What does Post Processing do for you?

[aparmley]

So - I've been trying to be more aggressive in my post processing today and I've got a few images that aren't great - sharpness might not be "tack" ( they were like 1/60 hand held at 300mm) but during my edits I had an interesting idea for a topic and a few questions were raised on my end.

Heres how it works. I'll post three images to a set.


Original - RAW converted to JPEG with neutral settings
My normal edits
More aggressive editing


1.
http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122743403-L.jpg
2.
http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122743380-L.jpg
3.
http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122743396-L.jpg

Here is another go:

1.
http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122746579-L.jpg
2.
http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122746564-L.jpg
3.
http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122746574-L.jpg


I useully don't touch saturation at all, I let standard curves take care of it. Feel free to comment on the edits not the subjects. Is my usual edit too neutral too laid back. Does the 3rd, more aggressive edit, look better than my usual? Looking at my edits compared to the original, do you find the differences to be similar to your results? Remember I'm shooting RAW - those that shoot Jpeg with "Standard" picture styles are going to get boosted sharpness, boosted contrast, and boosted saturations; so your "orginal" image my look better than mine and more like my edits.

Thanks
Andy

P.S. if you would like to contribute, post the orginal image then post your edits, please do. I was hoping to make a sticky or perhaps have an "Edit" thread so that when new comers to DSLRs post questions that generate the standard, "you need to edit your images to get the most out of DSLRs" type of response, we have a great thread to illustrate that or for those new comers who are disappointed in their RAW files - I think my examples show just why so many people are turned off on RAW the first go 'round. Also, I figured we all might benefit from having this type of thread. You know, to keep up to speed on techniques and such others are using. I'll try to post later tonight what I do to my images so that its documented just incase someone wants to know. Thanks

[Honest Gaza]

Sorry mate....slightly off topic here. But are these with your new 70-300mm IS ?????

If they are....you have no need to worry about IQ of the lens (in my humble opinion :) )

[drew_viii]

i think this is a very interesting topic here aparmley... ive been scratching my head bout this post processing ideas, and finally there is on, nice shots, but i think 2 and 3 shots are very similar to my eyes, maybe a larger print would make a difference, i really wanted to know how to do the standard or maybe the editing process, i somehow want to make my pictures sharper and stronger colors? and exactly how do you guys do that? i usually just tweak my picture style a bit, and when converted to raw i know there is no tweaks, so my pictures on jpeg are even lots better than my raw, even converted ones..

anyways, what are process that you did here? did you just do this in camera raw? what are the exact post process you did? :) please elaborate to help me out here and also lots of new to this forums thank you :D

[FlexiPack]

From a personal point of view..

out of the first set, i like number 2 the best. The 3rd shot with the more aggressive edit is possibly to warm and saturated but it's all down to personal preference isn't it.

On your 2nd set i actually prefer your 3rd shot. The slight warmer colours serves it well.

At the end of the day each shot is unique and so some may benefit from more aggressive editing whilst others wont.

Those shots are darn sharp for handheld at that speed and focal length - you must have IS built in your arms too ;)

[Prospero]

Hey Andy,

It's a great idea, starting a thread showing how (raw-)images can be post processed. I'm a Nikon user, and don't think I have ever posted on the Canon forums (I have read lots of stuff here though, there's a lot to learn with so many great photographers around). The reason I post here now is that post processing is one of the fields where I may be able to contribute something.

Your edits look good to me; in each case a definite improvement over the original image. In case of the first image I like the second one best. The third is, in my opinion a bit too warm. This is especially visible in the white parts of the chicken, which now have a yellowish cast. In the second one this is not the case.

With the second picture, I like the third one best. It seems in lots of ways similar to the second, but due to the increased saturation, the blue is more natural (in the second it looks a bit darker to me) and the reds really pop.

With my D50 I have been shooting in RAW from the second day I got it, I was used to post processing every image anyway (with my old camera that was a necessity), so I did not mind investing the time needed for RAW treatment.

