Photoshop postprocessing

Then shoot with the camera's Sharpening set to +2, and use Picasa2, a simple but effective organizing/processing program that is free and allows you to process a lot of photos very quickly in a "batch" mode (which Photoshop Elements does not have). I use that with things like party pictures where ultimate quality is not required. The reason I recommend the camera's +2 sharpening is because the one thing picase doesn't do well is sharpen. (It has only one setting, and it's too strong. Canon's in-camera sharpening is actually more subtle.)

Bob

As far as I understand batch processing means applying the same processing parameters (contrast, sharpness, hue, etc) to many pictures at once, so it's a time saving technique. But then I think that each photograph has its own specific adjustments and very seldom you can find an optimal set of parameters that are equal to all pictures taken (or at least to a large subset of them). Am I right?

You're right, but it's a tradeoff between quality and time/effort. If you want maximum quality for each picture, then processing should be individual for each picture or for group of pictures taken under similar conditions, e.g., studio lighting. However, if you want pictures that are more than good enough for emailing, putting on a web site for viewing, or making small prints, then picasa does a fine job in a fraction of the time. There's an auto setting they call "I'm feeling lucky" that adjusts the exposure and color, and most of the time it does an excellent job. The original file is not changed, so that if you later decide to do more elaborate processing in Photoshop you can still do it without any degradation of the original file.

Bob

Do what you like.

As for me, I write scripts.

I first open raw files 10-20 at a clip, adjust in CS2, and discard any turds.

I touch up the image then execute a script which goes through a sharpening dialog and stacks a sharpened image on a new layer then adds curves and levels adjusment layers. I save these as tiffs.

Once I am happy with the Tiff's I then execute a script to save them their final format as either a tiff or large/max quality jpeg.
--
My cat's breath smells like cat food

if you look at some pictures in my site ...the deer is the only canon 20D that has any post processing ..(and very very little) the moose, trees and pumpkins are out of the camera. I have lots of shots that look great out of the camera. (at least I think so) ...the bugs frog and church and tour guide were taken with a hp945

http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox

Colors are more vivid in the 2nd pic due to higher saturation. But then comes the question: which of the two is closer to "reality"?. Maybe the first one is more real, even though the 2nd one might look "nicer".

Very nice pictures Luke. Pictures out of the camera look much better than I thought!

thanks

when I first got my 20D I thought that I may have made a mistake. It is more demanding to get nice pictures rigth out of the camera (as opposed to a piont and shoot) but more and more I see the difference and I am very happy with the 20D.

these are not my best pictures ....I don't want them to end up on dubiaeyes ( ..hahahaha. I don't know if you were following that thread)

but I should add that I generally shoot with the saturation and sharpness up by one increment. and I have three lenses and the L lenses seem more consistantly sharp. (17-40L, 70-200f4L, and the 28-135IS USM)

http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox

RD SPEAR:
I like the first one out of the camera much better. More natural.
The post process looks a little phony to me.

I actually went back and reprocessed that one, it was a touch overdone.

But I'm not out as a journalist or to publish a documentary - aesthetically pleasing is kind of the whole point to me.

Aside from saturation, these cameras are well know for backing off on sharpness with the anti-aliasing filter. Some sharpening improves just about every shot, IMHO.

I agree

Apart from sharpening and cropping, what are the objectives of post processing? From these contributions, it seems that some people want to post process to obtain their ideal picture even if it was not there when the exposure was made. Others only want to adjust to obtain more or less what they saw when they took the picture and I guess this is why there are a range of comments on how much post processing is needed.

So what do you try and do and why? True representation or ideal image?

Ian

My choice is true representation rather than ideal image.

alegator said:

Say I purchase the Canon 20D. I read that you have to post process
with Photoshop, for example sharpness, etc. Say I go on a trip, I
take 400 pics...then I have to spend hours post processing those
pics?? What's the deal?

Click to expand...

I have my post processing down to between 20 and 30 seconds per image. So if you ever spend more than 30 seconds looking at an image, youhave time to do whatever postprocessing you want. You just have to postprocess engouh images to get proficient at it.

Typically, though, you really do want to make the colors look right and touch up the exposure. Once you have 1000 images under your belt, you can do all of this in the 20-30 seconds per image. If you have a set of images that all want the 'same' adjustments, then you can be looking at 10-15 seconds per image.

--
Mitch

Really no difference than the hours you would spend in a "wet" darkroom getting the best from your images...in fact, much less time consuming. Same objectives - the best image possible - just a different workflow.

--
Keep chasing the light!

John

that when you dropped off film at the processors that they did some tweaking of your images for you. To get the best from your digital images, you need to some of that tweaking.
--
Juli
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
Canon 2oD, Canon Gee3, and Canon S7o.

I keep trying to find an artist's eye in the B & H catalog

I first learnt wet processing with my father 50 or so years ago and I have adjusted several thousand images in Photoshop but the question remains, when we adjust images what are we trying to achieve? Is it the best image possible, perhaps considerably changed from the actual scene, or the image that is most true to the original circumstances? Possibly it is somewhere between these two, if so how much change do we allow ourselves?

There are different views which is why some people say that the 20D does not need much postprocessing and others say it needs quite a lot. The two different approaches are quite evident in pictures that are displayed on this forum!!

Ian

alegator said:

Say I purchase the Canon 20D. I read that you have to post process
with Photoshop, for example sharpness, etc. Say I go on a trip, I
take 400 pics...then I have to spend hours post processing those
pics?? What's the deal?

Click to expand...

You have all freedom to do whatever you feel like, and many different toys or options to chose.

1. If you don't want to spend hours making the photos look pleasing to your eyes, then just don't do anything.

2. If you want to spend less time processing then you too have several options to choose.

a. Using better glass with help a little

b. Knowing how the cemera, lense, flash etc. work to help taking better photo.

c. Or learning to master Photoshop to cut down the processing time.

Me, I had and still have similar problem you and most others have. In order to reduce the processing time (1) I have learned to be more careful when taking the photo (2) I spend more time learning Photoshop and still reading tips and tricks from other Photoshop members to help myself getting around the problem (3) I have learned the limitation I know Photoshop to not try so hard something I am not very good at.

Example, on photo doesn't need to correct all the small thing I may spend 1-3 minutes, on the close-up and especially for large print then I may have to spend 30-60+ minutes to work on scar, aged or damaged skin, replacing background etc..

And if I can't turn a badly damaged photo into a perfect one, then I may turn into art if want to save for something

Luke Kukovica said:

thanks

when I first got my 20D I thought that I may have made a mistake.
It is more demanding to get nice pictures rigth out of the camera
(as opposed to a piont and shoot) but more and more I see the
difference and I am very happy with the 20D.

these are not my best pictures ....I don't want them to end up on
dubiaeyes ( ..hahahaha. I don't know if you were following that
thread)

but I should add that I generally shoot with the saturation and
sharpness up by one increment. and I have three lenses and the L
lenses seem more consistantly sharp. (17-40L, 70-200f4L, and the
28-135IS USM)

http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox

Click to expand...

Me, I have finally become a better Photoshop user every since I got Canon 20D. The color skin, the white balance, underexplose and so on drove me banana for months. I am still not very happy with the quality or how 20D works, but at least I know Photoshop better than before to be able to get around the problem.

It might solve some of your frustrations.
--
Juli
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
Canon 2oD, Canon Gee3, and Canon S7o.

I keep trying to find an artist's eye in the B & H catalog