takes about 30 secs to a minute.

[NoLight]

Foaming Steak I like your web site!!! The NICU shots are really good!!!

[rabidcow]

if the image is in raw, and taken properly, then there is only slight adjustments to be made, which would also be made for jpeg.

saturation
contrast
wb

all in r/c

a sharpenning action
8 bits

done, takes about 30 secs to a minute.

I agree, but 30 seconds multiplied 200 times is well over an hour of work that is wasted since I need to "dumb down" the images to around the equiv of jpeg medium. It just makes sense in my line of work to start out with a finished product.

Every photographer is different, and I do not in any way have anything against RAW, it's just not practical in a high flow, high output environment.

Challenge yourself to take your next 100 shots in jpeg format. It really does push your photographic skills.

In the film world (non-slide) we had tons of room for over and under exposure, in the RAW world that head room is limited to usually no more than 3/4 over and 1 full under. In the jpeg realm we are now limited to around 1/2 under and 3/10 over.....wow. Talk about needing to be spot on!

Just try it. See if it works for you. It did for me.

[rabidcow]

Foaming Steak I like your web site!!! The NICU shots are really good!!!

Thanks! Those are just some family snaps and a REALLY generic homepage. It is weird to say, but the NICU shots are among my favorite due to the emotional impact it had on me. My 2 yr old broke his arm and was admitted for surgery on the second day that my newborn was in NICU. It sucked, but I got some good images...

[rabidcow]

We totally hijacked this thread, sorry curiousgeorge.

Is the LAB sharpening working out for you?

[MHP]

I agree, but 30 seconds multiplied 200 times is well over an hour of work that is wasted since I need to "dumb down" the images to around the equiv of jpeg medium. It just makes sense in my line of work to start out with a finished product.

Every photographer is different, and I do not in any way have anything against RAW, it's just not practical in a high flow, high output environment.

Challenge yourself to take your next 100 shots in jpeg format. It really does push your photographic skills.

In the film world (non-slide) we had tons of room for over and under exposure, in the RAW world that head room is limited to usually no more than 3/4 over and 1 full under. In the jpeg realm we are now limited to around 1/2 under and 3/10 over.....wow. Talk about needing to be spot on!

Just try it. See if it works for you. It did for me.


I've taken 1000's upon thousands of images in jpeg, for the same reason you are talking about, straight to print with minimal to no pp. I lived that challenge for waaaay too long!,

now my challenge is different. all depends on what you shoot and your market.

[curiousgeorge]

No problem!

I've done a bit of reseearch on sharpening and I've decided to avoid it. My photos look OK as they are and I think I'd be introducing undesirable effects if I try to sharpen.

I'll stick with croping and gamma correct / fill flash for now. Maybe have a go at PS's in built sharpening functions but not yet, I just want to get my photos on my web site as soon as I can.

But what's meant by "8 bits" and " all in r/c" above? I'm wondering if that's something I could try.

[Pete]

I'd advise looking into sharpening, if you're shooting in RAW. The chances are though that your settings in Adobe Camera Raw will already apply a small level of sharpening. This method, however, isn't as good as Unsharpen Mask in Photoshop.

RAW images are captured in 16-bit depth depth, and JPG only handle up to 8-bit. This 'bit' level indicated how much tonality levels each pixel is capable of storing. In essense, 16-bit images can express far smoother graduations between one tonality/colour than 8-bit images because each pixel can contain a finer tonality rating.

Think of it this way, JPG has a rating of 1-10 (in steps of 1) for tonality, RAW has a rating of 1-100. I know those numbers are by no means correct, but that's the effect you get.

And 'r/c' in this case I'd assume as meaning "RAW Conversion"

[curiousgeorge]

I'm not using RAW, so is sharpening still required? If so, why is Unsharpen mask recommended as opposed to Sharpen?

And if I use JPGs only, I presume the 8 bit cannot be improved.

Thanks,
George

[Pete]

You're quite correct, the tonal content of the jpg can't be enriched by converting it to 16-bit. The chances are that because you're using JPG, some sharpening will be applied in your camera's internal computer (take a look in your manual at "Picture Styles" which will explain it to you).

What Unsharpen Mask does is make a blurred mask layer of your photo and then compare it against your original. The difference between the two is fed into algorythms that show up where the edges are, and where to sharpen. Sharpening (in a nutshell) is acheived by increasing the contrast between two edges so that they appear sharper.

[curiousgeorge]

Thanks for the explanation, Pete.

[curiousgeorge]

I started postprocessing last nigt. With Paint Shop Pro X, I found that Unsharpen Mask works well with radius 2.0, strength around 130, and I left clipping at 5. Although it sharpens really well, I find that images tend to look unnatural.

Other adjustment I made where required were contrast up by 10% (landscape shots in low light), fill flash when I needed the shadows brightened up, saturation increase of 5% (again for landscapes in low light) and gamma correction of 1.1 where the image was underexposed overall.

[vladnl]

I would suggest you visit radiant vista and check out their tutorials and podcasts. It's a great source for PP. One of the shows that you might be interested in is: A Photoshop reference: Essential Adjustment Layers, which you can find under Video Tutorials. Good listen is also Episode 03 - Workflow, under The radiant vista podcast.
Most of it, if not all, refers to the Photoshop, but I think techniques could be applied in other post processing programs as well.

Good luck