My usual edits only involve boosting the saturation and the sharpness (basically the same result as setting in-camera sharpness and saturation at the maximum). With backlit scenes or scenes with cloudy skies, I usually underexpose a little to avoid blowing out the sky and then raise the brightness of the subject by using Nikon's D-lighting tool. This works basically the same as the shadow/highlight feature of photoshop, but the results are better (especially with RAW files). Similar results can be achieved by manipulating the curves; this is a lot more difficult, though.

Here's an example of one of one of my recent edits:

http://prospero.cabspace.com/pictures/before-after.jpg

In this case I spend quite some time on the post processing. First, I raised the contrast, this considerably improved the picture, but made the foreground too dark, after that I used the D-lighting to brighten up the foreground.

The next step was the sky, I darkened some parts of the sky using the colour control points of Nikon Capture NX. There must be something similar available for Canon; how it works is basically that you click on an area with a similar colour to add a conrol point, and then you can adjust brightness, contrast and saturation of that region. By reducing the brightness and increasing the contrast of some parts of the sky, the sky became much more dramatic. Also, the blown out area was fixed. Finally I added some more contrast to the vegetation in the front, to make it stand out more.

I hope similar techniques can also be applied to Canon RAW files, I have only used Capture NX, and don't have a clue which other RAW editors can do such things. Perhaps Adobe Lightroom?

Feel free to give comments or criticism on this edit.

Regards,

Dennis

[cdifoto]

I like your normal post work. It's semi-muted but I think it's a really slick style to go with. I've actually tried mimicking it myself but to no avail.

[ReF]

parm,

i think the problem with PP is that sometimes an image looks fine as it is (near neutral settings) but after the image is processed and compared to the "original," the original looks dull. for example that first shot looks fine to me (maybe a touch bright IMO), but after looking at the second shot and scrolling back up the first one suddenly looks dull. 2 and 3 has too much PP IMO. #4 is way dull, 5 looks about right, and 6 is too much. all just my opinions. personally i just do whatever looks "right," whether that means all neutral settings, lowered saturation and contrast, or moderate to heavy processing. check your pm box BTW cuz i'm gonna send you something in while

[DonSchap]

A bit off-topic and I apologize,

From a personal point of view..

out of the first set, i like number 2 the best. The 3rd shot with the more aggressive edit is possibly to warm and saturated but it's all down to personal preference isn't it.

On your 2nd set i actually prefer your 3rd shot. The slight warmer colours serves it well.

At the end of the day each shot is unique and so some may benefit from more aggressive editing whilst others wont.

Those shots are darn sharp for handheld at that speed and focal length - you must have IS built in your arms too ;)


as far as handheld goes ... I typically find that relaxing a bit, then stablizing your breathing seems to really improve any shot, regardless of IS. After many years of dealing with cameras without that ... ahem, "luxury", you tend to find ways to "steady up", even with long exposures.

A good way to improve your steadiness is to take an IS-equipped lens ... set your camera to long exposure ... four or five seconds should do it ... pop the shutter and hang on! Listen to what the camera/lens' "voice" tells you by the sounds coming from it. Remember, IS only compensates when you move ... it you do not move, it will not, either. The less sound you here, the better control you have.

Sorry, just some thoughts.

[aparmley]

THanks guys. Gaza - Thank you man I appreciate the feedback, I'm feeling better about it thats for sure.

Drew - Thanks for commenting. I had to go into work tonight but when I get off I'll have a more detailed write up for you.

Don - I had no clue man - thanks for that great compliment. :D

Dennis - Thanks for stopping by man, I was going to post this in the "General" DSLR forum but I didn't know how much play it would get. I appreciate your particiation - I like the sky after better - have you ever edited with the gradients to simulate a GND filter? Might help keep the grass from becoming so dark here? If your interested in a technique I know of what I can send your way?

Ref - I'll keep my eyes open for it, like I said, I'm at work now and an ice storm is moving in right now so I might not make it back home tonight but hopefully power. All my RAW files are as dull as these. they all take some work man. I've streamlined everything after switching to RAW a long time ago and my PP workflow is a lot better than my JPEG workflow.

[ReF]

i wanted to add that IMO when set to "neutral" and saturation is at 0 (in the middle), colors appear duller/less brilliant than what i remember in real life (at least to to my eyes). so it would seem to me that some degree of adjustment is required many times just to get things to look like they actually did.

