Power of post processing

The curved horizon can be leveled in a few seconds using warp tools in PS (instead of the rotate tool which is not even applicable in this case). It's not hard.

That said, I am not sure if this is a great example of PP. The final image still lacks the punch. Also, did you use a polarizing filter during the original shot? It could have helped enhance the contrast to give you a better starting point for PP.

BR

I can also see significant vignetting (especially on the upper left corner). This is something you can easily address using the RAW tools provided by PS.

BR

Garlic is a nice ingredient to use to in cooking. But too much garlic is too much.

A complicated and expensive wine sauce to put on hamburger is inappropriate.

In photos, it is common to see sunsets with colors more red or vibrant than ever seen in real life. Just because PS allows you to do it does not necessarily make it a better shot. Was it Adams who said something like ... good execution of a bad idea, is still a bad shot?

FWIW

valis said:

Yes, but if you oversharpen edges, you will get halos around
everything that make it very clear that you oversharpened.
Regardless of how you do your sharpening, you need to take care not
to overdo it.

Click to expand...

my point is that you only need sharpen edges for an image to appear 'sharp' to the human eye

--
-----
Neil C

Thank you for the suggestions. I follow your reasoning. I am always looking for a way to improve my photography.

Also for the recommendation of new location to visit.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.

For example, right in the camera is exposing to the right. Right in the camera is lower contrast (preserving shadow and highlight detail). Right in the camera is no sharpening at all. That perserves the most information from the scene.

But if you do that, then you need to post process to get a less flat photo with the appropriate amount of sharpening for the medium you are presenting in, etc.

What you say sounds good. But in actuality, it doesn't lead to the best photos.

Now I'll grant that in some cases, all the post processing afterwards isn't worth the hassle and you might want to use some sharpening in camera, a higher contrast setting, etc. But it won't lead to the very best pictures the camera can take.

--

Please respect my copyright and do not repost my images. This includes edits that show possible improvements. I appreciate your thoughts and ideas but I want to retain control of how and when my images are seen. Thanks!

It is easier to blame the firmware than the wetware.

For a gallery of my photographs, see:
http://ratphoto.smugmug.com/

See my profile for my equipment

I get a few photos that are like that at times. Amazing what a few minutes of PP will do Well done.

CityLights said:

Framing an image to take full advantage of the sensor without
cropping is probably best. I am just stuck on that standard print
size. 6x4 is a standard print size that works well with the 3:2
aspect ratio, but I just haven't picked that up.

Click to expand...

interesting. perhaps your first picture only looked more natural when stretched because of the wide angle distortion. probably just a rare coincidence

i have not moved much into printing, yet. i have a 8x10 printed from a picture i took with my G2 (which is a 4:3 image that i didn't crop, but the distortion is not noticeable) and an 11x14 from my rebel that i cropped and resized for the print. both look beautiful.

i imagine that when i go to get some more of my shots printed (hopefully soon as i recently moved into my first apartment and am desperate for junk to hang on the walls!) i will start from scratch with the "negative" image and re-process them.

as for the web, i stick to a measly 1200x800. but i really do like the 3:2 ratio. it really does follow the rule of 3rds and i think super-amateurs (who dont' know much about cameras) are easily impressed by the aspect ratio different to what their camera records, almost like being amazed by a 16:9 television when you are used to a standard 4:3 set.

cheap trick, i know. but i like that ratio a lot for some reason.

CityLights said:

CityLights said:

2) that workflow seems very involved. duplicating layers numerous
times, when i wonder if i can get the same results using curves and
USM on just the background layer with a jpeg image...
my "workflow" - auto levels, if i don't like the result, curves,
crop (if desired), resize, USM, save as....

Click to expand...

My workflow was developed for photoshop elements. Elements does
not support curves. A good portion of the workflow (about 6 of the
layers) is to create the same thing you can do with curves, faster
and easier.

On the other hand, I have tried a couple programs with curves and
have not been able to get the same control as I do with my work
flow. Maybe it is just practice.

I also like to make the edits on different layers for control over
the strength of the effect by reducing the opacity.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.

