Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GENERAL FORUMS New to Photography (Public) topic #8529
View in linear mode

Subject: "Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you..." First topic | Next topic
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Fri 22-Jun-12 08:34 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
"Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
Sun 24-Jun-12 12:42 AM by blw

Richmond, US
          

In a recent thread, the topic of post processing came up. I thought that it would be useful to show what is possible, and also what might be necessary, especially in this New to Photography forum. I don't mean this to be taken the way it used to be said in film days "oh, just shoot it at f/8 and let the boys in the lab fix it." I really do think we should get it as close to right as feasible in-camera and minimize the post processing. But sometimes that just isn't feasible.

This example came up over the weekend, when I went to the zoo with my kids. This patas monkey could only be seen through a thick plate glass window or from above. Clearly the shot from above did not have the same eye level impact, which left only the option of shooting through the glass. The straightforward shot yields the following result:



D3, 70-200/f2.8 at 180mm, f/2.8, 1/1000th, ISO 640, hand-held. The result out of the camera is not so impressive. The glass has not only given an obvious green tint, but it's also washed out a lot of the color and contrast. And of course, since this is a straight export of the raw file, there's no sharpening, so the image looks a bit soft.

With just six clicks in Lightroom, this is the result:



The clicks were:

- decrease exposure by 1/5th stop
- change the black level (a lot)
- increase contrast
- sharpening (two clicks, one for amount, one for edge masking to avoid sharpening the noise)
- custom white balance with the eyedropper, which eliminates the green color cast.

After the processing, there is still some softness, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. That inch-thick plate glass lost some of the sharpness. But otherwise, this looks a lot better. There would have been no saving it if it had been out of focus, or really badly exposed (1/5th stop is not much of an error), but with decent execution and post processing this one looks pretty reasonable.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Post processing: sometimes you can't get it right.....
Ned_L Moderator
22nd Jun 2012
1
Reply message RE: Post processing: sometimes you can't get it right.....
OnTERRYo Silver Member
22nd Jun 2012
2
Reply message RE: Post processing: sometimes you can't get it right.....
blw Moderator
24th Jun 2012
3
Reply message RE: Post processing: sometimes you can't get it right.....
Sixmileman
31st Oct 2013
41
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Asgard Administrator
24th Jun 2012
4
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
24th Jun 2012
5
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
John Bertotti Silver Member
03rd Jan 2013
25
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Stevekir
31st Oct 2013
40
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
glxman Silver Member
25th Jun 2012
6
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Izzie Gold Member
24th Sep 2012
21
     Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
24th Sep 2012
22
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
28th Jun 2012
7
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Shy Talk
17th Jul 2012
8
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
18th Jul 2012
9
     Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Shy Talk
18th Jul 2012
10
          Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
jesse101
20th Jul 2012
11
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
dfaughtcvt Silver Member
31st Oct 2012
24
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
glxman Silver Member
21st Jul 2012
12
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
PRSS
14th Aug 2012
13
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
18th Aug 2012
14
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Ned_L Moderator
19th Aug 2012
15
     Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Bob Chadwick Silver Member
19th Aug 2012
16
          Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
19th Aug 2012
17
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
ABWhiteRN
04th Sep 2012
18
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
04th Sep 2012
19
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
23rd Sep 2012
20
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
29th Sep 2012
23
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
pjonesCET Gold Member
01st Apr 2013
28
     Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
02nd Apr 2013
29
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Blondul
10th Jan 2013
26
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
tlc5125 Silver Member
01st Feb 2013
27
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
johjeff
02nd Apr 2013
30
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
AmyMedina
15th Apr 2013
31
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
fmrnykr Silver Member
22nd Apr 2013
32
     Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
22nd Apr 2013
33
          Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
fmrnykr Silver Member
22nd Apr 2013
34
               Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
jesse101
24th Apr 2013
35
                    Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
MarkM10431 Silver Member
29th Apr 2013
36
Reply message A little more dramatic
blw Moderator
19th May 2013
37
Reply message RE: A little more dramatic
DC2105
21st Oct 2013
38
Reply message RE: A little more dramatic
Izzie Gold Member
22nd Oct 2013
39
Reply message RE: A little more dramatic
sabbey51 Silver Member
06th Jul 2014
51
     Reply message RE: A little more dramatic
Ned_L Moderator
06th Jul 2014
52
     Reply message RE: A little more dramatic
blw Moderator
08th Jul 2014
54
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
DraganDL
18th Jan 2014
42
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Stevekir
18th Jan 2014
43
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
22nd Jan 2014
45
     Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
Nikon James
04th Jul 2014
49
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
22nd Jan 2014
44
     Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
RD9146
16th Mar 2014
46
          Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
vema
19th May 2014
47
               Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
blw Moderator
21st May 2014
48
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
TerryMc Silver Member
05th Jul 2014
50
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
OldCodger
06th Jul 2014
53
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
boldventure Silver Member
20th Jul 2014
55
Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
JosephK Silver Member
20th Jul 2014
56
     Reply message RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes...
boldventure Silver Member
21st Jul 2014
57

Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberFri 22-Jun-12 06:47 PM
6598 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Post processing: sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Philadelphia, US
          

That's a wonderful example of what can be done with intelligent postprocessing. I hope those new to digital photography will learn from it.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
OnTERRYo Silver Member Nikonian since 25th Nov 2011Fri 22-Jun-12 09:17 PM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Post processing: sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 1


Hamilton, CA
          

Hi Brian,
That is great.
A perfect example of the benefits of post processing.
I'm sure, as I, others will gain insight from it.
Terry.

