CC on edit please? . . .

[YankeeMom]

I posted this on "post-processing", but I'm not sure which edit I like best. I keep going back and forth between the two "afters" even though the differences are not dramatic. I like the first edit because the color is toned down, but I like the brighter edit, too, and the fact that it is lighter on more of the flower.

Or maybe I missed the boat on the edit altogether, LOL.

Anyway, any feedback is appreciated -- including suggestions on making these even better. (If one of them is a worthy edit, I'd like to use it for my blog header.)

(FTR, I took these outside in the shade with my XS and 50 mm prime.):

BEFORE:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3524955347_b9ca1fc151.jpg

AFTER (darker flower):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2193/3527354246_01e2557972.jpg

AFTER (brighter flower):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3525925642_5a02217ce5.jpg

[AprilArchambeau]

Although I do not know what I am talking about, I LOVE #2. Something I would frame in my house :)

[howaboutnow]

Ditto with what April said.

[RMXSeven]

I like the first After (Darker flower)
Is that what you guys are referring to?
The last is a little too artificial for my tastes.
Really nice!

~Ronen

[AprilArchambeau]

No I was talking about the very last one? I actually liked the middle one the least, I like the original better than the middle because you can see more of the background. And the last edit better. But take my opinion with a grain of salt because I am new to photography and have no clue what I am talking about :). Keep up the good work though and keep posting pictures :)

[Bill Boehme]

Most of the detail in the rose petals has been lost in both of the edited versions. A better editing technique would be to leave the rose as it is in the original and create a layer mask to process the background to get the desired effect. The original is technically much better than either of the edited versions. I recommend learning some of the techniques for image composition that can help to make an image more interesting. As it is, the image is rather sterile.

[YankeeMom]

Most of the detail in the rose petals has been lost in both of the edited versions. A better editing technique would be to leave the rose as it is in the original and create a layer mask to process the background to get the desired effect. The original is technically much better than either of the edited versions. I recommend learning some of the techniques for image composition that can help to make an image more interesting. As it is, the image is rather sterile.

Thanks everyone. Hmmm . . . it looks like a tie for the edits so far, LOL. That's the thing about editing that drives me crazy -- I see so many options and I like them all! :D

As for Bill's comments, I did use a very basic editing program on the edits. I do not have Photoshop, but I do have GIMP. I guess I need to learn how to layer mask, though. TOTAL novice here.

How can you see missing detail? I don't see any changes like that, but I suppose I would if I magnified it? I print my photos in 4X6 -- MAYBE 5X7, do you think missing detail would be obvious in those sizes?? I guess I'm not seeing what is missing (I didn't run it through a noiseware program or anything, but I did clone some parts.) IOW, are you seeing the missing detail or noting it by the file size change??

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "sterile." Could you offer a suggestion on what I would do to counter that with this picture? How do I make that more interesting without adding some other element? I took several photos of the rose from different angles and I like that one best -- but maybe I chose the wrong angle? Different lighting?

Thanks for all the feedback -- I'm fairly new at all this and learning a lot here. I tell my DH, "I'm going to photography class!" when I get on. Cheaper and better than the local community college. :D

[Sisyphus]

In my opinion, the original ("BEFORE") is the best. The photo is of a rose lying on a ledge. Maybe not a great photo, but the rose itself looks pretty good and there is sufficient context to make the shot interesting. In #2 and #3, the rose is just hanging in space at an odd angle, almost without any context at all.

[YankeeMom]

In my opinion, the original ("BEFORE") is the best. The photo is of a rose lying on a ledge. Maybe not a great photo, but the rose itself looks pretty good and there is sufficient context to make the shot interesting. In #2 and #3, the rose is just hanging in space at an odd angle, almost without any context at all.

So, you would not edit #1 at all? No change in lighting, sharpening, etc?

[Sisyphus]

So, you would not edit #1 at all? No change in lighting, sharpening, etc?

I didn't say that. The flower itself could be brightened slightly if you want. The lighting is what it is unless you reshoot and I don't see any big problems with it. I can't really comment on sharpening, given the small image. But I wouldn't go crazy with too much PP.

http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2098/11749001/20868158/364211443.jpg

[darkgoddess]

I actually like the original one best.

[YankeeMom]

I didn't say that. The flower itself could be brightened slightly if you want. The lighting is what it is unless you reshoot and I don't see any big problems with it. I can't really comment on sharpening, given the small image. But I wouldn't go crazy with too much PP.

http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2098/11749001/20868158/364211443.jpg

I see. I like that, too. I guess I thought the surroundings might be too distracting and was being a bit "artistic" (mainly looking to emphasize the flower.) I posted the medium size from the Flickr. I wasn't sure if I could post large, but didn't look up the rules on that. Thanks for the feedback! I would love to hear more as I'm getting mixed reviews so far -- I like both my edits and this one, too! :D

[Bill Boehme]

....... Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "sterile." Could you offer a suggestion on what I would do to counter that with this picture? How do I make that more interesting without adding some other element? I took several photos of the rose from different angles and I like that one best -- but maybe I chose the wrong angle? Different lighting? ........