Click to expand...

ah, i didn't know that. after writing my comments (not before, like the smart thing to do would be) i tried to follow your process, it seemed a little involved and hard to memorize but not at all difficult. i was unaware that elements did not have a curves function... i guess i am just lucky that i have a full version of photoshop left over from when i was the graphics editor for my college newspaper (not a big paper, not a big deal, but it had some perks)

anyway i took your original and tried to replicate your PP, i got close, and i did notice it was improved over what i did with the curves tool.

but on the other hand... curves is sooooo easy! i'll probably just stick with that...

After I replaced my kit lens with 17-70 sigma I was just amazed how much better everything looked. I did not need to do sharpening and color adjustment at all. With kit lens most of shots had to be post-processd. Without PP colors were dull and sharpness was cr@p. My advice - get a better lens, get circular polarizer and post-process only the select few. This way photography will be fun much longer.

CityLights said:

The first picture is processed from the RAW with as-shot setting
from the camera:

The second one is after processing:

Amazed by the difference? I swear the first one is untouched and
the second is only a 5 minute processing job.

Here's the basics of what I did, though I admit I pulled a couple
of other tricks too.

I took about 150 shots, I have a few up here, and will be posting
more as I get them processed:

Click to expand...

5 minutes per shot, 150 shots... more than 12 hours of processing. Maybe it is entertaining at first but after a few thousand shots it is not fun anymore. Unless someone is paying you money to do that,

Colliope said:

Colliope said:

Colliope said:

It's easy to get blown away by only looking at post processed images, and think that you totally blow at photographing

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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/

Click to expand...

man, i can;t agree with you more on this: if reality is nothing as good compared to the pp'ed pics we captured, are we better off just creating some gorgeous optical illusion using AUTOCAD/Maya (a word very true to its original meaning!) that taxes one's computer graphic skill to the extremes?

be honest, that's the impression i got when i first tried a Sony P&S DC quite a few years ago with its notorious super vibrant colors that turned an average state park into a scenic heaven.

on the other hand, perhaps one of the purposes of PP is to reveal the platonic ideal of a real scene (a place that SHOULD look under the best of best light)? that would serve the goal well--

--
Paul
Fiat Lux.

I like the workflow. But wondered.. after the part where you first flatten the image and move into the sharpening section.. what if at the end you want a bit more contrast / saturation.. do you then use then normal contrast function, or re-do the 3 duplicate layers at the beginning of the workflow?

Also, do you shoot in adobe color space? if so I presume you convert to sRGB at the end when you resize, etc for web posting.

I'm learning a lot and trying many new things!! thanks

caput said:

man, i can;t agree with you more on this: if reality is nothing as
good compared to the pp'ed pics we captured, are we better off just
creating some gorgeous optical illusion using AUTOCAD/Maya (a word
very true to its original meaning!) that taxes one's computer
graphic skill to the extremes?

be honest, that's the impression i got when i first tried a Sony
P&S DC quite a few years ago with its notorious super vibrant
colors that turned an average state park into a scenic heaven.

on the other hand, perhaps one of the purposes of PP is to reveal
the platonic ideal of a real scene (a place that SHOULD look under
the best of best light)? that would serve the goal well--

--
Paul
Fiat Lux.

Click to expand...

maybe that would be a good gallery theme. using post processing to make amazing sights in nature look dull and uninetersting. hah. or maybe not.

some good points though, never really thought of it.

personally i like my images OVER sharpened. there's something about the effects in the image that make it of LESS quality that give it more appeal to me... especially in an age where everyone and their mother has a digital camera, and everyone is taking pictures. all those compact digital cameras out there have algorithms to make their pictures look the best out of the camera. if mine looks WORSE, it looks DIFFERENT, and i'm kind of stiriving to be different here....

eh, that makes 100% sense in my mind...

AmateurOne said:

Garlic is a nice ingredient to use to in cooking. But too much
garlic is too much.

Click to expand...

One can never use too much garlic when cooking.

Roy.

Beautiful photo and post processing. The only thing I might do different would be to keep the sharpening away from the clouds (makes them look a bit overprocessed). The composition is great; I find that including some foreground elements makes the scale of landscape photos much more impressive.

You've done a great job.

jgb

CityLights said:

I was processing through my shots of the north rim of the grand
canyon and I thought I would post a before and after post
processing shot.

The first picture is processed from the RAW with as-shot setting
from the camera:



The second one is after processing:



Amazed by the difference? I swear the first one is untouched and
the second is only a 5 minute processing job.