[SpecialK]

I'd say #2 in each set is fine, though #3 of the flag is good too. I post my crappy example of why I decided to shoot RAW though I don't have a real interest in PP for its own sake. I think this was about the first image I ever tweeked, and simply dragged the highlight triangle (I'm sure there is an actual term) down a bit to pop out the rose at Richard Nixon's childhood home.

19080

So, for this next one, is my standard tweek OK, or is the aggressive one better? :-)

19081

I just pulled the curve in a couple places into some sort of pretzel shape...

[Honest Gaza]

Ummmmm....a little too keen here ?

[aparmley]

SpecialK - I think whats screwing you is the orginal is a shade over exposed. The camera loves to overexpose greens.

[SpecialK]

SpecialK - I think whats screwing you is the orginal is a shade over exposed. The camera loves to overexpose greens.

I'm assuming/hoping you are talking about the bottom pix. In reality, the "original" is the frame previous to the manipulated ones. I deleted the true original somewhere along the line so I just used the first (untouched) frame. The set was just something I popped out in 30 seconds. I posted it here as sort of a joke about PP. I can see where some graphic possibilities are however, but I really am not inclined that way. The house shot could use more help, but it is what it is. I was just jazzed I got some green foreground and the rose popped up.

[boog]

Andy, while no pro on PP. I like your stuff the way you PP it now. No need to be more aggressive. I like #2 in the first and #2 and 3 in the second one. Post great pictures of Coop and I like your black and white conversions(which I still have trouble with). You actually helped me get started with a workflow on RSP 06 and I'll use it till I get another camera it won't support. I downloaded the last beta of lightroom and workflow doesn't seam to be as easy flowing as with RSP. In other words, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Your technique is fine. I still say you should get the 70-200 2.8 IS (thought I'd toss that in:D ). I'm at work myself, if I get time tomorrow, I'll post some before and after shots.

[aparmley]

Andy, while no pro on PP. I like your stuff the way you PP it now. No need to be more aggressive. I like #2 in the first and #2 and 3 in the second one. Post great pictures of Coop and I like your black and white conversions(which I still have trouble with). You actually helped me get started with a workflow on RSP 06 and I'll use it till I get another camera it won't support. I downloaded the last beta of lightroom and workflow doesn't seam to be as easy flowing as with RSP. In other words, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Your technique is fine. I still say you should get the 70-200 2.8 IS (thought I'd toss that in:D ). I'm at work myself, if I get time tomorrow, I'll post some before and after shots.

LOL - Thanks Boog. I appreciate your comments. I still use RSP 06 myself. I still see it as a superior product and until LR is released I won't try it. They have a long way to go to make it worthwhile, I just hope all of those improvements make it into Ver 1.0.1. Well, according to my watch we're about 5 hours behind schedule, I'm sick, I'm tired and we have freezing rain which I get to make a 45min drive home in shortly. :eek: I'm glad to hear that you have established a workflow in RSP that you're happy with - its such a tough thing to settle into a flow that suits you and that makes you happy. I'm still fine tuning mine. I'm not trying to make extra changes, but I've never messed with saturation before simply because I wasn't sure how much I needed.

[Prospero]

Dennis - Thanks for stopping by man, I was going to post this in the "General" DSLR forum but I didn't know how much play it would get. I appreciate your particiation - I like the sky after better - have you ever edited with the gradients to simulate a GND filter? Might help keep the grass from becoming so dark here? If your interested in a technique I know of what I can send your way?


My RAW editor does not support editing with gradients, but I would know how to do that with photoshop. I have hardly ever used it though, because with the D-lighting and control points the same results can be achieved. Half way through the process, the grass was not so dark, but it looked a bit dull. I therefore increased the contrast in this area, making some parts a bit too dark. Anyway, here is a brighter edit

http://prospero.cabspace.com/pictures/bright.jpg

The technique is the same, but different values have been used for the D-lighting and contrast. The sky is slightly different, but that is only because the control points are on slightly different locations with slightly different values (I did not save the RAW version with all the control points). I like this version better.