OnTERRYo

"The Nikon did the work; I just happened to be behind it at the time." TP

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sun 24-Jun-12 12:15 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#3. "RE: Post processing: sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond, US
          

Here's another example, this one from a visit to a museum a while back. As with the shot above, the shooting conditions were such that one really can't "get it right" in camera. (In this case I guess one could do it with a ladder and associated very tall tripod or platform, but I mean practically speaking.)

Anyway, here's the original shot, simply converted from the NEF file:



D3, 35/f1.4 AIS, f/5.6, 1/50th, ISO 6400, hand held. There are various issues here, the first one being the obvious perspective problem, with the painting on the wall and visually leaning backward. Additionally, the lens created some distortion, which can be seen in the top part of the frame. There's some glare from the lighting (I could have used a polarizer, but I guess I didn't have it in the bag).

The post processing here took a dozen clicks and about five minutes to effect, including:

- Vertical perspective change, rather like using a shifting perspective control lens.
- a slight rotation (I guess I wasn't level)
- distortion elimination (manual in this case, since there's no profile for this lens built into Lightroom4)
- cropping
- a graduated filter to reverse most of the effect of the glare
- turned the intensity of the filter up a bit
- sharpening
- edge masking to avoid sharpening the noise
- noise reduction

The result looks like this:



Still not great, but a WHOLE lot nicer than the original.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Sixmileman Registered since 06th Mar 2013Thu 31-Oct-13 04:56 PM
133 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#41. "RE: Post processing: sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 3


US
          

Nice example. It's important to remember when taking images such as this (and tall structures as well), if one intends to post-process to correct vertical distortion, to not fill the frame since after straightening the image, one must enlarge it to fill the "new" frame which includes areas with no image.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Asgard Administrator He is your Chief Guardian Angel at the Helpdesk and knows a lot about a lot Nikonian since 07th Apr 2004Sun 24-Jun-12 09:52 PM
50324 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


East Frisia, DE
          

Great examples

Pinned this topic.

Gerold - Nikonian in East Frisia
Eala Freya Fresena

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sun 24-Jun-12 10:41 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#5. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond, US
          

Here's another example, sort of the same as the #1 but a bit different. This is the conversion of the raw image:


D3, 400/f2.8 + TC-20eIII, f/11 (effective), 1/400th, ISO 1000, monopod. Contrast is badly washed out, although if you compare this one carefully to the patas monkey above, you'll find that sharpness isn't degraded nearly as much. Part of that is due to the fact that this is the 400/f2.8 and not the 70-200/f2.8, and the TC-20eIII just plain matches it better. Part of it is due to the obstruction between the lens and the subject. In this case, I had a chain link fence in the way! In fact, not just one, but two of them. I was up against the first one, and the second one was about ten feet away. The cars, as you can guess from the relative size in the frame, are more like 240 feet from the camera - an 800mm really brings them closer, so the fact that they still don't fill the frame means that they are a good long way away. The interesting thing is that you absolutely can't detect the fence in the image, as such - even though the image is badly washed out.

Here's the post processed version:



It's the same file, but cropped, dust removed (there are quite a few if you look closely), and most importantly, the black level and contrast are substantially boosted. I took a few from a nearby location in which I had a cutout in the fences to shoot through, and this is pretty close to what one would have seen through the cutout. Of course, there is only one cutout and there were about five of us competing to use it... I yielded most of the time to the others, since I knew that with the longest lens and the ability to post process, my shots would end up looking like the fence wasn't there in the first place...

As you'd guess, there's some sharpening here too, with edge masking to avoid sharpening the noise, as well as noise reduction.

I definitely erred on the side of under processing. If you look at the processed image, you can tell that there was a mild fog around the circuit. I could have processed even that out, but that wouldn't have represented what I actually saw, which definitely included fog. (In fact, the green flag for this race was deferred by almost 90 minutes to allow the fog to lift. Earlier it was so thick that photography with a telephoto lens was nearly impossible, to say nothing of an 800mm handicapped by a 2x TC.)

Other than the spot removal, this took a couple of minutes, and most of it could be copied to other frames from the same behind-the-fence-in-the-fog environment.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
John Bertotti Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Jul 2012Thu 03-Jan-13 10:45 PM
569 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#25. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 5


Garretson, US
          

What adjustments get rid of the chain link fence ghosting? If that is the correct term. I have a couple of my son I would like to touch up the fence was about 6 feet away and I was at 200 mm. Some place I can read to get me up to speed without mucking up your thread?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Stevekir Registered since 15th Sep 2013Thu 31-Oct-13 04:07 PM
11 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#40. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 5


GB
          

blw wrote in two recent posts (zoo monkey and racing cars photos):

"sharpening (two clicks, one for amount, one for edge masking to avoid sharpening the noise)", and

"there's some sharpening here too, with edge masking to avoid sharpening the noise, as well as noise reduction."

I can guess what these achieve, but would like to know how to do it.

I am familiar with Photoshop's Unsharp filter (CS6).

Thanks

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

glxman Silver Member Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Mon 25-Jun-12 12:46 AM
2945 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


South Australia, AU
          

Great post Brian,
I think that this post is a good case for shooting raw from the start,
I'm no expert but know PP skills have improved with time,
I was recently preparing some old images for viewing on our TV screen, just a quick adjust with levels and curves made all the difference, and that is just with CNX2, have never used Photoshop until now, just downloaded the free trial of Elements 10,
Another steep learning curve for me
Regards,
Gary

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Izzie Gold Member Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2011Mon 24-Sep-12 04:52 PM
839 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 6


Chesterfield, US
          


Good reply, Brian. I too shoot in RAW but I do not have Lightroom. I use Photoshop CS6 (now). 'Been using Photoshop so there is no reason to change my work flow. Anyway, using Camera Raw in Photoshop, I tend to change the temperature, exposure, recovery, then play with Add Light and change the contrast up or down. The rest comes easy, exposure will be just right for printing or viewing.
Izzie
>Great post Brian,
>I think that this post is a good case for shooting raw from
>the start,
>I'm no expert but know PP skills have improved with time,
>I was recently preparing some old images for viewing on our TV
>screen, just a quick adjust with levels and curves made all
>the difference, and that is just with CNX2, have never used
>Photoshop until now, just downloaded the free trial of
>Elements 10,
>Another steep learning curve for me
>Regards,
>Gary

Fly safe, drive safe and keep safe.
G'day and G'lock....
Izzie

GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS
My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Mon 24-Sep-12 07:51 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#22. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 21


Richmond, US
          

> I too shoot in RAW but I do not have Lightroom. I use Photoshop CS6 (now). 'Been using Photoshop so there is no reason to change my work flow.

