Photo Editing?

[crashgirl]

I appreciate the helpful hints for improving on my first photos with the XTi. I still have a lot to learn about the camera and can definitely improve ( I never thought to use flash outside)... but, I was surprised to find that many of you edit your photos. I was under the impression that all the results were achieved with the camera and I didn't realize that many of the photos posted had been edited. I usually take tons of pictures, isn't editing the photos time consuming? Or is there a specific software you use that makes it easy?

Can it be any more obvious that I am such a noob?

[cwphoto]

Editing is pretty much part and parcel of digital photography, however it can be as quick or as thorough as you like.

Personally, I prefer to get most of the things done in the camera as possible at the capture stage as I would rather be taking pictures than editing them.

I am a RAW shooter, so editing for me typically involves adjusting White Balance (WB), and Brightness. Sometimes I will also adjust Contrast and Sharpness, and occassionally I will adjust Saturation too.

All of the above can be applied relatively quickly and in bulk shoul'd you need to with the right software (try RIT (part of ZoomBrowser) or DPP for starters if you wish).

If there is any obvious dust marks I will clone them out and also perhaps crop an image if I have to (again; better to crop when you shoot if possible). These adjustments are usually secondary to me.

However if you get it right in the camera the first time (ie; WB, exposure, Picture Style, cropping etc) and you just shoot JPEG then you may need little to no editing - it all depends on how fussy you are really.

Part of the DSLR attraction is the flexibility to produce high quality images. For many around here that also extends itself to editing. Some like to adjust a lot of sharpness using layers, others may like to remove ugly backgrounds - but that's where I typically draw the line as it can take hours of valuable shooting time from me.

[24Peter]

All you really need for your photos is to be able to adjust brightness and contrast (esp. with an XTi) as well as sometimes color/white balance and maybe sharpness. Any basic photo editing software can handle that (assuming you're shooting .jpeg). There are probably a dozen programs out there that you can download on a trial basis and try for free. I haven't tried it, but the Canon software that ships with your camera is probably all you need.

[jamison55]

For most of my photos, all I do is add some sharpening and contrast. I use photoshop, so I can automate the process to do an entire folder of photos at one time. To replicate this in camera, you might want to try the different picture styles that your XTI has, or build one of your own adding sharpness and contrast to taste.

[Nickcanada]

I love spending time editing my pictures. I experiment alot to get the most impact I can. If I was geting paid to do it I probably wouldn't spend near the amount of time I do. It's all personal prefrence of course. If it isn't worth it to you don't bother. notice a difference between these two pics? I spent about 20 mins. The first one is the after pic sorry, actually I like the colour more in the second one but notice any other differences?

[adam75south]

All you really need for your photos is to be able to adjust brightness and contrast (esp. with an XTi) as well as sometimes color/white balance and maybe sharpness. Any basic photo editing software can handle that (assuming you're shooting .jpeg). There are probably a dozen programs out there that you can download on a trial basis and try for free. I haven't tried it, but the Canon software that ships with your camera is probably all you need.

couldn't agree more.

most of the time, i'll do levels(brightness/contast) and then sharpening and i'm done.

[crashgirl]

OK, what do you think of this. (Thank you in advance for all your help)

Here's the original

[crashgirl]

And, here is one that I edited. I almost think there is too much "yellow?" but not sure how to change that. I like the saturation better, but not how it made it look more crisp. I sometimes like the soft focus with photos of kids (I think that is what it is called). It sometimes can give you that warm fuzzy feeling. :)

[adam75south]

looks good.

[24Peter]

Yeah it looks good to me too. Photo editing is a much art as it is science. In other words, there's no right way to edit a photo really. Play around with all the different settings to see what looks good to you.

That being said ;) , I do notice some "noise" in the edited image. Did you add grain to it or sharpen it a lot? I don't think adding saturation alone would do that...?

[crashgirl]

Yeah it looks good to me too. Photo editing is a much art as it is science. In other words, there's no right way to edit a photo really. Play around with all the different settings to see what looks good to you.