[cwphoto]

I really like that shot Prospero. I'd love to see what it looks like with a bit of the sky cropped away too. :)

[XaiLo]

apmarley, hope you don't mind me trying my hand at retouching your flag pic. I've used photoshop for over a decade now and this is the first year that I have ventured to do any photo - processing. Anyway I was curious to see what it would look like warmed up a bit with a semi-dramatic touch... hope I did not take too much liberty, but I thought this was in keeping with what you were questioning. I like pictures that are representitive of their natural state, but I have been experimenting as of late with enhancing... let me know what you think.

http://www.designsbyxailo.com/thepics/2007/01_jan/apmarley.jpg

[FlexiPack]

I think making a sticky is an excellent idea with examples like you posted just to show what newbies can expect straight from the camera and after some PP. I was one of those recently who was at first disappointed with my 'from the camera' results.

Perhaps also people could post links to good photoshop tutorials. Specifically ones pertaining to post processing as there are many photoshop tutorials that are not PP specific and user have to wade through a ton of info that is off little use to them. I'd be particularly interested in links like these as i really want to push past my current photoshop limitations

[drew_viii]

nice shots Prospero, i like the dramatic attention of the sky and foreground...

anyways, back to post processing, i heard bout the D-light feature of nikon, and i think its a great feature for landscape photos, especially burnout skies and or underexposed foreground, i think d-light could cope up with this, but since its a nikon feature i wonder if are there any similar features for other post processing softwares? like PS CS2? i know bout the curves, but i hope there is something more simpler than the d-light feature of nikon

[aparmley]

apmarley, hope you don't mind me trying my hand at retouching your flag pic. I've used photoshop for over a decade now and this is the first year that I have ventured to do any photo - processing. Anyway I was curious to see what it would look like warmed up a bit with a semi-dramatic touch... hope I did not take too much liberty, but I thought this was in keeping with what you were questioning. I like pictures that are representitive of the natural of their natural state but have been experimenting as of late with enhancing... let me know what you think.

http://www.designsbyxailo.com/thepics/2007/01_jan/apmarley.jpg

XaiLo - yes indeed, a little dramatic, but I like it. It came out very well. I'll get to working on a showcase post on my normal and what I did to boost things later this evening.

[XaiLo]

Glad to hear that you enjoyed it apmarley, and I appreciate your kind remarks. I was half awake this morning when I was working on it, baby woke me up and decided he liked my bed better. Best I can remember is that I changed it to a CMYK colorspace after not likeing the results I was getting in RGB. I then did a minor levels adjustment then a variations adjustment more yellow I believe. Then a verticle and circular gradient was added and finished off of with two hue/saturation adjustments on the flag.

[Prospero]

I really like that shot Prospero. I'd love to see what it looks like with a bit of the sky cropped away too. :)

Thanks a lot C-Dub. I know the picture does not fit the rule of thirds, but I did not crop anything because I really liked the upper part of the sky in the picture :rolleyes:. Here's what it looks like when cropped:

http://prospero.cabspace.com/pictures/rule-of-thirds.jpg

Yeah, the composition looks better, but I am not sure whether I like it better than the uncropped version. I feel that cropping the sky has made the picture somewhat less dramatic.

[Prospero]

nice shots Prospero, i like the dramatic attention of the sky and foreground...

anyways, back to post processing, i heard bout the D-light feature of nikon, and i think its a great feature for landscape photos, especially burnout skies and or underexposed foreground, i think d-light could cope up with this, but since its a nikon feature i wonder if are there any similar features for other post processing softwares? like PS CS2? i know bout the curves, but i hope there is something more simpler than the d-light feature of nikon

Photoshop has the shadow/highlight tool. You can find it under image>>adjustments>>shadow/highlight. Using that tool you can raise the brightness of the shadows and decrease that of the highlights. It is very similar to D-lighting, except that with D-lighting you compensate the loss of saturation in the brightened part easily, while with the shadow/highlight tool it will take some more work.

[Nickcanada]

"What does PP do for me?"

Well here is an example. I don't know much about it but I use USM (unsharpen mask) it actually sharpens a pic, unlike it's name suggests.