There's no intent to convince anyone to use Lightroom here. This thread is about post processing in general - why does one do it, what does it look like, what kind of results are possible, etc. Certainly Photoshop, Capture NX2, DxO, Capture One, Paint Shop Pro, Gimp - they all are logically equivalent, and I'd bet that nearly all of what I've done here can be done in any of them, with the possible exception of the perspective correction and/or lens correction. (And I know that most of them can do lens corrections, too.)

I provide the examples using Lightroom because... that's what I use. I add to this collection when I do one of my own post processing jobs and think that it might be a useful example for those new to photography.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Thu 28-Jun-12 09:23 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#7. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond, US
          

I showed this one in A Picture I Took, but upon some reflection I thought this might be a good one to add to this series. Again, this is not a matter of "correcting errors," which seems to be a common misperception of the purpose of post processing. In this case the original capture is pretty darn close to perfect. But in captured form, it's not what it could be. The woman who offered the unsolicited advice that post processing is intellectually dishonest needs to see this pair.

Here's the original, which was taken on the engine deck of the steam ship Great Britain:


D3, 24-70/f2.8 AFS @ 24mm, 1/80th, f/2.8, ISO 6400, hand held.

The bones are in there, it's a good image, but this lacks impact. Here's the image as I showed it:



It's quite a difference. This took a little more doing than the others, although it still didn't take all that much effort. Steps in Lightroom:

- crop. the meaningful part of the image is not in the 3:2 aspect ratio of the sensor.
- enable automatic lens correction. the 24-70 is very sharp, but it's cursed with considerable corner vignetting and a surprising amount of barrel distortion and also a surprising amount of field curvature. Much of this isn't obvious just looking at the average image, but wow does it change things as it's applied. Fortunately in LR4 it's one click.
- convert to B&W (one click)
- increase clarity (one slider - this improves mid-tone contrast)
- noise reduction (it was ISO 6400! Even a D3 doesn't shoot ISO 6400 without at least some noise.)
- sharpening, with some edge masking as usual to avoid sharpening the remaining noise.
- selected a "strong contrast" point curve
- black level lowered to ensure that the blacks are BLACK
- finally, I used the adjustment brush to burn in the highlights on the piston rods. That ensured that highlights carried detail.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Shy Talk Registered since 12th Jun 2010Tue 17-Jul-12 01:17 AM
544 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 7


Port Glasgow, GB
          

Broad gauge. Right?

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Wed 18-Jul-12 01:53 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#9. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 8


Richmond, US
          

No, this is the engine of the steam ship SS Great Britain, where the pistons are easily 10x the size of contemporary railway locomotives, maybe 20x.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Shy Talk Registered since 12th Jun 2010Wed 18-Jul-12 06:24 PM
544 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 9


Port Glasgow, GB
          

I was meaning the rails!

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
jesse101 Registered since 28th Dec 2011Fri 20-Jul-12 11:58 PM
562 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 10


Great Falls, US
          

This is awesome! Thanks a ton Brian!

My Gallery:

http://jessemartinez.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
dfaughtcvt Silver Member Nikonian since 03rd Oct 2012Wed 31-Oct-12 09:52 PM
48 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 7


Chicago, US
          

Wow... the first picture really was excellent, but converting it to B&W makes it pop more!

Deb

Deb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.”
― Ansel Adams

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

glxman Silver Member Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Sat 21-Jul-12 10:22 AM
2945 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0
Sat 21-Jul-12 10:25 AM by glxman

South Australia, AU
          

Much appreciated Brian,
I hope to be changing to an iMac soon, new software needed,
I am very confident with CNX2,
I'm going to step outside of my comfort zone and give LR my best effort,
Tks for your additional post Brian,
Regards,
Gary

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
PRSS Registered since 10th Apr 2012Tue 14-Aug-12 09:07 AM
233 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 12


IN
          

Excellent thread. I have learnt a lot through this.
With best regards
PRSS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sat 18-Aug-12 10:25 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#14. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond, US
          

Here's another example, this time a result of a recommended technique. We always want to avoid blowing out highlights, and we would prefer to capture as much detail in the shadows as possible. To accomplish this, a technique is offered called expose to the right. In other words, overexpose as much as possible without blowing out highlights. This allows us to capture as much data in the shadows as possible. The resulting file looks pretty bad out of the camera, but that's not the point. The point is explicitly to exploit the capability of the sensor to its maximum, and then to post process it into the form required for presentation. In other words, this is not a mistake. It's a very deliberate technique, but it requires post processing to accomplish the desired end result. In general this is not new to digital photography. Back in film days, particularly amongst large format photographers - who have the option of developing every sheet (shot) individually - a skilled photographer would deliberately make assumptions about the developing strategy to accommodate the actual field lighting conditions.