Here's the basics of what I did, though I admit I pulled a couple
of other tricks too.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=18079744

I took about 150 shots, I have a few up here, and will be posting
more as I get them processed:

http://www.pbase.com/citylights/arizona

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.

Click to expand...

--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b

bikingradio said:

I can also see significant vignetting (especially on the upper left
corner). This is something you can easily address using the RAW
tools provided by PS.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I should look into fixing that. The only lens I have that vignetts is the canon 10-22mm EFS with a standard thickness polarizer. Usually I crop enough that it is not apparent.

Maybe I need to consider getting the slim line polarizer.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.

Artifact said:

My advice - get a better lens, get circular polarizer and
post-process only the select few. This way photography will be fun
much longer.

Click to expand...

Agree with everything except the lens part. This was taken with the canon 10-22mm EFS which is very good optically. I used a polarizer. I also took 150 shots and only post processed 20 of the best ones.

The first picture looks terrible because there was very little or no in camera processing. I saved all the processing to do manually in post process.

Even a picture taken with the very best L lens would look like that without in camera processing. (maybe I should try that and compare!)

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.

ohsuguy said:

I like the workflow. But wondered.. after the part where you first
flatten the image and move into the sharpening section.. what if at
the end you want a bit more contrast / saturation.. do you then use
then normal contrast function, or re-do the 3 duplicate layers at
the beginning of the workflow?

Click to expand...

If the remaining edit were minor, I might use the normal contrast or saturation adjustment layer. The 3 duplicate layers are just more powerful and flexible, but slower and more effort.

ohsuguy said:

Also, do you shoot in adobe color space? if so I presume you
convert to sRGB at the end when you resize, etc for web posting.

Click to expand...

My camera is set to sRGB. PSE3 is also set for sRGB. Most everything I do is on the web. There is a slight advantage in working in adobeRGB for printing... mostly I don't bother. Prints still look great.

ohsuguy said:

I'm learning a lot and trying many new things!! thanks

Click to expand...

Don't ever stop doing that...

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.

Thanks for the comments. I did run some sharpening on the whole picture after I downsized it for the web, including the clouds.

On the full size image, the only sharpening I ran on the clouds was USM 20, 60, 0, to increase local contrast. Then I sharpened only the ground with regular USM.

I appreciate the comments on the composition. The composition was criticized earlier in this thread. I agree with you though, my biggest problem with grand canyon pictures is the sense of scale. I purposely included the trail and reflection points to add scale to the massive canyon. I purposely included the close rock for added depth and forground.

Thanks again!

jgb said:

Beautiful photo and post processing. The only thing I might do
different would be to keep the sharpening away from the clouds
(makes them look a bit overprocessed). The composition is great; I
find that including some foreground elements makes the scale of
landscape photos much more impressive.

You've done a great job.

jgb said:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=18079744

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_portraits
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorite_animals
.

Citylights,
Another idea 'to make' you shoot a better photo is to use a smaller
card while shooting RAW.

Sort of like making the best of each film exposure before just clicking away.
Max 24 or 36 exposures per roll type of thing.

Digital can make folks real lazy, even when shooting RAW
and with "BIG" fast digi-film.

Jay.
==========================

CityLights said:

CityLights said:

Also, something else which ocurred to me is that people naturally
only post the best shots to the forum so for every amazing shot
that is seen here, there are 1000s of duds behind it!!!

Click to expand...

Another good point. You are exactly right. I shot over 150
pictures while I was there. When I got home, I reviewed and
deleted about 50 for obvious problems.

About 20 of them are decent and will get post processed. Really
only about 5 are any good and those will get printed.

So my "real" keeper rate for that shoot was about 5/150 = 3%!

Oh, it is digital, so I wasn't behing as careful with each shot as
I should have. I probably took a whole bunch of picutures just for
play. I can tell you, if I was shooting film I might have shot 48
pictures total and I would hope, with the same 5 keepers.

--
CityLights

Click to expand...

I'm currently reading this book:

Landscape and Nature Photography with PS CS2

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471786195/sr=8-1/qid=1153967252/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9468050-2325558?ie=UTF8

It's pretty good so far so and at this point I'd recommend it. I've already learned some great new techniques. In fact I used these techniques to make this photo: