Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 03 Jan 2006 (Tuesday) 20:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

do you post process your images

 
dbiggs
Member
218 posts
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Pickering,Ontario,Canada
     
Jan 03, 2006 20:01 |  #1

I was just wondering if most people post process your images or do you get your camera dialed in to the point that you don't need to. I find that even the pictures I am happy with when I first look at them then I fire up PSCS and find I almot always need levels. I look at my histogram and find that Inever get a perfict looking histogram image even when the camera says that I have a good exposre. Is this normal or i it ust me? Do you people find you need to post process? I would like to insert a photo but I don't know how to shrink them small enough to post how do you shrink themI tried photoshop and even at 0 on the size scale they are 300KB plrase tell me.


EOS 20D
Canon 70-200 f4 L
Tanron 28-70 2.8 XR Di
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX
Sigma APO 1.4 Teleconverter
Canon 18-55 kit lens
430 EX Speedlight
Manfrotto monopod/tripod
Lowepro AW 200 sling bag

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jukas
Senior Member
469 posts
Joined Mar 2004
Location: California, United States
     
Jan 03, 2006 20:12 |  #2

I find that when shooting RAW, even well exposed images need post processing. It seems the trade off is either let the camera over process the jpg, or do your own post processing.


Canon 1D Mark III | Canon 20D | Canon EOS 3
70 - 200 f/2.8 IS L | 24 - 70 f/2.8 L | 300 f4 IS L | 50 f/1.8 MkII
1.4x II | Speedlight 550EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
Jan 03, 2006 20:21 |  #3

dbiggs wrote:
I look at my histogram and find that Inever get a perfict looking histogram image even when the camera says that I have a good exposre.

There is no such thing as a perfect histogram. It just is. A histogram simply shows you where the colors and/or shades exist in your image, nothing more.

Almost all images can benefit from some contrast, regardless of how perfect the exposure is, or how perfect the picture is. A few little post-processing tweaks here and there will generally make an image look better. The key (in my opinion) is to do the best you can do with the camera itself, and then to tweak it in post processing. If you do an excellent job with the camera you'll find that very little post-processing is needed.

But even a little will usually make things better.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
Jan 03, 2006 20:34 |  #4

I'm not very good at post-processing, but it's the only way I can fool people into thinking I'm good at photography.

I don't think I've ever printed an image that wasn't somehow "tweaked."


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN events (external link)
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible  (external link)| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash (external link) | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculator (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnnyG
Worthless twinkle toes fairy
Avatar
3,719 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
     
Jan 03, 2006 21:55 as a reply to  @ Scottes's post |  #5

Scottes wrote:
There is no such thing as a perfect histogram. It just is. A histogram simply shows you where the colors and/or shades exist in your image, nothing more.

Almost all images can benefit from some contrast, regardless of how perfect the exposure is, or how perfect the picture is. A few little post-processing tweaks here and there will generally make an image look better. The key (in my opinion) is to do the best you can do with the camera itself, and then to tweak it in post processing. If you do an excellent job with the camera you'll find that very little post-processing is needed.

But even a little will usually make things better.

Every word he said is true. In my opinion, there is no photograph that can't benefit from some post processing however minor. And people that say post processing is cheating is denying themselves a whole other world of photography!


Canon EOS 5D Mark II, 100-400IS L, 24-105 L[COLOR=black][FONT=&qu​ot] IS, 50mm f/1.4, Canon 430EX/580EX II, Kenko 1.5X, Epson R1900, Manfrotto 679B Monopod, 3021BPRO tripod, 808RC4 Head, 486RC2 Ballhead

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jukas
Senior Member
469 posts
Joined Mar 2004
Location: California, United States
     
Jan 03, 2006 22:06 as a reply to  @ Scottes's post |  #6

Scottes wrote:
There is no such thing as a perfect histogram. It just is. A histogram simply shows you where the colors and/or shades exist in your image, nothing more.

Almost all images can benefit from some contrast, regardless of how perfect the exposure is, or how perfect the picture is. A few little post-processing tweaks here and there will generally make an image look better. The key (in my opinion) is to do the best you can do with the camera itself, and then to tweak it in post processing. If you do an excellent job with the camera you'll find that very little post-processing is needed.

But even a little will usually make things better.

Scottes,

Show him the before & after of that coyote from the Omega park. That alone has pushed me towards focusing more on and refining my post processing abilities.