I should have been more specific about what I was thinking. I think that some of the other posts have offered some good comments regarding the composition. What I meant was the rose is fairly close to dead center without much to help draw the viewer's attention to the main subject (which I presume is the rose flower). There are various composition guidelines such as the "rule" of thirds (not really a rule, but a very good idea) and having leading lines to draw the viewers attention towards the subject. With the rose centered and the high key background, it is still a nice photograph, but more of a technical nature like a picture in a botany book rather than an artistic type photo. It was this thought of isolation of the subject that made me think of the word "sterile" to describe it. Beyond the basics, image composition becomes rather subjective and it is something that we all are continually trying to improve. However, take what others say as being mostly opinion and develop your own style because the person that you need to please is yourself.

[YankeeMom]

:DI should have been more specific about what I was thinking. I think that some of the other posts have offered some good comments regarding the composition. What I meant was the rose is fairly close to dead center without much to help draw the viewer's attention to the main subject (which I presume is the rose flower). There are various composition guidelines such as the "rule" of thirds (not really a rule, but a very good idea) and having leading lines to draw the viewers attention towards the subject. With the rose centered and the high key background, it is still a nice photograph, but more of a technical nature like a picture in a botany book rather than an artistic type photo. It was this thought of isolation of the subject that made me think of the word "sterile" to describe it. Beyond the basics, image composition becomes rather subjective and it is something that we all are continually trying to improve. However, take what others say as being mostly opinion and develop your own style because the person that you need to please is yourself.

Thanks so much for explaining. I did think that the flower itself was too centered in the original so I cropped it to lie on the bottom third. (I'm still learning about "thirds" though. Very much a novice here.)

I'm getting mixed review on isolating the subject (the flower). Some would like me to include the background/surroundings more. It's a tough call! I'm not sure if I'm "getting" it yet, but more comments/critiques help. Thanks everyone! :D

[CaliJoe]

Nice attempt, although I believe that you should consider some of the suggestions and impress even yourself with what is possible using the same subject and location :)

The edits are not really working for me, structure or artistic wise because you need to refine your skills a bit more (I am in a loong learning process as well), and use some different angles.

If you wanted to edit out the background, then maybe a complete white background only emphasizing the rose, or a black background. But as it is, it's like the bottom of half of the photo was just erased and it's a bit uneasy.

I am very much just learning, so I am only telling you to hopefully see even more contributions from you in the future!

[YankeeMom]

Nice attempt, although I believe that you should consider some of the suggestions and impress even yourself with what is possible using the same subject and location :)

The edits are not really working for me, structure or artistic wise because you need to refine your skills a bit more (I am in a loong learning process as well), and use some different angles.

If you wanted to edit out the background, then maybe a complete white background only emphasizing the rose, or a black background. But as it is, it's like the bottom of half of the photo was just erased and it's a bit uneasy.

I am very much just learning, so I am only telling you to hopefully see even more contributions from you in the future!

OK, by your post it sounds like composition could be a problem, too? (You said take different angles of the flower.) I did take several other shots of the same rose on that platform, but I liked that one best. Maybe I need to re-look at the others.

As for editing, I cropped, played with the levels, some lighting adjustment, sharpening, saturation, and cloning out bad spots on the flower itself. (I didn't want anyone to think I messed with the background otherwise -- no blurring, erasing, etc.) It mostly changed due to the levels.

Hmmm . . . more to think about. Thanks for your feedback!

[Bill Boehme]

A good many of the things that you are doing in post processing are global changes. That is another reason to become familiar with using layers and masks so that editing can be concentrated on specific elements of the image rather than the whole thing. If you are not shooting in RAW format, I would highly recommend that you use it rather than JPG because editing will be much less likely to cause image degradation in RAW.

[YankeeMom]

A good many of the things that you are doing in post processing are global changes. That is another reason to become familiar with using layers and masks so that editing can be concentrated on specific elements of the image rather than the whole thing. If you are not shooting in RAW format, I would highly recommend that you use it rather than JPG because editing will be much less likely to cause image degradation in RAW.

Yes, definitely I hope to learn more about layers and masks (on GIMP.) I won't, however, be using RAW so hopefully I'll do well enough for me just learning new skills.

