Power of post processing

Deep thoughts there. I understand your point and will leave it at that.

Cheers!
"It is a sin to make more efficient, that which should not be done
at all." -- Peter Drucker (famous management consultant)

As a general comment, a lot of shots I see posted on the web are
"over-cooked" in the processing. So over done in the processing
that they take on a circus effect. Folks get carried away goosing
this setting or that.

The darkroom has always been important and always will. But the
power of PS et al has not always made for a better photograph.

My $.02
--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.
 
Before I read your entire post, I thought that the top one was your "post" picture and the bottom was your "pre" picture...I was about to congratulate you on making it much more dramatic looking, except for losing the detail in the rocks. Then I read about how you brought out the detail in the rocks, and I was confused...

FInally, I read back and realized my mistake. :) I still like the original more, though. You did a good job on the rocks and the foreground waves, but the sky in the original really pops a lot more than the brighter sky you have in the new version.

--
Conglomoreum is dead! Long live Conglomoreum!
http://www.artistlies.com
 
Thanks,

Yes, I didn't mean too be rude, moreso I meant I have seen many finer images in your great galleries...

Using the warming filters on selection is great - could work especially well on all your great images of canyons and red rock.

You can almost 'fake' sunlight hitting abjects with a little levels brightening and a warming filter
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/56011988@N00/
 
Interesting - obviously I would have to disagree :)

I found the original sky too dark and heavy, I recropped it so the sunspot was larger rather than brightening too much...

Its allways good to see how people like different looks,
Thanks
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/56011988@N00/
 
Maybe shooting a pic in RAW + JPG and posting the camera's original JPG version, the edited version of that JPG, and the edited/converted from RAW version would illustrate the powers of RAW without any confusion over workflow and what an image started out as.

C

--
Website: http://colliope.com
Gallery: http://colliope.com/cpg143/
 
Excellent response - it is a 3 stage process.

I learnt with film, and still like to use filters whereever I can because I like to get it right in camera - PP just adds to that.

The simple fact is digital sensors or fil often don't reproduce life the way our eye does.

Is using a ND Grad 'cheating'??. No - it just assists the limitiations of the sensor to better reproduce nature.

Is sharpening and image 'cheating' no, our tiny sensors can't resolve as much detail as our eye...

And if I can make a good image very good by a bit of PP, i'll do it everytime.

--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/56011988@N00/
 
Those are some great shots. Getting good people photographs is a
goal of mine. Landscapes come natural to me, people do not.
Thanks! They are definitely different skill sets. I'm working on my landscapes, because people at art shows don't buy photos of hot models. :)

OTOH, models are an awful lot of fun to shoot.
You are getting good results from lightroom.
I've been playing with it for about two months now. I keep learning new things, so clearly there's room to grow.

I can appreciate the
RAW processing power of lightroom. I have need for more editing
power. Light room would only be a first step, then I must go to a
full editor.
For some things, that will always be necessary. But I suspect you could get 90% of the way there with this image in Lightroom.
In this particular picture, the forground rock was way too bright,
how do you adjust the exposure on that in lightroom without dimming
the remaining highlights?
If you selected just the rock with the lasso or another tool, there is no equivalent. But there is a very powerful tool in Lightroom for adjusting highlights, midtones and shadows.
I selectively burned the sky to make it more dramatic, how do you
optimize the exposure of one part of the picture without effecting
the remaining in lightroom?
Without access to your RAW file, I can't know for certain. But it wouldn't surprise me if I could come awful close to your results with lightroom alone. I'm not asking you to send me your file, though. I know I, for one, don't like giving those out.
I used USM 20, 40, 0 as a clarifying step to remove the haze.
Lightroom?
I've found that most of the different sharpening techniques just reinvent the wheel. It has a decent sharpening tool that gives you enough control for the vast majority of photos. I've seen way too many oversharpened photos since digital photography went mainstream.
I used a two layer selective sharpening on the forground USM and
High Pass, but not the background and sky. Lightroom?
Does DPP do this? Bibble? Aperture? Does any RAW workflow tool do it? It's a bit like asking if a Porsche can tow a boat. Different tools for different jobs.
Lightroom is a fast and powerful RAW development tool, but I need
the remaining editing tools.
Yes, and it's not meant to replace Photoshop for the images you want to put extra work into. It's for the 99% that you don't, but you still want to look great.
 