Canon 1D Mark III | Canon 20D | Canon EOS 3
70 - 200 f/2.8 IS L | 24 - 70 f/2.8 L | 300 f4 IS L | 50 f/1.8 MkII
1.4x II | Speedlight 550EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Robert_Lay
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,546 posts
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Spotsylvania Co., VA
     
Jan 03, 2006 23:09 |  #7

In regard to your question about sizing for posting.
Using PSCS, Image->Image Size and process with resampling enabled to a size no greater than 800 pixels in either dimension. Disregard all dpi values and dimensions in inches.
Save result as JPG using a compression quality of 4 to 6 - whatever it takes to reduce the image file to < 100 kB. The size of the file will be displayed as you change the quality slider control.

Warning: - when resizing and saving do not overwrite your master file. It is impossible to regain the original quality once it has been downsampled and compressed in JPG.


Bob
Quality of Light (external link), Photo Tool ver 2.0 (external link)
Canon Rebel XTi; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-f/5.6 USM; EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-f/5.6; EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM; EF 50mm f/1.4 USM; Canon Powershot G5; Canon AE1(2); Leica R4s; Battery Grip BG-E3; Pentax Digital Spotmeter with Zone VI Mod & Calibration.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
Jan 04, 2006 05:22 as a reply to  @ jukas's post |  #8

jukas wrote:
Scottes,

Show him the before & after of that coyote from the Omega park. That alone has pushed me towards focusing more on and refining my post processing abilities.

Oooh, bad example! That pic went beyond "a little post processing" and is a better example of how to save a pic when you screw up in the field. LOL! I loved the shot so I went through hell to save it, but I considered that shot a failure to be honest. (Yeah, a failure, yet still one of my keepers, go figure.)


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,091 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jan 04, 2006 06:07 |  #9

I do as little PP as possible...mostly because I suck at it. Almost ALWAYS need to adjust contrast though. I usually cheat a little and see what auto contrast does first. If it screws it up, I undo that and tweak it on my own.

I don't get into that fancy wizardry like a lot of people can...it's trial and error for me when I try to get beyond the basics.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vjack
Goldmember
Avatar
1,602 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Mississippi, USA
     
Jan 04, 2006 06:18 as a reply to  @ cdifoto's post |  #10

I shoot in RAW so that I have greater control over the processing. If I wasn't interested in post-processing, I probably would have went with a film camera. I find that I enjoy the challenge of processing almost as much as I enjoy shooting the photo.



Canon 20D
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
L IS
Canon Speedlite 430EX
Manfrotto 3021BPRO; Kirk BH-1 ballhead
Canon Pixma 4200
< see my gallery (external link) >

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
queenbee288
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,610 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 155
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Stanford, Ky
     
Jan 04, 2006 06:23 |  #11

The lens used also makes a difference. When I used the 24-70L it required almost no processing, the sharpness, color and contrast were that good. Usually a little levels would be all it needed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
muscleflex
Goldmember
3,013 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2005
Location: UK
     
Jan 06, 2006 06:13 as a reply to  @ Scottes's post |  #12

Scottes wrote:
Oooh, bad example! That pic went beyond "a little post processing" and is a better example of how to save a pic when you screw up in the field. LOL! I loved the shot so I went through hell to save it, but I considered that shot a failure to be honest. (Yeah, a failure, yet still one of my keepers, go figure.)

ooohhh...i want to see it. can i see it please please pretty please? i have some pics of my niece i want to edit and frame so i'm interested in learning post processing better....just got CS2 also! out of money now! :-(


:cool:Canon 1D MK III:cool: | Canon EOS 20D | Canon 16-35 II [COLOR=red]L [COLOR=black]| Canon 100-400 [COLOR=red]L IS | [COLOR=#000000]Canon 50mm II 1.8 | Canon 580 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
Jan 06, 2006 08:54 |  #13

OK, OK, here's the original:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Coyote_63480org.jpg
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And here it is after extensive post-processing:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Coyote_63480.jpg

Like I said, I call this a mistake in the field, but I liked the shot enough to pull it out.


I'll see what I can do to put together a tutorial or something. There's a couple people who've been asking me for weeks to explain this one. I'll see what I can do, but make no promises since I've been busy as hell.

You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
holland_patrick
Senior Member
Avatar
811 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Ct
     
Jan 06, 2006 10:22 |  #14

Man I would love to beable to do stuff like that I always over do stuff when i'm working in the shop


Rebel XT,1D Mark IIN
Canon 100-400L, 17-40 4.0L, 50 1.8,200 2.8L
70-200 2.8 IS L
Simga 30 1.4, SIGMA 50 1.4
http://www.photocastne​twork.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

1,627 views & 0 likes for this thread, 11 members have posted to it.
do you post process your images
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2234 guests, 127 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.