image post processing

[aggielawyer]

I'm curious what other people's practice is. I'm very new to the DSLR world, and it honestly never occurred to me to try to edit the pictures that I took with my point-and-shoot. I don't have photoshop, so I've been using picnik.com for the little bit of editing I do. The thing is that when I'm looking at photos to edit, most of the time I do a lot of playing around, but the final result has very few changes, if any. There is a blog I follow and this person has been on vacation (at WDW of all places) and made a comment that she was posting her photos straight out of the camera and she was having a hard time posting them without any editing. Makes me wonder what I'm doing wrong.

For the sake of the discussion, here are some of the pictures that I've taken, some of them have been edited:

1) no editing

2) cropped and adjusted exposure to try to 'fix' the fact that these were taken in the middle of the day in full sun

3) probably the most heavily edited photo I've done so far, again trying to adjust for the full sun and make the flowers pop more. I think I went too far and it looks over processed

4) no editing at all, taken this morning at a tractor pull. I played with editing it, but didn't see anything that made it look better to me.

I welcome any critiques on these photos, but my real question is what the standard practice is.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I think that post-processing is really just a matter of personal preference. If you're already happy with the images that come straight out of camera (SOOC), then you're done.

As much as I strive to get it right "in camera", I find that the camera gets me about 90% of the way to my finished photo. So even if I didn't do any post-processing at all, my photos would still be pretty decent...at least to my taste.

Of course, there are always a few photos (or, more than a few photos) where my exposure was pretty far off. Sometimes, post-processing can bring the photo back, especially if I shoot in RAW.

There are several things I do in post-processing:

• adjust the white balance
• make any exposure adjustments
• make the blacks "blacker"
• increase the saturation...or, more recently, increase the Vibrance (that's a whole topic by itself...vibrance vs. saturation)
• make any local adjustments (ie. making certain parts of the photo brighter and/or darker = dodging & burning)
• sharpen the photo
• remove any noise / grain

Many times, these adjustments are very very subtle. Like I said, my photos are already 90% of the way there. I'm just using post-processing to *fine tune* my photos.

(Also, don't over-do your post-processing. Sometimes, too much post-processing can easily make photos look worse!)

And then, there are optional / creative post-processing things you can do with your photos:

• crop your photo
• remove blemishes
• add a vignette
• change to black-and-white, sepia, or other cross-processing technique
• do spot coloring (ie. convert the photo to black-and-white, but leave one part in color, like a red rose in a black-and-white photo)

All the above adjustments can be done in Lightroom (or Aperture). I'll probably spend about 2-3 minutes per photo doing the above adjustments. However, for even more post-processing, I'll bring my photo into Photoshop. I find that 90-95% of my post-processing can be done in Lightroom, so really only about 5% (maybe 10%) of my photos will get additional work in Photoshop.

Overall, I end up doing at least *some* post-processing on all 100% of my photos...at least, all 100% the photos that I upload into my SmugMug galleries. There's really only a rare 1 or 2 photos a year that I end up leaving completely untouched. Maybe I'm just that bad a photographer!

On this month's Monthly Assignment thread (link), I gave an example of the post-processing I did to 2 of my photos, and I showed the before and after for my photos.

Everything I learned about post-processing, I learned from Scott Kelby from his 2 books:

• The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Book for Digital Photographers (link to Amazon) - be aware, though, that Lightroom 3 is coming out very shortly, so you might wanna wait a few months for his Lightroom 3 book
• The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers (link to Amazon) - here again, Photoshop CS5 just came out a couple months ago, so his CS5 book should be coming out shortly.

If you're using Photoshop Elements, he's got a book on that, too (link to Amazon).

Playing around in Photoshop & Lightroom was very very intimidating. What I like about Scott Kelby's books is that he's got LOTS of pictures & LOTS of screen captures of each and every step. These books were very easy to follow along, and I learned how to do post-processing very quickly because of his books. If you have a chance, go to your local bookstore and browse through these books. You'll quickly see what I'm talking about.

As I mentioned earlier, I always strive to get it right "in camera", and I try to avoid using post-processing as a safety net or an excuse for poor photography techniques. Getting it right in-camera is like baking a cake. Post processing should really only be the icing on the cake.

Hope that gives you an idea of what I personally do. Of course, other folks probably do things differently, but this is what works for me & my photos. Sorry for the long post.

 

[photo_chick]

I agree that how much pp you do is personal preference.

For me, I tend not to go much beyond what I could have accomplished in the darkroom or with filters on my camera. The only thing beyond that I do regularly is noise reduction.