With that, here's a digital example. This is a straight conversion of the NEF file (I shoot essentially everything in raw):



D3, 24-70/f2.8 @ 70mm, 1/250th, f/4, ISO 400, hand held. There are no blown out highlights, and the result of the chosen exposure is obvious "overexposure," at least relative to the scene as viewed by a human. Here's the processed file:



The result is a file that is much closer to how I actually saw the scene, but there is detail available in most of the shadows. In this case it turns out that most of that detail isn't even relevant, but it's hard to tell that in the field, and it's much better to capture it and decide later to toss it. It's easy to discard information, but of course it is very hard to produce data that wasn't captured. Unfortunately I goofed up on the DOF; I really wanted everything in the frame in full, sharp focus, and I didn't accomplish that. If this were going to be presented (ie gallery), I would consider using the adjustment brush to bring out some detail in the shadows under the curve of the pipes, but given the miss on the DOF I haven't bothered.

Explanation of the processing, which was done in Lightroom4:

- reduced exposure about -1.45 stops
- increased shadow tones slightly (these first two are the primary things used in the "expose to the right" technique)
- modified the vertical perspective, functionally similar to shooting with a perspective control lens.
- corrected for the lens optical errors, mostly linear barrel distortion and field curvature.
- cropped away the regions lost by the perspective adjustment
- sharpening, clarity and edge masking
- adjusted the contrast to regain visual appearance
- cropped a small amount for compositional purposes
- increased vibrance to bring out the colors of the paint etched by acidic rain
- mildly increased saturation of the red spectrum, also to emphasize the colors

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberSun 19-Aug-12 07:22 PM
6598 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 14


Philadelphia, US
          

Brian, you have made this thread one of the "all time" teaching tools at Nikonians or on any photography educational website.

Thanks you.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Bob Chadwick Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jan 2006Sun 19-Aug-12 10:02 PM
2030 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 15


Norcross, US
          

Great info Brian. I foolowed all of it but the perspective change on the shot of the framed picture. How did you do that?

Visit
My Nikonians Gallery
NorcrossPics.Com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sun 19-Aug-12 10:33 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#17. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 16


Richmond, US
          

I effectively "tilted" the plane of the subject back toward the camera, in effect trying to simulate having the sensor parallel to the subject. That's done in Lightroom by going to Lens Corrections -> Manual and using the Vertical slider. You can see the effect here by comparing the right-hand column of rivets in the original and processed images. In the processed image, they are nearly vertical, while the original file had them very much angled.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

ABWhiteRN Registered since 26th Nov 2011Tue 04-Sep-12 12:56 AM
56 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

This is great. I apologize in advance for the silly question: can you define what you mean by sharp? And, what does edge masking do?

Thank you!
Alison

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Tue 04-Sep-12 02:59 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#19. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 18


Richmond, US
          

Sharp: synonyms (in this photographic context) are clarity, "real" and perhaps "clear." Generally this means that edges have high contrast, meaning that they are easily seen and visually interpreted.

Edge masking in Lightroom usually is used to modify the sharpening algorithms so that only edges are affected, or at least are more affected. Without the edge masking, the sharpening applies to the entire image. This isn't so bad in many situations, but if the shot is captured at a high ISO - or even a relatively high ISO - it is possible that the noise can be sharpened and made more visible. By directing the sharpening algorithm to avoid smooth, non-edge areas, we avoid emphasizing the noise in areas that are visually more susceptible to noise.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sun 23-Sep-12 08:58 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#20. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond, US
          

Here's another example, the main item is perspective correction. That's the same tool used above with the picture, but for a quite different application. Here's the original:


This is a street in London, taken in "walk-around" fashion. The original file is not particularly bad, nor is it particularly good. The main thing that strikes the viewer is that the whole scene is "collapsing" into the center. This is not really a capture error - that's just what happens if you have a wide angle lens (in this case 28mm equivalent) tilted upward. I suppose someone might claim that it's a photographer error, since in fact this can be avoided at capture time through the use of a perspective control lens - but few of us have them, and even fewer of us bring them (with a tripod) on a walk-around sort of expedition.

At any rate, the main edit is to perspective correction, which restores the appearance of the buildings, at the cost of some area on the extreme left and right. This is a pretty big change, because it's a pretty wide view and the lens is pointing up at a relatively severe angle. In addition to the perspective, there's some rotation (I didn't use a level, which is not surprising since the level is in the tripod bag) and some cropping. I knew I would be doing the perspective edit when I pressed the shutter release, and I deliberately shot as wide as possible to account for the loss of the pixels at the bottom of the frame.

The rest is pretty normal, with mild adjustment of exposure (-1/10th stop), some changes in highlights and shadows, as well as the usual clarity, sharpening and edge masking. Finally, I didn't like the look of the upper left, which seemed a bit bright after the editing. I burned in (darkened) the slate roofs with the adjustment brush. Here's the final result:


It's not going to be winning any awards, but it certainly looks better than the capture.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sat 29-Sep-12 03:31 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#23. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond, US
          

Here's another example of color correction, this time a problem created by the photographic situation, not by the photographer. Although this one properly falls into the category of "fixing it later," I don't see what I could have done to capture this "correctly" in camera. This is just a very difficult situation.

Here's the original, a JPEG taken essentially straight out of the camera:



This was taken eight years ago on a D100, at ISO 1600. (1/30th, f/5.6, 35-70/f2.8 at 60mm, hand held.) It's not a great picture, but as can be seen, there's a horrible green light. This situation was in a pub, and there were other green and red lights elsewhere. Shooting from a different angle generally yielded a different set of colored tints on Dave's neutral-colored shirt. I suppose I could have shot with a graduated color correcting filter, but as one can imagine, this isn't the sort of deliberate, tripod-and-grad filter kind of situation. Realistically, you're stuck with a green tint, or this can be exchanged for a red one - or both. Yech.