That being said ;) , I do notice some "noise" in the edited image. Did you add grain to it or sharpen it a lot? I don't think adding saturation alone would do that...?

I noticed that a little too. But, I thought it was on the original and just showed up more with the saturation. I used Image Ready to edit the photo as that is all I have installed right now. I do programming and web work and sometimes have to cut up PS layouts and it's simpler to use Image Ready. I used "auto levels" for the color balance but I didn't think that would change the contrast? There is an auto contrast setting as well, but I didn't use that as I felt that made the picture too sharp and added even more noise. After I used auto levels to ajust the color, I added more saturation.

[D Thompson]

I was under the impression that all the results were achieved with the camera and I didn't realize that many of the photos posted had been edited. I usually take tons of pictures, isn't editing the photos time consuming? Or is there a specific software you use that makes it easy?

I only shoot RAW and yes, sometimes it is very time consuming. It just depends. Some shots I'll do nothing other than the conversion which includes white balance and a tweak in the exposure if needed. Others I'll run thru CS2 doing a little levels adjustment and sharpening. Then there are some that I've spent hours on to get something special that couldn't be captured in camera, but then I enjoy retouching/restoring photos. The best advice is to get it right in the camera, then you may enhance a little if desired or not.

[adam75south]

I noticed that a little too. But, I thought it was on the original and just showed up more with the saturation. I used Image Ready to edit the photo as that is all I have installed right now. I do programming and web work and sometimes have to cut up PS layouts and it's simpler to use Image Ready. I used "auto levels" for the color balance but I didn't think that would change the contrast? There is an auto contrast setting as well, but I didn't use that as I felt that made the picture too sharp and added even more noise. After I used auto levels to ajust the color, I added more saturation.

if you do the regular levels, you'll see what's called a histogram. a small chart that has a mountain looking thing in the middle. all you have to do is grab the right slider and pull it left to meet where the mountain begins and grab the left slider and pull it right to where the mountain begins and you should have the perfect exposure. it also cranks up contrast and will not usually need any added contrast. you can move the middle slider to change midtones, but also is usually not needed.

[drew_viii]

ive got one big problem when editing photos: i dont know when to stop tweaking the images! eventually it ends with up with lots of grains or noises in my photos! and sometimes i dont even know if its enough or no :?(

[24Peter]

ive got one big problem when editing photos: i dont know when to stop tweaking the images! eventually it ends with up with lots of grains or noises in my photos! and sometimes i dont even know if its enough or no :?(

Well and I don't know about you, but I'm usually editing 300-500 images at a time. So that's why I try to limit my workflow and don't bother with RAW. If I spend more than 3-5 minutes per photo, I'm effed. :(

Which brings us to the larger issue in life of when is enough, enough?

[cdifoto]

Well and I don't know about you, but I'm usually editing 300-500 images at a time. So that's why I try to limit my workflow and don't bother with RAW. If I spend more than 3-5 minutes per photo, I'm effed. :(

Which brings us to the larger issue in life of when is enough, enough?

3-5 minutes is a lot. I usually spend maybe 30 seconds unless I need to really work on something. Cloning for example. It helps to have things recorded as actions in PS.

I don't consider RAW conversion itself as part of the time on the photo though since I can walk away and do something else or process what has already been converted.

Then again I don't use RAW for much of the editing either. Basic "corrections" like white balance, exposure since I'm almost never perfect on that, and MAYBE a picture style if I feel peachy. Usually the first thing I do, since I use both a 10D and a 30D and the 10D doesn't have picture styles, is highlight all my RAW files and set the style to Neutral so they're all pretty much identical base images to work with.

[drew_viii]

so without using picture style is a good thing for Post processing? cuz i do use lots of tweaking in picture style, and most often i tweak the picture style a bit high...

i dont know about spending time with PP, cuz i still dont have much experience with it, and i really dont know where and how to start... been reading lots of mags and videos lessons, they only do specific type of job for specific pictures, and i still dont get the whole idea of saturation, shadows, etc etc... lots of technical terms out there...