Sometimes there will be things I remove from images. Power lines, people, etc... and sometimes an image just cries out for HDR or for some cool photoshop work. But those for me are the exception and not the norm.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

For me personally, I crop most of my shots. I do minor adjustments (white balance, exposure, black levels, fill light, clarity, vibrance) to a fairly high percentage. For important pictures, I do a lot more.

I find that beginners often approach post processing with a sense that it is "unnatural" or "cheating." The truth is that there is nothing natural about photography. Pictures don't look like the real world. They are two dimensional, have reduced dynamic range, and have artificial focus ranges. The trick in photography is not to reproduce the real world but to tell a story that describes your experience or the experience you want your viewer to have.

Photographers since the earliest days have used post processing tricks to make their photos say what they wanted them to say. The digital era has made post processing much easier and has allowed us to do things that were impossible in the past. Making it easier has made it more easy and accessible, which helps great artists make their pictures much better and lousy artists make their pictures much worse.

As a general rule, you should try to make your picture as good as possible when you shoot it. It's usually easier to get it right in the camera rather than "fix" it later. Adjustments done in post production often have negative side effects. On the other hand, there are some techniques that make your in-camera picture worse but your post produced picture better. So getting the best picture sometimes means shooting it "wrong" and fixing it later.

Some things I do other than basic adjustments include:

1. Selective lightening and darkening to direct the viewers eye towards things I want them to see and away form things that I want them to ignore.
2. Touchups - eye lightening, teeth whitening, blemish removal, skin smoothing.
3. Selective sharpening - enhancing detail where the viewer wants or expects to see detail (hair, eye lashes, fabric) and reducing detail where the viewer doesn't want to see detail (skin, out of focus areas).
4. Selective noise reduction - removing noise aggressively where there is little detail and less aggressively where it is masked by or would damage detail.
5. Output sharpening - Sharpening the image to account for how it will be softened in the printing process to maintain detail.

Those are the big ones that jump out right now. I do lots of other stuff as necessary (removing stray fabric or hair, correcting color casts, removing distracting picture elements).

Is it necessary? No. You can take beautiful pictures without ever post processing them. Post processing allows you to make good pictures better. It's just another tool to help you create the images you want.

 

[photo_chick]

Photographers since the earliest days have used post processing tricks to make their photos say what they wanted them to say.

Absolutely.

I don't think many people realize just how much can actually be accomplished in the traditional darkroom. Filters, screens, masks, projecting through different materials for different effects, using emulsion on different materials to print on, the choice of papers.... and let's not forget the effect the choice of film, lens and camera has on the image to start with.

Photography has long been about more than just what happens in the camera.

 

[SrisonS]

I think that post-processing is really just a matter of personal preference. If you're already happy with the images that come straight out of camera (SOOC), then you're done.

As much as I strive to get it right "in camera", I find that the camera gets me about 90% of the way to my finished photo. So even if I didn't do any post-processing at all, my photos would still be pretty decent...at least to my taste.

Of course, there are always a few photos (or, more than a few photos) where my exposure was pretty far off. Sometimes, post-processing can bring the photo back, especially if I shoot in RAW.

There are several things I do in post-processing:

• adjust the white balance
• make any exposure adjustments
• make the blacks "blacker"
• increase the saturation...or, more recently, increase the Vibrance (that's a whole topic by itself...vibrance vs. saturation)
• make any local adjustments (ie. making certain parts of the photo brighter and/or darker = dodging & burning)
• sharpen the photo
• remove any noise / grain

This is my basic approach too. But I also crop almost all of my pictures; even if just slightly. And by 'all' pictures, I just mean the ones I post to Flickr. But like everyone mentioned, it's all about preference. Even when doing these types of adjustments, some people might tend to go one way on an adjustment, when someone else will go the other direction on that same process (it's recently come to my attention, from other people, that I tend to emphasize black levels quite often).

But I'd say to play around with your pictures. Go crazy and make mistakes. Who knows, you might give a picture a great look that you never would've normally thought of. Maybe even look at other people's shots of the same type of scene. That will help to give you ideas IF you want to really make your pictures stand out.

Also, if you can, try to shoot in RAW. It'll really help out during post-processing to bring out nice details and colors. I've never used Picnik; but any software where you can adjust individual color levels will just enhance the pp experience. I never really thought I needed to do that.... until I started doing it. (I'm a fan of Lightroom myself )

As far as your photos... these are just my personal opinions (and only since you asked ).

1) Looks great out of the camera!!!! Not too much to say.

2) Maybe knock down exposure a little more; and maybe turn down highlights or brightness. Also add a tad bit of warmth.

3) Did you turn up Contrast a lot???? Maybe tone that down a little, and process it the same as #2.