For reasons outside the scope of image processing, I needed to use this image, so I pulled it into LR4 and observed that there's basically no green that's supposed to be in the frame. So I went to the color menu, selected saturation, and used the Targeted Adjustment Tool to point at a spot in the most offensive green - in this case in his shirt tail - and drastically reduced the saturation. That made some other tints more obvious, so then I took the TAT and reduced those, mostly a much smaller degree of editing. Then I had to tweak the overall color balance and tint just a little. Satisfied that the major problem - the ugly green tint - was solved, I also did a little cropping, noise reduction, sharpening and a very small levels adjustment. The result is this:



It still won't be winning any awards, and the colors are still a tad wonky, but this edition certainly looks a lot less horrible than the original. It might be usable, which isn't bad for whacking on it for about five minutes, of which the majority was twiddling color saturation sliders rather experimentally. If I had to publish this one, I'd spend some more time with the adjustment brush in the reddish area of his shirt, and in general the neutral area above the guitar. But you can see where this is going, and I think folks would agree that this is a way of generally salvaging a pretty difficult shooting situation.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
pjonesCET Gold Member Nikonian since 11th Jul 2011Mon 01-Apr-13 09:51 PM
546 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#28. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 23


Martinsville, US
          

I wasn't there so I don't know what it was supposed to look like. But I am assuming they are using green foot lights for mood. and as far as skin tone is concerned the first picture is more realistic. The Bottom picture reminds me of my Great uncle's first color TV in the fifties. He cranked the color all the way up and the Indian's in color western always looked like they were bleeding to death dripping in blood.

From then on even today when I set a color TV I want the skin on white people to be more toward tan with just a very hint of pink and Black people if the set is adjust as stated actually in variation shades of brown.


Your tutorial is very good though, and I'll have to try Raw Processing.

Phillip M Jones, CET
pjonescet@comcast.net
http://www.phillipmjones.net/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/pjonescet/
http://www.phillipjones-cet.net

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Tue 02-Apr-13 04:04 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#29. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 28


Richmond, US
          

You're right, his skin tone is a little too red after the adjustments. I'll admit that I wasn't really being that careful - if I were really going to use this one, I'd do the color correction with the adjustment brush. If accomplished that way, I'd have done no editing on the skin tones at all, so they would have been left as they were in the original shot.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Blondul Registered since 27th Dec 2011Thu 10-Jan-13 09:38 PM
74 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Bucharest, RO
          

Great post-processing pictures and advices, Brian!
THANK YOU!

Blondul

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

tlc5125 Silver Member Nikonian since 13th Jan 2013Fri 01-Feb-13 10:49 PM
91 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Baldwinsville, US
          

Wow!! That's pretty convincing to learn how to shot RAW & post process!! Adding that to my list of things to learn! Thanks!

Tracy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

johjeff Registered since 23rd Feb 2013Tue 02-Apr-13 11:54 PM
4 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#30. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

Nice series of posts on post-processing, which is definitely a weak area for me. Thanks for taking time to give some good pointers.

Jeff

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

AmyMedina Registered since 10th Apr 2013Mon 15-Apr-13 05:31 AM
6 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#31. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

Gave you 5 stars! Gread topic. I realize now that I may be overworking my images in PP. Thank you!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
fmrnykr Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Mar 2010Mon 22-Apr-13 03:38 AM
170 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 31


Oakland, US
          

Brian,

In the 3+ years I've been a Nikonian, this is the first time I've read this thread. I use CNX-2 for my PP and I've tried some of the steps you've done and they work as described. I also use DXO & CS-5 for other things, especially geometry issues when using the 14-2, watermarks, etc.

I've been trying to get a handle on CS-5 and have been mildly successful. I seem get lost very easily. When I go to the help section, I come away even more confused. I'll keep knocking though.

Just 'shows to go you' that every thread on the Nikonians is a source of information.

Thanks for you help.

Bob

Bob White
San Francisco Bay Area (BWO Brooklyn, N.Y.)

Don't push the river, just let it flow.

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/ppuser/314628/cat/500

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Mon 22-Apr-13 10:16 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#33. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 32


Richmond, US
          

> CS-5 and have been mildly successful. I seem get lost very easily. When I go to the help section, I come away even more confused.

In my experience, the help section is definitively NOT the way to learn Photoshop!!! I learn Photoshop from books - Scott Kelby's in particular but definitely not exclusively. Also, as I noted above, I use Lightroom for the majority of my post processing. I find it much easier to do most work that actually needs to be done.

On the other hand, if you use DxO, why bother with something else?

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
fmrnykr Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Mar 2010Mon 22-Apr-13 05:55 PM
170 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#34. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 33
Mon 22-Apr-13 11:04 PM by jrp

Oakland, US
          

Brian,

I use each application for different reasons.

CS5 for watermarks, sharpening, etc.
DXO for its excellent distortion correction
CNX2 for its U-Point technology.
View NX-2 for culling my keepers.

I agree on the books for learning, Mike Hagen\'s After the Shoot is an excellent resource for CNX-2.

Thanks for your insight.

Bob

Bob White
San Francisco Bay Area (BWO Brooklyn, N.Y.)

Don't push the river, just let it flow.

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/ppuser/314628/cat/500

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
jesse101 Registered since 28th Dec 2011Wed 24-Apr-13 02:18 PM
562 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#35. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 34


Great Falls, US
          

Brian, would be great if you ever did a working group pertaining to post processing, this kinda coincides with some questions I had...this proves my PP is lacking a ton! Dead eager to learn the above mentioned.