I used two passes of USM on this picture. First run low amount, high radius, 0 threshold. Second pass high amount, low radius, 0 threshold. I'm never very scientific when doing this so giving exact figures would not be very helpful.
I would be intrested in hearing any suggestions to improve my process as I am really just learing.

Here is the progression of the picture from start to finish.

[aparmley]

Nick - thanks for sharing. You're starting with a pretty good image - your edits are subtle but well done.

[aparmley]

Here is a little taste of what I do. Its going to be a little less detailed than planned. I've had a busy day, but wanted to get something up tonight b/c I said I would:

Heres the image I start with (RAW converted plain-jane to JPEG):

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122977043-L.jpg

As you can see I use RSP '06. I set up a little progression with my tabbed workspace. Here you see the original:

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935781-L.jpg

Then I adjust for WB:

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935810-L.jpg

Then I make any exposure compensations (EC):

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935776-L.jpg

After tweaking exposure to my liking I do a little curves/levels adjustment right there in my RAW converter. True, PS has a slightly better interface for this but I'm from the school of thought thats it best to your main curves/levels adjustment on your RAW file - ensuring you're using all the information you have at your disposal. theres nothing wrong with a little curves/level tweak in PS, in fact I usually do that - so here is the photo after a little curves/levels in RSP:

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935774-L.jpg

Here is something I've just begun to work with here, a little sat and vibrance boost in RSP:

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935790-L.jpg

Here we have the two files, my old way and the sat_vib boosted file in PS. I'm adding a secondary curve adjustment within PS, mainly to burn off any "grey" film like appearance in my images:

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935786-L.jpg

Finally I top it off with a little USM, based on the nature of subject (in this photo USM has been applied to the top image only):

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935801-L.jpg

Then I save and upload or print whichever.

Here are two finished products (my normal followed by a more aggressive edit):

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935819-L.jpg

http://Parmley.smugmug.com/photos/122935814-L.jpg

[cdifoto]

Photoshop has the shadow/highlight tool. You can find it under image>>adjustments>>shadow/highlight. Using that tool you can raise the brightness of the shadows and decrease that of the highlights. It is very similar to D-lighting, except that with D-lighting you compensate the loss of saturation in the brightened part easily, while with the shadow/highlight tool it will take some more work.

That must be a CS/CS2 thing. I don't have it on PS7.

[drew_viii]

nice explanation, im just wondering, since you have PS cs2 why dont you use that for you raw works?

[boog]

Hey Drew, I'm not answering for Andy but RSP 06 rocks. Adobe knew it and bought it out, shut it down, thus Lightroom(which at this particular time is still lacking but new release should be coming out soon. We'll see:rolleyes: .)
I've played around with CS2 raw processor and while I liked it, just believe RSP is better IMHO.

[Prospero]

That must be a CS/CS2 thing. I don't have it on PS7.

Yes, it is a part of photoshop CS and CS2. I didn't know that the older versions of photoshop did not have that feature.

[aparmley]

Hey Drew, I'm not answering for Andy but RSP 06 rocks. Adobe knew it and bought it out, shut it down, thus Lightroom(which at this particular time is still lacking but new release should be coming out soon. We'll see:rolleyes: .)
I've played around with CS2 raw processor and while I liked it, just believe RSP is better IMHO.

Agreed. RSP 06 is far far far superior to ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). Its really unbelievable. I was an ACR dude in the early going, tried Raw shooter essentials, hated it! Then I was sure ACR was superiour. Then last year in winter I sat down with RSP 06 learned as much of it as I could during the trial and I was so thrilled and surprised at how much better, faster, more powerful this tool was compared to ACR, I bought my copy that day. A few months later Adobe bought Pixmantec and RSP :D

[drew_viii]

adobe is like cisco, little bit out of topic, but im into networking engineer so, heard that cisco comapny been buyig different networking companies like what adobe did to reduce rivals, smart move or greedy?

yeah, just tried the download version of it and was pretty pleased with the controls, just seems bit not used to the interface, like there is no file edit view tab on the top which makes a bit hard to get used to it.. but other than that, its a nice piece of software... didnt bought it, but got the full version of it hihihi :D im not encouraging this.. but its all over the net right now hehe