4) Go b&w with it..... crop the left to make it more symmetric... then go from there if needed.

Good luck with all your work!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ukcatfan]

You already have some great advice, so I will just chime in on what I do. I shoot RAW+JPG so I have a pic right away that my wife can use. I then go in and see if I can improve a shot in RAW processing. I use Bibble Pro. Most people use Lightroom, which I also like, but there is something I like more about Bibble.

 

[Hoan & Poopie]

Could some of you post an example of your HDR shot with one of the single 'normal' exposure shots used to create it? Looking to get an idea of the difference HDR makes vs. one normal exposure. For example, several (most?) of the posts in the wide angle thread seem to be HDR.

I like the look of HDR however sometimes they seem a little 'overcooked' for my taste.

Thanks

 

[VVFF]

Could some of you post an example of your HDR shot with one of the single 'normal' exposure shots used to create it? Looking to get an idea of the difference HDR makes vs. one normal exposure. For example, several (most?) of the posts in the wide angle thread seem to be HDR.

I like the look of HDR however sometimes they seem a little 'overcooked' for my taste.

Thanks

I'm no HDR expert as generally I don't like the results(GENERALLY!) however the problem here is one person can show an HDR that is very subtle and another can show one what looks like the sky is grey instead of blue and the picture was set on fire and stomped out(ok maybe I am exaggerating).

HDR can be used to being detail from shadows or bring back highlights or creative effect. They are all useful but the look of an HDR isn't always consistent.

 

[zackiedawg]

I don't have too many examples of before and after uploaded...but I did find one I had experimented with. This was a case of a single exposure which I then played with in software for that HDR 'overcooked' look. Here's the original:

And here's the overcooked cranked up HDR style:

Again...that's not a 'true' HDR in that I didn't take multiple shots at different exposures and stack them - but it gives an idea of what those fantasy-style HDR shots that are very very popular right now might look like in real life.

I tend to be with VVFF on this one - I'm not a huge fan of the overcooked style that is so de rigeur lately - but to each their own - photography isn't a science, it's an art - and if that's the art the artist wants to portray, more's the power to them. I occasionally try one here and there, and sometimes even have fun doing them or like the result - but I don't like doing it to my entire portfolio. I get tired of the overcooked look very quickly - just a handful of similar shots in a row, and I'm done with it and ready to go back to a more natural look. So my experimentations with it have been limited.

That said, as VVFF mentioned, HDR is much more than just the overcooked style. HDR can be used extremely mildly - dare say undetectably, just to get a better detail result from shadows or control highlights when the dynamic range is too large for the camera to fit it all in. This type of HDR shot I actually use quite often, aided by the fact that I can do them in-camera. For example, this is an HDR shot:

I don't think most folks would identify that as HDR - it still is contrasty, has dark shadows, and colors are all within normal visible range...no big saturations or tone mapping. The only difference is, without HDR the sky was far too bright to have been able to expose for it AND the dark shadow areas of the restaurant. To get the restaurant details like the signs, plants on balconies, etc, the sky would have been a blown out patch of white. To get the nice blue skies would have meant the whole buidling would be nearly all in silhouette. I could have done a lot of post processing to bring up the shadow detail, hoping not to get noise in the shot, or tried to tone down the blown highlights in post...but it was easier and more convenient to shoot in HDR mode and expose two different shots - one for highlights and one for shadows, and merge them.

 

[Groucho]

Another problem is that you'd also want to compare the out-of-the-camera shot and the HDR shot with a post-processed shot that is what you'd do if you only have one exposure. Shooting raw, it's pretty trivial to pull in over- and under-exposed areas (within reason) to show more detail than you get out of the box. It's kind of hard to find that kind of comparison as someone would put time both into their own post-processing of a single shot as well as assembling an HDR shot.

What most of the HDRs that are very obviously HDRs show (and what, I think, most of us non-HDR-fans don't care for) is the "tone mapping", which often results in very oversaturated and unrealistic colors, sometimes cartoonishly so. This is separate from the basic "get more exposure" HDR process, which some cameras can now do in-camera. The amount of tone mapping can dramatically affect the look of the photo and is the really controversial part of the process.

edit: One reason you probably see a lot in the wide-angle thread is because you'll often see more variations in exposure in wide-angle shots since you're seeing so many different things. I usually assume that something will be blown out in most of my fisheye shots, for example...

 

[Groucho]

This type of HDR shot I actually use quite often, aided by the fact that I can do them in-camera.