My Gallery:

http://jessemartinez.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
MarkM10431 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Apr 2013Mon 29-Apr-13 04:03 PM
397 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#36. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 35


jacksonville, US
          

God.. now i will have to invest in CS6 and lightroom

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sun 19-May-13 04:19 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#37. "A little more dramatic"
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond, US
          

Here is another example, one that is considerably more dramatic. The last step (of quite a few) is probably a little bit more controversial, but only a little. To begin, here's the original:



As you can see, this is the result of a circular fisheye lens, which projects a round image approximately 23mm in diameter (on a full frame sensor, which is 24mm x 36mm). This is more or less a straight capture followed by a conversion from NEF to JPEG. It's what the matrix meter read and exposed. The result isn't very appealing, although it's a good capture in that almost no highlights blown out, and none of the shadows are so blocked into total black either. In other words, all of the tonal information is recorded in the file, it's just a matter of coaxing it all out so that it represents what the photographer intended.

I applied the following steps in Lightroom:

- cropped it to square, since the circular fisheye wastes 49% of the pixels and there's no point in lugging them around.
- I tricked the post crop vignette feature into effectively giving me a circular crop around the image, which eliminates the annoying optical error that causes flare around the outside of the captured image. This is problematic on every circular fisheye I've ever used, including the 8/f2.8 AIS that is the best one I know of. (This one was shot on the Sigma 8/f4 EX.)
- used Auto Tone to improve the balance of the sky and land. This is a roll of the dice; it worked this time, but sometimes it doesn't. If it hadn't, I would have had to manipulate the Exposure, Highlights, Shadows, Whites and Blacks to get to this point. In this case, Auto Tone got it pretty much right and saved me time and effort.
- I still had to fine tune the highlights, whites and exposure, but that was pretty small - about +0.1 stop on exposure and some balancing of highlights and whites.
- A boost from the Clarity control to get more midrange contrast, which helps a LOT making the water streams stand out from the background.
- I did normal sharpening, and turned off the default color noise removal since a D3 at base ISO produces essentially no color noise except in some really, really unusual circumstances.

Everything to this point is just a matter of cropping, sharpening, adjusting exposure and contrast - nothing unusual, although admittedly this one takes the exposure and contrast management to a pretty substantial degree. The result is MUCH more like what I saw as I was setting up the tripod, and nobody but the ultra-purists would really argue with any of this. In essence this is an "expose to the right" situation, as illustrated with the steam locomotive detail shot above.

As can be seen from the now-dramatically rendered skies, the sun was playing hide-and-seek, and at the instant I took this shot, it was behind the clouds. Most of the afternoon it was actually sunny. I hadn't brought the fisheye into the garden with me, so I had to make a trip out to the car to get it. When I finally set up to take the shot, the clouds had come in, and the original exposure was the result. A few minutes later, I had the sun coming through one of the clear blue spots you see here, and I shot another frame. Unfortunately, the dynamic range was too great, and that exposure ended up with both blown out highlights and blocked shadows - a complete write-off. As I contemplated just how I wanted to set up an HDR bracket, the sun ducked back behind the clouds! After a while, it started raining - not a formula for success with a lens that cannot have a lens hood, so I gave up.

So, to render this successful capture in a way that represented what I had attempted to capture, I changed the white balance. This is roughly the equivalent of adding two relatively strong filters - 81A or so. Of course, I'd have had to have gel versions of them for this lens, since it can only take rear-mounted gel filters in the mirror box, but they are available. It was a lot easier to simply change the white balance. The result is fairly different in spirit from the original capture, but it much more accurately represents what I was seeing as I set up the tripod, and when I shot the blown out version a few minutes later. The purists would claim that this is an unethical manipulation of the image, but really, it's not so hard to have created the equivalent result by either (a) shooting the HDR when I had the momentary opportunity or (b) shooting this frame with gel filters. The HDR would have had minor difficulties with the moving water, although most HDR software can sort that particular problem out, especially in this case. I'm defensive about this one because the fact that I didn't get it right 100% in camera really comes down to photographer errors, so in this sense I'm "just letting the lab fix the problem." In a purist world, I made three fairly significant errors. First, I should have dropped everything and gotten the fisheye immediately, rather than waiting an hour or more. Shoot it when you see it, they say. Second, I should have been better prepared with gel filters, which I even own, but which didn't make the trip because they're for my flash units, which I didn't bring to an outdoor botanical garden. Still, an error of being insufficiently prepared, to the purist. Finally, I made the mistake of attempting to do a single capture when in retrospect, an HDR was pretty obviously required, thus losing the opportunity to get the right shot with the sun shining. But we don't always get it right - we're human, after all - and it is possible to avoid wasting the effort. Here's the final result:



At any rate, I'm pretty satisfied with the end result. It is a pretty dramatic change from the flat, cool capture straight out of the camera, and this one demonstrates how much post processing can help even a pretty good capture.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
DC2105 Registered since 15th Sep 2013Mon 21-Oct-13 05:52 AM
6 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#38. "RE: A little more dramatic"
In response to Reply # 37


Kolkata, IN
          

Very very helpful to the newbies like me.

Thanks a lot to all.

D5100 is better than any Sniper.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Izzie Gold Member Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2011Tue 22-Oct-13 10:32 AM
839 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#39. "RE: A little more dramatic"
In response to Reply # 37


Chesterfield, US
          

Thank you for this last tutorial. I really enjoyed this one a lot as I had repeated refused to buy a fish eye lens. I thought they take ugly useless photos -- just my opinion. But you changed my mind on this tutorial. Now this is one real creative way of using a fish eye!!! if I never see one again.

Again...thank you. I rated this topic as a "must read".

