Photo editing before and afters.

[fitzperry]

Here are a couple I've had fun with.

Check out the Minnie Mouse bow on the little girl behind my older dd . . . .

A little clone stamp action, and voila! Well, a little cropping too, and maybe a levels adjustment. I don't really remember.

Looking at that again, I probably could have done a better job with the clone stamp on the chair, but the print looked fine, so what the heck.

And here's a little cloudy day beach picture.

Levels adjustment, convert to b&w because the sky looks cruddy, and get rid of all those pesky trash cans that too few people actually use.

 

[Judge Fudge]

.

It makes it look more fairytale, excellent work. How you got a picture with nobody there.

 

[Boss Hogg]

 

[MICKEY88]

It makes it look more fairytale, excellent work. How you got a picture with nobody there.

pure luck I got there early and the area was vacant, so I shot quickly

 

[Pea-n-Me]

How's this (I didn't do much other than remove the bug):

Great - thank you so much!

 

[jann1033]

anywhere[/I] it's dirty so he's always grey-dark gray( like in the basement under and behind the oil tanks.... )i've thought of posting his pic a few times but he is embarrassing

 

[fitzperry]

Had to post one more before and after. Found this in a box in the basement after the stupid sump pump failed and flooded the place awhile back. Judging from the pinholes and fading almost beyond recognition, I must have had it on a bulletin board in bright sunlight for quite some time before stashing it in a shoebox with a bunch of letters from old boyfriends etc. (guess I was hangning onto those in case things with dh didn't work out ). Anyway, I think I took it circa 1977 when I was 10 with a high tech Kodak instamatic.

Aside from using the clone stamp, healing brush and/or spot healing tool on the damaged areas, all I did was the PSE auto correct. It worked much better than I expected it to. If I had the time or inclination, I'd try to make the grass greener, etc. Oh well, maybe someday . . . .

 

[jann1033]

my most ambitious so far

 

[Anewman]

Not exactly a B4 and After sample, this is more of a jpeg(unedited) vs RAW(unedited) comparison.

On my trip this month I shot very few pictures and most of them were family/portiats, so I decided to shoot RAW and JPEG.

STRAIGHT out of camera, just resized.

RAW conversion(ACR) resized only.

 

[fitzperry]

Not exactly a B4 and After sample, this is more of a jpeg(unedited) vs RAW(unedited) comparison.

On my trip this month I shot very few pictures and most of them were family/portiats, so I decided to shoot RAW and JPEG.

STRAIGHT out of camera, just resized.

RAW conversion(ACR) resized only.

When you say "RAW conversion . . . only," does that mean no editing, as in no levels, white balance, contrast, etc. adjustment. In other words, that's how it came out of the camera, except you converted it to JPEG? If so, that's amazing, and I'm sold, and will, therefore, be purchasing a couple more CF cards so I can start shooting in RAW. I shot a few images in RAW when I first got my D70 close to 2 years ago. I've done nothing with them and have shot everything else in JPEG.

 

[Furgus]

Here is a B/W conversion. Original was shot in RAW+Jpg, the color one being the JPG, but the conversion was done on the RAW file out of my D50.
BTW I shot about a dozen shots with my D50 with RAW+Basic, and almost every photo is better in RAW. I think I am done with JPG now.

Color

B/W

BTW this is my Brother in Law and his Girlfriend walking on a beach in Washington State. My WIfe and I went to see them this weekend. Also my wife took this shot as I was feeling ill with my Crohn's all week and was not in a picture type of mood.

 

[boBQuincy]

When you say "RAW conversion . . . only," does that mean no editing, as in no levels, white balance, contrast, etc. adjustment. In other words, that's how it came out of the camera, except you converted it to JPEG? If so, that's amazing, and I'm sold, and will, therefore, be purchasing a couple more CF cards so I can start shooting in RAW. I shot a few images in RAW when I first got my D70 close to 2 years ago. I've done nothing with them and have shot everything else in JPEG.

ACR (Adobe's Raw Converter) can use default settings, user-assigned settings, and more to convert the RAW file. No matter what settings we use the file gets adjusted for levels, white balance, etc.
This is exactly what the camera does when it creates a jpg, the difference is that *the photographer* now controls the process, not the camera.