I actually usually don't mind the in-camera ones too much since there's no tone mapping and you still get a pretty realistic photo. With such a feature now appearing in multiple DSLRs, would anyone bet against Lightroom 4 (whenever it's released) featuring a quick, painless, no-nonsense HDR merging of Raw files? It would make sense since LR3 has the lens correction, which before you could only get via a jpg manipulated by your camera or via a filter. I still don't think I'd use it often but it might be cool - and I do have a ton of shots that I've taken at different exposures.

I know you can do it in Photoshop relatively painlessly, but I don't want to have to leave Lightroom.

 

[boBQuincy]

Here are the three exposures for this image:

clearly none of the three even come close to capturing the full range of the scene.

 

[WDWFigment]

I fall along the same lines as Groucho and Justin, although given what I've seen from them in the past, and their sentiments here, I would say I am more amenable to slightly over the top (for what it's worth, I wouldn't call Justin's first WS shot over the top in any way) processing than them. That's probably the case with my processing in general compared to theirs, though. I do not care for heavily tone mapped or, conversely, contrast-less HDR at all.

Bob, I would be really curious to see the results if you layered and masked images 2 and 3 above (I assume those are the -2 and +2 (or whatever range you're using) images). It looks like #3 is most accurate for the CR's interior, whereas #2 is most accurate for the clouds outside. The final result looks really grey and dark compared to those two images separately (awesome comp. on it, by the way).

 

[boBQuincy]

Bob, I would be really curious to see the results if you layered and masked images 2 and 3 above (I assume those are the -2 and +2 (or whatever range you're using) images). It looks like #3 is most accurate for the CR's interior, whereas #2 is most accurate for the clouds outside. The final result looks really grey and dark compared to those two images separately (awesome comp. on it, by the way).

I recall that you prefer your photos with a lot of "punch" and many of mine are not processed that way. My (calibrated) monitor is pretty bright and colorful compared to most, many of my photos look dark and dull on other monitors (including my PC at work. Anyway, here is a punched up version.

 

[boBQuincy]

Here is another:

 

[Hoan & Poopie]

Thanks for the replies and examples!

Has anyone had experience with using either Artizen HDR or Photomatix as a standalone option for creating HDR?

Can JPG's be used successfully to create HDR with these programs? It appears that way from browsing their sites.

Thanks

 

[SrisonS]

I think that the more you start playing around with RAW files, the more you realize that HDR isn't always needed; nor will it always help a picture (sometimes it might make it worse..... unless it's just me doing something wrong).

Here is one example where I believe it helped to really bring out the reflections. I tried to process just one image, but the reflections still looked pretty flat.

I used Photomatix with exposures of -1, 0, +1.

Exposures:




Final Product:



BUT, here's another example where HDR didn't do anything at all. I originally shot this with the intention of using HDR (so, 3 exposures). I figured that with the preserver in shadow, and still wanting the have the blue in the sky; I thought this would give me some problems. But after messing around with the pictures, I found that using just one shot had the same exact look as when I did the HDR on it (at least for the look I wanted).

1 RAW shot:



So it all depends on what you really want to accomplish.

 

[boBQuincy]

Thanks for the replies and examples!

Has anyone had experience with using either Artizen HDR or Photomatix as a standalone option for creating HDR?

Can JPG's be used successfully to create HDR with these programs? It appears that way from browsing their sites.

Thanks

I have used Photomatix to create "HDR" from a single exposure (including JPG) but how successful it is depends on the original image. There is only so much we can do before the limitations of the original exposure become apparent.

As far as I am concerned when the subject is not moving and we have the time, there is really no reason for not bracketing exposures. At worst we have wasted some memory card space.
And we should always use RAW if we are interested in getting the best our camera will deliver.

 

[Groucho]

Here are the three exposures for this image:

clearly none of the three even come close to capturing the full range of the scene.

See, the issue I have this type of HDR is that you're not capturing how it looks to the human eye, you're going well beyond there. The final image is, for better or for worse, quite a different image than one gets when actually standing there in person.

The flower shot is closer; actually it looks more like a normal shot taken with a circular polarizer. The problem is that the HDR process has done strange things to the bokeh, especially around the rightmost lightbulb and spires of the castle. I think your middle exposure of that shot should have all the information necessary to produce a very similar shot as your HDR, only without the halos. (Psst - don't tell anyone, but in a shot with these colors, you can also play specifically with the blue channel to give you a nice deep blue. )

SrisonS - nice work on the car shot. You seem to have a real deft touch with the post-processing - that shot is fairly close to what you'd see in person, albiet with a bit more saturation but not cartoonishly so. Though even here, the middle exposure certainly looks like it has all the information, it's just a matter of bringing it out. The only obvious gain in exposure is the front tire - which actually seems like the one spot that is distractingly HDRed.