Fly safe, drive safe and keep safe.
G'day and G'lock....
Izzie

GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS
My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
sabbey51 Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Jan 2010Sun 06-Jul-14 12:06 AM
543 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#51. "RE: A little more dramatic"
In response to Reply # 37


Saddle river, US
          

I've never really understood the religious opposition to doing a portion of your creative work using a bit of software on your PC rather than a bit of software or perhaps hardware on your camera. As far as I can tell, it all depends on the vision and skill of the artist.

On the other hand, I completely understand the objection to manipulating an image to make the viewer think something was true at the moment of capture, which wasn't in fact true. However, this can also be achieved either in the camera or in your computer. In either case, it's the intent to deceive that counts, not the tool.

Scott

Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberSun 06-Jul-14 01:39 AM
6598 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#52. "RE: A little more dramatic"
In response to Reply # 51


Philadelphia, US
          

I'm with you.

Many who believe this point to the old days of film when the postprocessing we see today, they say, wasn't done. They say when film was king what you got out of the camera was what you got in your print.

Of course that's nonsense. I always point our Ansel Adams who frankly, in my opinion, for listening to him speak and instruct when I was young, never met an image he didn't think he could improve in the darkroom. In fact, he wasn't just a master photographer when making the image. He was a master darkroom technician and artist who never left anything to chance, but was deliberate in his approach there. He also made deliberate choices of film type and chemical developers. He used such techniques as dodging and burning and more while exposing paper with the enlarger, then carefully made chemical choices in development of the print, and he was a fanatic about choosing just the right paper for each print. He was an outstanding photographer/experimenter with regard to film, paper, chemicals, darkroom technique, etc. He went to great lengths to scientifically research photography.

As to manipulation, if you're doing news, or an image you are purporting to be a true and accurate documentation of a scene, then image manipulation in the camera, or postprocessing to do anything more than make your image a true depiction of what you as the photographer saw and perceived when you made the exposure should not be done. If, on the other hand, you're using photography to communicate ideas, feelings, emotion, etc., then all bets are off, so to speak and as a photographer you should be able to do whatever desired to communicate to the viewer your goal for what you want the image to say.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Tue 08-Jul-14 05:03 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#54. "RE: A little more dramatic"
In response to Reply # 51


Richmond, US
          

> I've never really understood the religious opposition to doing a portion of your creative work using a bit of software on your PC

Frankly, neither do I. It is obvious, though, that some of these opinions are VERY strongly held. As I have recounted before, I've literally been told that what I do is "intellectually dishonest" and that I shouldn't even be looking at books on Photoshop. If it's not right, just delete it.

As far as I'm concerned, those holding such an opinion do not understand my perspective at all. I don't think they have any notion of what I'm doing and why I think it's valid. (I, on the other hand, claim that I at least understand why they hold their position, even if I do not agree with it. In fact, I think I'd say that I do not agree with their position expressly because I think I *DO* understand their reasoning.)

To be clear, I do very nearly all of my photography for my own enjoyment. To the degree that it is deceptive, it is intentional - and also proudly proclaimed. As an example, I build lots of models. If I can build a model that is so good that a photograph of it is easily mistaken for the real thing, that's wonderful. I'm happy to tell you that it's a model.



This is exactly what some people think I should not do. Unlike the other images I've posted in this thread, it is highly manipulated. It is, in fact, three separate exposures, made in different years, with different lenses - and even with two different cameras. The main image is from 2011, taken with a D2x (DX). It is from "real life" in that it is Richmond, Virginia in 2011. It is the background layer. The train is a 1/87th scale model, shot in 2010 with a 105/f2.8 Micro-Nikkor on a D3. What I refer to as a "single image" of the model in fact is a focus stack, consisting of twelve separate exposures with slightly varying focus points. The twelve images were reduced to a single frame with unusual depth of field using Photoshop. The stacked result has some very light Gaussian Blur applied to it, because it was considerably too sharp in its raw form, and when first composited with the background, it was pretty obvious for this reason. It was placed on a layer above the background, and required a very slight change in angle to line up properly with the bridge. I had to use a very careful layer mask to ensure that the foreground elements properly obscured the engine and boxcar. The plume of smoke was shot in 2012, in Scranton, PA, using a 70-200/f2.8. The smoke is from a steam locomotive, but not from this one or its prototype. I extracted the smoke from another frame, rescaled it, changed its transparency a slight amount, and then placed it on a different layer. Finally, the entire image was converted to B&W.

Why go to this trouble? It is quite difficult to build a model that is good enough to withstand this level of inspection. So just getting as far as the image stack is an accomplishment. Historically, we know that something very much like this scene happened in 1924. The prototype of the locomotive was built about two miles from this bridge, at the Richmond plant of the American Locomotive Company. After delivery, it is known to have been assigned to the yard about a mile east of this location. Yet no photographs of this are known to exist. If we want to "see" this history, we have to do it with models - and I choose to do it with photographs of models. (For the perverse, I actually make it a point to leave at least one tell-tale clue that yes, it really is a model. In this case, it's a very out-of-scale coupler, which model railroaders will instantly recognize as a Kadee #5, if they look closely enough.)

If people want to criticize me for doing this, I guess I'm fine with that. To me, it's fun, and it can be used educationally.

And this is a good example of a couple of other types of post processing, namely focus stacking and compositing.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

DraganDL Registered since 08th Nov 2013Sat 18-Jan-14 12:29 AM
11 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#42. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0
Sat 18-Jan-14 12:42 AM by DraganDL

CS
          

The photo of the monkey should have been a bit more contrasty - as it is, colors are slightly more washed out than they should be (kind of "pastel-look"). Did you take this photo through the glass (window pane)?