It's easy to get blown away by only looking at post processed images, and think that you totally blow at photographing :)
Oh boy, I totally agree. Plus, You look at a landscape calendar for instance and then go out to take some pics and think, where is all the colorful scenery? Is my world just darker and drabber than where other people live? Where is the vibrant green grass and brilliant blue skies, etc, etc...?

I had just returned from a trip to the West Rim of the Grand Canyon when I started reading here, and came across a post of a shot from the West Rim. The Canyon walls were beautiful warm reds, the thin sliver of winding water that could be seen at the bottom was rich green, the sky was glorious blue. And I'm thinking to myself, that is a beautiful image, but it's not what I saw in real life.

I have nothing against PP'ing, I believe in making the difference between good & better or crummy & great, but it sure can warp the perception of reality. Had I gone to the GC AFTER seeing that pic, I would have been sorely dissappointed in how dull the scenery appeared compared to what I would have been expecting from viewing that pic.

C

--
Website: http://colliope.com
Gallery: http://colliope.com/cpg143/
 
You look at a landscape calendar for
instance and then go out to take some pics and think, where is all
the colorful scenery? Is my world just darker and drabber than
where other people live? Where is the vibrant green grass and
brilliant blue skies, etc, etc...?

I have nothing against PP'ing, I believe in making the difference
between good & better or crummy & great, but it sure can warp the
perception of reality. Had I gone to the GC AFTER seeing that pic,
I would have been sorely dissappointed in how dull the scenery
appeared compared to what I would have been expecting from
viewing that pic.
Not to take away from what you said, because I agree, but I have been really surprised in landscape photography over just how much can depend on the light and other conditions. Almost nothing looks good or vibrant under a harsh noon sun, but that same area in the early morning light after a rain shower can look sooo different. So like most of photography, even shooting good landscapes can depend on not just being at the right place, but being there at just the right time.

Best regards...

-Garrett
 
Yes, I didn't mean too be rude, moreso I meant I have seen many
finer images in your great galleries...
No problem. I just finished editing everything I am going to from that shoot. The last thing I did was look through those and question "Do I want to add any of these to my favorites?" Nope, not up to par. Still it was a fun place to visit. If I make it back at sunrise next time, with the air sparkling clear...
Using the warming filters on selection is great - could work
especially well on all your great images of canyons and red rock.
You can almost 'fake' sunlight hitting abjects with a little levels
brightening and a warming filter
Painting with light! I have done some of that. It takes an artistic touch to make it look good. I have trouble with that.

Cheers!

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.
 
So like most of photography, even shooting good landscapes can
depend on not just being at the right place, but being there at
just the right time.
I totally agree! I have shot this identical picture on 20 different occasions. (Fortunately it is close to my house.)

This one is "the" success because it was early morning light right after a spring storm... I have not seen it as good before or since!

http://www.pbase.com/citylights/image/42524815

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.
 
To me, no amount of PP here makes up for basically a lousy photo. Why waste even 5 minutes on it.
regards - tom
 
To me, no amount of PP here makes up for basically a lousy photo.
Why waste even 5 minutes on it.
Ouch. You have very high standards. Maybe I can learn something.

I know I can return at a better time of day or year to take a better photograph. But on the day I went, this was what was available.

Can you elaborate on why it is a lousy photo and how I could have taken it better? Were you refering to the technical aspects of the picture? To composition?

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.
 
Composition. The huge rock outcropping at bottom, the green tree in the middle of the pathway. The rest of the picture just doesn't interest me. You've down about as well as can be considering the lighting and perspective. But sometimes, of some things, you simply can not get a really interesting photo. It's ok for a vacation snap shot album. The Grand Canyon is stunning in real life and getting your feeling of it into a photo of it is very difficult. If you haven't read-up on landscape photography, do so. It will start you thinking about what needs to be in the picture.

Having said all that, I have been to the Canyon probably 10 times over the last 30 years. And, I have only one photo of it (from the north rim) that I think conveys a little of its majesty. The last time I was there I took maybe 5 photos. (Just showing some visitors around the Western US). The lighting and my locations/perspective just wasn't happening.

I'll tell you a more overall interesting canyon to see and photograph is Canyon de Chelly in eastern Arizona.
regards - tom
 
First sentence should read-

Composition. The huge rock outcropping at bottom, the green tree in the middle of the pathway - is very distracting and blocks the picture.
regards - tom
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top