The other big difference is we can convert the file in 16 bit mode, keeping the full 12 bit capture instead of tossing out 4 bits like the camera does when it converts to a jpg. There is nothing wrong with jpg, but in almost every case RAW will deliver an image with more tonal values, something we are usually short of already.

Btw, RAW and jpg resolution is identical (when you shoot in full size jpg), RAW is about image quality, not resolution. How much more image quality? Almost everyone I have convinced to try RAW has decided to use it for most of their photography, try it.

Confused? Me too, but Bruce Fraser's book "Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop" explains it in great detail, while still remaining understandable.

 

[Furgus]

^ he convinced me to start shooting in RAW

Now if only he would loan me some of his books

 

[Anewman]

When you say "RAW conversion . . . only," does that mean no editing, as in no levels, white balance, contrast, etc. adjustment. In other words, that's how it came out of the camera, except you converted it to JPEG?

Well I did a curves adjustment b4 the conversion while still in RAW and then converted it.

What happens in Camera is that DIGIC(for canons) looks at the RAW data and makes any adjustments it thinks are best and then converts to jpeg.

In RAW the photographer does the exact same thing.

 

[fitzperry]

Confused?

You bet I am! Which is why I've restricted myself to jpeg. I figured I had enough to figure out already.

Me too, but Bruce Fraser's book "Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop" explains it in great detail, while still remaining understandable.

Thanks. I'll have to check that out. I've read several articles lately singing the praises of RAW, as well as various comments here. I've gotta get a move on--couple of big trips coming up!

 

[jann1033]

? then due to the above post... the raw file = 8 mp vs the large fine of 3.3 so would the raw+ jpeg use even more? any benefit to using the jpeg + raw rather than just the raw and according to the rebel book ( where i got the above 8/3.3) the raw and large jpeg both use 8 mil pixels so confused as to why the bigger file( roughly 3x larger for raw since it's 145 pics large, 45 raw per 512 card) i'm missing something critical evidently
thanks

 

[fitzperry]

In RAW the photographer does the exact same thing.

But my camera is smarter than I am. At least I thought it was, but I'm starting to get better results in manual/aperture priority/shutter priority/etc. than I do in Auto, so maybe that thing's not as smart as I thought it was.

 

[Anewman]

? then due to the above post... the raw file = 8 mp vs the large fine of 3.3 so would the raw+ jpeg use even more? any benefit to using the jpeg + raw rather than just the raw
thanks

Yes the jpeg plus RAW takes up more space.

Only reason I shot both was to compare.

My findings are that with RAW I could always at least equal the jpeg(out of camera) and with some images demanding higher dynamic range or contrast, RAW was the only way to go.

I have many examples like the above.

Only benefit I could think of would be that the files are ready to go, no conversion needed. But with software available for free I could convert and at least equal the out of camera jpeg at about 15 seconds per raw file(estimate). Obviously an image like shown in the example above would take more time do to needing more than just the default settings.

 

[Anewman]

But my camera is smarter than I am. At least I thought it was...

Well in my opinion it is not about being smart.

The camera can not read minds, it has no way of knowing how important the highlights or shadows are to you so it may discard them if the algorithim calls for it.

Like in the example I posted DIGIC has no way of know that the highlights helped make the entire image. There are shots where you need to bring out the shadows, the in camera processor has no way of knowing when to do it and when not to.

 

[boBQuincy]

? then due to the above post... the raw file = 8 mp vs the large fine of 3.3 so would the raw+ jpeg use even more? any benefit to using the jpeg + raw rather than just the raw and according to the rebel book ( where i got the above 8/3.3) the raw and large jpeg both use 8 mil pixels so confused as to why the bigger file( roughly 3x larger for raw since it's 145 pics large, 45 raw per 512 card) i'm missing something critical evidently
thanks

Raw keeps all 12 bits that our Canon's capture, and doesn't compress the file (actually it does compress it some but it is lossless compression, compared to jpg which is lossy). So, the Raw is a lot bigger than the jpg, which converts the 12 bits to 8, and compresses the file, losing data in the process.

Raw & Jpg? Yep, it uses a lot of memory. I use it, when I have memory card space, so I have a quick Jpg to look at back at the room, and to email to the people stuck back at work!
The "D" series Canons allow for different Jpg sizes so I usually set mine to record "Small/Fine" with the Raw to save a little memory.