Post Processing

[fdexclpl]

I see the pictures that some of you post and I'm amazed by the "pop" of the pictures. I'm not talking about HDR or any special effects. I use the Sony software for RAW conversion and PSP PhotoX2 for any adjustments. I don't like the Sony software. It's not user friendly and the batch processing stinks. Part of the problem may be me but I can't believe that it's all me.
I am a noob when it comes to PP but I want to learn and I'm not sure if I just need to step back and rethink my software choices or maybe I need some more time to learn the software. I don't think Photoshop is an option for me because of the price and the complexity.
I would really like some suggestions and pointers from everyone.

[dr4gon]

I think the number one factor is the lens and knowing how to use it. Good glass contributes to that tendency to pop. The kit lens for example just doesn't give a pop as much as the Tamron 17-50mm. What really pops is a 70-200mm F/2.8 or a 100mm macro!

I use Lightroom for all my pictures (Adobe camera raw, ACR, not the best for Sony RAWs actually, but it works fine). Occasionally I'll send it into photos Photoshop to do some slight touchups.

[fdexclpl]

I think the number one factor is the lens and knowing how to use it. Good glass contributes to that tendency to pop. The kit lens for example just doesn't give a pop as much as the Tamron 17-50mm. What really pops is a 70-200mm F/2.8 or a 100mm macro!

I use Lightroom for all my pictures (Adobe camera raw, ACR, not the best for Sony RAWs actually, but it works fine). Occasionally I'll send it into photos Photoshop to do some slight touchups.

I've been using the Tamron 17-50 and the Sony 50mm 1.8 a lot lately and I hope to have a 70-200 2.8 soon. My technique is improving but I still have a LONG way to go.

[Peekayoh]

I have to ask, what is your definition of "pop"?
Do you mean contrast and saturation or do you mean control of Depth Of Field.
I think dr4gon maybe leaning towards "subject separation" by Depth Of Field.
Like this ...



Software used DxOptics Pro, Lightroom, CS4

[fdexclpl]

I don't mean DOF. I'm referring to the "look" of the image. The colors, saturation, sharpness.

[dr4gon]

I was thinking all of the above. DOF separation, contrast, colors, etc...

Good glass helps immensely to achieve a popping look.

Peter, I didn't know you had DXO Optics (PRO?!). How do you like it? Everything I've seen indicates it's the best raw converter. I think Sony even bundles it now with the A850 (or perhaps that was just Europe).

[Peekayoh]

I don't mean DOF. I'm referring to the "look" of the image. The colors, saturation, sharpness.

Ah Ok, then you do need to get to grips with PP if the look is not available from camera, just don't overdo it, most PP I see is pretty much OOT but, whatever floats your boat, I guess.
As for software, I can't really help because I've only ever used Photoshop (starting with v4).

I was thinking all of the above. DOF separation, contrast, colors, etc...

Good glass helps immensely to achieve a popping look.

Peter, I didn't know you had DXO Optics (PRO?!). How do you like it? Everything I've seen indicates it's the best raw converter. I think Sony even bundles it now with the A850 (or perhaps that was just Europe).

I've heard the story about DxO being bundled, that would really make the A850 an attractive proposition. But not here in the UK it seems, at least Sony Style are not showing it.
It's still early days for me with DxO but I think I'm quite impressed with the results (the image above was run through DxO). The interface is a bit unusual to say the least (typically French) but not so bad that I'll never get used to it. As you know I'm still new to Digital and the only other converter I've used is ACR (predictably) so that's the only comparison I can make. At this early stage I'm leaning towards DxO although it won't replace Lightroom (for the file handling). One downer is that there is unlikely to be any support for Minolta glass which means that the lens correction facilities are greyed out in the main, although a module is provided for my 70-300G.

[TheWengler]

I think it would help if you showed what you're getting and aren't happy with, as well as the look you're going for.

[fdexclpl]

Something like this image.



This was taken at about 6:30 this evening in the quickly fading daylight, f/4 ISO-800.
It's not a great composition but I like the colors of the image. I think most of the images that I end up with are "flat". This one looks more like I remember it, with a little more "pop".

Same thing with the next pic.




This one lost some detail in the resize for the web. It's also like I remember it. It was taken about 6:40 PM 200mm f/4 1/320 ISO-1000.

[DWessel]

You're time indicators on the photos you like is probably a good indicator. I bet you if you were to look at the ones you're not happy with, they were probably taken around mid-day. That mid-day sun is a killer. It really tends to fade the vibrancy of colors.

If I'm shooting mid-day, I usually stop down one stop and under expose. Then I can PP adjust the lighting to help the colors "pop".