Straight out of the camera vs. photoshop, have questions!

bmxmon · Sep 8, 2009

Here are two pictures (the same image) from an airshow I attended awhile ago. The PP is a huge improvement I believe. My question is, why? Was it due to my white balance or something out of my hands? Really I'm more concerned with just the "dark cast" straight out of the camera. (I just shoot .jpg, I hate converting)

In photoshop I did a auto levels, then slightly adjusted the curves, making a slight "S" bend. I also dodged the wings slightly. My monitors are Samsung SyncMaster 933bw, not calibrated. Any ideas/comments welcome.

These were taken with a K20D and a Sigma DC 55-200 lens, aperture priority. I set the white balance at the beginning of the show. These pictures were taken early on. I got a bunch of really good photos, took over 700! (I figure with that many the odds were on my side!) The airshow was a lot of fun to shoot, this plane in particular. Thanks! Alex N

Not edited

Edited

Lance B · Sep 8, 2009

Can't see the second image.
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

Wanganuilad · Sep 8, 2009

I prefer the first one though it is a little dim.
Pete

bmxmon · Sep 8, 2009

Really? Weird, I can. Here is a link that hopefully will work, thanks!

'] http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii166/bmxmon/Fargo Airshow 09/K20D0311-edited-shrunk.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

omer_s · Sep 8, 2009

No second image and the url, even after correction, doesn't work

Helmut_S · Sep 8, 2009

the second one has proper black/white points set, like the clouds have real whites, vs. light grays in the original. the wings look much better dodged, as the color comes out as the eye would see it. no mystery here...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/helmutsteinwender/

sfa1966 · Sep 8, 2009

I like the sky in [2], but I prefer the plane in [1]. The vapor trail in [2] also looks a bit too dim compared to the rest of the scene.
--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

olivier52 · Sep 8, 2009

As others already said, PPed version cannot be seen.

Anyway, may I suggest as PP a B&W square crop with strong contrast ? Maybe a strongly but not totally desaturated pic would work better than B&W...

I am no expert, just share my feeling after viewing your shot!

Enjoy,

Olivier

Lance B · Sep 8, 2009

bmxmon said:
Really? Weird, I can. Here is a link that hopefully will work, thanks!

Still can't see either image. :-(

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

bmxmon · Sep 9, 2009

I'm not sure why some can/can't see it! I noticed I can see it fine with Firefox but not with Internet Explorer.

Here it is again, see if it works better being in its own post.

I like the second picture (The one in this post) better, but what I am wondering is why they are so different. I understand what levels do in photoshop. Would the original picture have came out "clearer" if I had re-white balanced?

Anyway I appreciate the comments!

bmxmon · Sep 9, 2009

Here is the same edited picture I just uploaded to a different part of photobucket. I hope this will work for everyone!

omer_s · Sep 9, 2009

bmxmon said:
I'm not sure why some can/can't see it! I noticed I can see it fine with Firefox but not with Internet Explorer.

If YOU can't see it with internet explorer then there might be some problem no ?
Chrome, older firefox, and IE no good. Firefox says image contains errors.

bmxmon said:
Here it is again, see if it works better being in its own post.

I like the second picture (The one in this post) better, but what I am wondering is why they are so different. I understand what levels do in photoshop. Would the original picture have came out "clearer" if I had re-white balanced?

Anyway I appreciate the comments!

steelski · Sep 9, 2009

Ok, I have some tips for you.

At a plane show, you should try some tricks

use the Sunny 16 rule. that is,

On a sunny day the exposure should be F16 at x=speed/x=iso
or more simply F16 at Iso 100 and 100th of a second.
F16 at Iso 200 and 200th of a second.
The amount of light is the same in both!