Well done job with the photo of a guitar player. But then again, maybe you should not have corrected it at all? I mean, maybe these areas of "greenish" light should have been left as they are, since they represent the actual look of the stage and the performer (whose figure is, naturally, exposed to different light sources/spot lights).

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Stevekir Registered since 15th Sep 2013Sat 18-Jan-14 09:52 AM
11 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#43. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 42


GB
          

This thread is an eye-opener to me (a beginner to advanced post-processing). Hugely helpful. Many thanks.

I use Photoshop (CS6) for all my processing, but what advantage does Lightroom give compared to Photoshop, concerning post-processing rather than image storage and retrieval?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Wed 22-Jan-14 12:30 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#45. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 43


Richmond, US
          

> what advantage does Lightroom give compared to Photoshop, concerning post-processing rather than image storage and retrieval?

Not a lot, in terms of day-to-day processing such as what you see here. However, it has extensive cataloging and indexing capability, which Photoshop does not have. It is also usually MUCH easier if you have many files to work on. As one remarkable example, I was recently given about 1300 files, all of which needed similar editing. I started doing it with a PS macro, but that was taking literally hours. While it was running, I imported the files into a LR catalog using another system - and I had them all fixed in about 5 hours less time! On the other hand, PS can do many things that LR does not, such as pixel-level editing.

They're different, and I use both.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Nikon James Registered since 20th Sep 2013Fri 04-Jul-14 09:42 PM
99 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#49. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 45


Alexandria, US
          

This would be a strong point, I suspect. I am just learning Lightroom (although I have had it for a while), but I got it because I read numerous comments by busy pros about how they had moved more and more to Lightroom from PS, some until they were doing 95% of their work on Lightroom and just doing some of the more technical work to finish up on PS. Primarily the reason given seems to be speed and ease of use.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Wed 22-Jan-14 12:23 AM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#44. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 42


Richmond, US
          

> The photo of the monkey should have been a bit more contrasty ... Did you take this photo through the glass (window pane)?

Yes, it was some really thick stuff - probably three inches thick. As I noted in the first post, there wasn't any real choice.

> Well done job with the photo of a guitar player. But then again, maybe you should not have corrected it at all?

Fair question, although for the purposes of this thread, it was more important to show far one could go than to make any specific creative choice.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
RD9146 Registered since 07th Mar 2014Sun 16-Mar-14 12:58 AM
14 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#46. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 44


US
          

Boy did I learn a lot, getting back in to photography after about 30 years. Thanks Rick

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
vema Registered since 12th Apr 2014Mon 19-May-14 11:41 PM
9 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#47. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 46


CS
          

Recommendations. Every application I have image processing tools for editing photos all or part of the image.
Unlike the real photos of the parts. That part of the master.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Wed 21-May-14 10:30 PM
26590 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#48. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 47


Richmond, US
          

Sorry, I don't understand your question or comment.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

TerryMc Silver Member Nikonian since 25th Oct 2008Sat 05-Jul-14 12:30 AM
458 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#50. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0


Sagamore Hills, US
          

Just came across this thread. Very nice of you to take the time to help others.

Terry

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
OldCodger Registered since 15th Oct 2011Sun 06-Jul-14 12:17 PM
551 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#53. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 50


Sawbridgeworth Hertfordshire, GB
          

I agree with all of the positive comments. Since I started taking photographs a long time back, though perhaps not so long as one or two I was well steeped in the 'wet era'. I had my own colour lab and built some of the hardware to allow the creation of colour prints. Every image needed some work in those days, if only to get the negative turned into a positive with something like the right balance of factors. Now we can do this on the computer and many of the issues we had before can be sorted out in front of our eyes as we work. I have had to do a lot of work on faded old slides and negatives, removing dust, colour shifts, sometimes scratches and chemical stains. This series has been a great help to improve the structure of my processing.
To anyone who thinks that the colour shifts scratches and other damage should be preserved, sorry I do not agree. I am not falsifying the image, I am not trying to create what was never there, I am simply trying to preserve what I was attempting to capture up to 40 or more years ago.
Thank you for the hard work of putting this instruction set together.
Richard

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

boldventure Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Oct 2012Sun 20-Jul-14 12:52 PM
7 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#55. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 0
Sun 20-Jul-14 07:44 PM by boldventure

Rock Island, US
          

Wow! The power of post processing is awesome!
Last weekend I took my camera off of "Auto" pretty much for the first time. It showed me how much I have to learn.
What is the best avenue to learn what to do in post processing? When I look at a photo that I shot, I see that I need to make changes, but don't know what to change or where to begin. I will be using Corel PSP X6.
-Tim

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
JosephK Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Sun 20-Jul-14 02:42 PM
4203 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#56. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 55


Seattle, WA, US
          

If we are really talking about PaintShop Pro 5 by Jasc instead of PSP X5 (15) now by Corel, upgrading to the current version (16, X6) would be the first thing to do.

My PSP X6 workflow tends to look like this:
Input:
Straighten and crop
Input sharpen - I use FocusMagic plug-in, but unsharp mask does fine.
Histogram adjustment layer
Hue/Saturation adjustment layer
Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer
FillLight/Clarity adjustment layer
Save as PSP file.

Output:
Flatten the layers
Resize image
Output sharpen using unsharp mask
Save as JPG.


The post processing forum is good for processing questions.
The critique forum is good for asking about individual photos.

---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA

D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, TC20e3,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
boldventure Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Oct 2012Mon 21-Jul-14 01:04 PM
7 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#57. "RE: Post processing: what you can do, because sometimes you can't get it right..."
In response to Reply # 56


Rock Island, US
          

Thanks Joseph!
I upgraded to PSP X6 and printed out your suggestions. I'll start experimenting on some photos and see how it goes.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GENERAL FORUMS New to Photography (Public) topic #8529First topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.