I think I will just print out the 3 versions on 4X6 and 1.) see if I can see any (loss of) quality problems and 2.) get a better idea of which one I like. If I don't SEE WITH MY EYES a quality degradation, then it won't matter to me. Sometimes it helps to have the photos in my hands (I don't always trust the computer screen.)

I would love a print for my albums, but I'm hoping to just use the best one for my blog header. For the most part, I just take photos for myself, though I love some of the artistic aspect of it (and improving photography and editing skills can only help.) I won't likely do photography beyond that, so I know that I don't have to be at a "pro" level with equiptment, software, editing, etc.

Well, I didn't really get an answer on my edits, except that maybe NONE of them are worth much, but I still think I'll use one of them in them meantime.

Thanks again! :)

[Flo]

Pretty rose, but agree that another angle or location would be fun to try.

I tried a play, but its still feeling a little sterile to me, took it to more blue red than the orange red....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/emmaloudawg/3524955347_b9ca1fc1511.jpg

[YankeeMom]

Pretty rose, but agree that another angle or location would be fun to try.

I tried a play, but its still feeling a little sterile to me, took it to more blue red than the orange red....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/emmaloudawg/3524955347_b9ca1fc1511.jpg

Hmmm . . . interesting take (to play with the blue or even lessen the yellow.) I looked through my takes and I don't think I have a more interesting composition. I had the rose on the other side of the pillar, but it was more shadowy there (here the "face" of the flower is facing the natural light.) Sadly, I can't try other locations because that flower seems to be past its prime now (I got it on Mother's Day.)

I do appreciate all the help and feedback! This board is great. :D

[YankeeMom]

I guess a better question would have been -- if I were to develop one in 4X6, which edit would be best? I assume that I wouldn't SEE any actual detail loss at that small size (but I could be wrong.)

[Sisyphus]

I guess a better question would have been -- if I were to develop one in 4X6, which edit would be best? I assume that I wouldn't SEE any actual detail loss at that small size (but I could be wrong.)

It gets tricky when you're going to put a digital image into print because there are so many variables, a lot having to do with your equipment and even the paper you use. However, in general, a computer monitor displays ~72ppi whereas you'll want to use ~300ppi for printing. You posted your photo at 333 x 500 pixels, which on my monitor physically displays somewhat smaller than 4w"x6h". This would make for a very tiny print (about a quarter the physical dimentions of the display). For printing at 4x6, you'd need an image at least 1200x1800. So the image on your monitor needs to be physically about 4 times the dimensions that you'll be printing in order to render the same detail, if that makes any sense. But again, there are many variables and the above are just rough estimates.

[Bill Boehme]

I guess a better question would have been -- if I were to develop one in 4X6, which edit would be best? I assume that I wouldn't SEE any actual detail loss at that small size (but I could be wrong.)

I think that the detail loss referred to here is the result of posterization that happens when editing an 8-bit JPG image and not related to loss of sharpness along contrasting edges. The JPG format is not really very suitable for post processing that involves tonal adjustments, because of the 8-bits per color limitation for incremental brightness levels and also because it is a lossy format where most of the originally captured data has been discarded in favor of smaller file size. The jpg compression algortithm also produces compression artifacts that degrade image quality, especially after editing. However, printing a small size image like 4 X 6 normally hides compression artifacts as long as they are not too bad. Posterization is not as likely to look much better (just smaller) if printed at a small size.

[Bill Boehme]

It gets tricky when you're going to put a digital image into print because there are so many variables, a lot having to do with your equipment and even the paper you use. However, in general, a computer monitor displays ~72ppi whereas you'll want to use ~300ppi for printing. You posted your photo at 333 x 500 pixels, which on my monitor physically displays somewhat smaller than 4w"x6h". This would make for a very tiny print (about a quarter the physical dimentions of the display). For printing at 4x6, you'd need an image at least 1200x1800. So the image on your monitor needs to be physically about 4 times the dimensions that you'll be printing in order to render the same detail, if that makes any sense. But again, there are many variables and the above are just rough estimates.

I think that the image that YankeeMom posted here is just a version sized for the web and not from the original version that is to be printed.

After all is said and done, the answer to how an image will look when it is printed and whether or not it will be satisfactory is to go ahead and print it and then see how it looks.

[YankeeMom]

However, printing a small size image like 4 X 6 normally hides compression artifacts as long as they are not too bad. Posterization is not as likely to look much better (just smaller) if printed at a small size.

That's what I am hoping. :)

I think that the image that YankeeMom posted here is just a version sized for the web and not from the original version that is to be printed. After all is said and done, the answer to how an image will look when it is printed and whether or not it will be satisfactory is to go ahead and print it and then see how it looks.

Yes, it is a smaller version I just posted for the thread. I will upload the original jpeg and print from there. Definitely I will look to see the quality/detail differance when the prints (of the edits and original) are in my hands.