You shot at F11 Iso 100 and 1/250th of a second. the perfect sunny 16 rule would have been F11 Iso 100 and 1/200th

Basically when you know that on a sunny day you get consistent exposures, it would be great to go all manual!!! Maybee that day I would have used F11 Iso 200 and 1/400th of a second..... or maybe 1/320th with the 200% dynamic range enabled.

check the camera histogram and have the blown highlights on preview option on to tell you if the exposure is too much or too little.

steelski · Sep 9, 2009

I can see everything in Opera 10.00, the latest firefox, and can download the image in chrome. But no can do in IE 7 . I wonder about IE 8.

omer_s said:
bmxmon said:

I'm not sure why some can/can't see it! I noticed I can see it fine with Firefox but not with Internet Explorer.

Click to expand...

If YOU can't see it with internet explorer then there might be some problem no ?
Chrome, older firefox, and IE no good. Firefox says image contains errors.

omer_s said:

Here it is again, see if it works better being in its own post.

I like the second picture (The one in this post) better, but what I am wondering is why they are so different. I understand what levels do in photoshop. Would the original picture have came out "clearer" if I had re-white balanced?

Anyway I appreciate the comments!

Click to expand...

omer_s · Sep 9, 2009

OK I can download it (but not view) in chrome. But it comes out in weird colours, orange/brown skies etc.

Don't want to turn this to a "why can't I see the image proper" thread so I'm dropping it.

[Edit - only picassa shows it strange, irfan view shows it ok at last ! - It looks like the image is just better "streched" over internsity scale. also white balance...]

Omer.

steelski said:
I can see everything in Opera 10.00, the latest firefox, and can download the image in chrome. But no can do in IE 7 . I wonder about IE 8.

omer_s said:

bmxmon said:

I'm not sure why some can/can't see it! I noticed I can see it fine with Firefox but not with Internet Explorer.

Click to expand...

If YOU can't see it with internet explorer then there might be some problem no ?
Chrome, older firefox, and IE no good. Firefox says image contains errors.

steelski said:

Here it is again, see if it works better being in its own post.

I like the second picture (The one in this post) better, but what I am wondering is why they are so different. I understand what levels do in photoshop. Would the original picture have came out "clearer" if I had re-white balanced?

Anyway I appreciate the comments!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

timo · Sep 9, 2009

steelski said:
I can see everything in Opera 10.00, the latest firefox, and can download the image in chrome. But no can do in IE 7 . I wonder about IE 8.

All the links are visible in Safari (Mac).

Isn't the first shot a matter of underexposure such as the camera is liable to do when you point it at the sky? Taking shots of planes often involves a bit of positive exposure compensation, similar to shots on snow or beaches.

I don't think this is the camera's 'fault'.

Tim

pcarfan · Sep 9, 2009

The second image is better, except for the bright blue body of the plane, looks over saturated (this is form a guy who likes to oversaturate). The sky is spectacular and so very dull in the first, even the wings of the plane a better in the second.

jpeg rendering is based on what the camera is set to. Adjusting contrast (s curves) and balancing the levels (levels, in-camera is just the best gustimate I believe)....so, nothing really beats PP. Even better of you start out with the RAW files. Images like these are worth the time in PP, if you want to get the best.

I am suing Mozilla Firefox and all images are visible.
--

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=2323984&subSubSection=0&language=EN

K10D, K-7
Pentax Primes: DA21/3.2, F28/2.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, F135/2.8
Sigma Zooms: Sigma 10-20, Sigma 100-300 F4

'Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow! What a ride!'

miles500 · Sep 9, 2009

What about this version processed using the light equaliser function in ACDSee Pro?

--
Miles500

james laubscher · Sep 9, 2009

Now that one lfrom ACDsee looks really nice - clouds, sky and plane body look balanced in brightness relative to each other.

The original shot looks a lot like many of my shots look of bright sky.

This type of shot will always benefit from PP - local contrast enhancement I think helps to adjust colour and some saturation compensates for the washed out sky look.

--
jamesza

Brad99 · Sep 9, 2009

At air shows I take a few digital preview shots of the sky with the highlight flasher on, vary the exposure comp in multi segnent metering mode until clouds slightly blow out, then knock it back 1/3EV and shoot RAW at those settings unless the light changes. +1.3EV is quite typical, and if there were no clouds that's what I would use (K100D).

Straight out of the camera vs. photoshop, have questions!

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Member

Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts