Must I edit RAW images?

It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.

All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).
Software is improving Year over Year. So why not have the best possible data saved, RAW, which one can view an or output very easily without much processing. Unless one doesn't want to spend a dime on the storage by comparison.
Some people would prefer to take new photos, instead of spending time going back to re-process old photos.

But this is a matter of personal preference, and the needs of your situation.

If you are taking photos of your kids growing up, you may enjoy going back and improving older photos that you took when they were younger.

If you are an event photographer, there may never be a need or desire to go back and reprocess images from years ago.

.

Storage is not always trivial. I've had days where we have had grueling shoots of models in swimwear for online web sales. We have about 2 to 4 minutes for each product to shoot the model in multiple views for the Amazon listing. We use two models, so one can change while the other is being shot. We shoot in high resolution as some of the shots will be used in printed catalogs. We can easily generate over 100GB of raw files in a single day. I have no desire to go back and rework images from this sort of shoot. Storing and keeping track of all those images costs a bot more than a dime.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with keeping all your raw files. I am merely suggesting that different photographers are in different situations and have different needs. Some photographers really don't need to store every image forever.
Spend a dime by comparison is an expression. I closely follow the cost of storage and I would say for most, it's really not that expensive. I tried to keep it simple as opposed to muddying the waters and trying to address every single case usage.

I can shoot well over 10GB of raw data in less than an hour in my normal early morning walkabouts . But I don't get paid a dime for doing so. So folks actually getting paid, might be able to actually find time to keep and store, everything. If that's what they actually want to do. Of course, your mileage may vary.
Absolutely. Different people have different needs. Personally, I save everything. But that's more a personality quirk. I readily admit that I can't make a rational reason for saving everything, other than It makes me happier. Truthfully, I really do prefer to work on new images than old image. I think that over the years I have gotten better with framing composition, etc.

As someone who saves everything, I can tell you that there can be a little more to it than just buying some low cost disk drives.

In addition to storing the images, I need a system to keep track of the images. It's doesn't do much good to keep an image if I can't find it when I need it.

Next is the realization that all storage media fails. Therefore I need to keep multiple copies. Furthermore, I need to transfer archived images from old media to new media as technologies become obsolete. At this point, I can no longer access anything that I have stored on Syquest cartridges, or even SCSI disk drives. Those multiple copies are kept in different locations, to minimize the chances that a single incident takes out all the copies.

When keeping multiple copies, I need a system to keep all the copies in sync.

All of this takes time and effort. The tools to make this easier cost money.

If you don't enjoy maintaining your archives, you might prefer spending that time doing something that you do enjoy, or something that directly generates revenue.
 
It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.

All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).
Software is improving Year over Year. So why not have the best possible data saved, RAW, which one can view an or output very easily without much processing. Unless one doesn't want to spend a dime on the storage by comparison.
Some people would prefer to take new photos, instead of spending time going back to re-process old photos.

But this is a matter of personal preference, and the needs of your situation.

If you are taking photos of your kids growing up, you may enjoy going back and improving older photos that you took when they were younger.

If you are an event photographer, there may never be a need or desire to go back and reprocess images from years ago.

.

Storage is not always trivial. I've had days where we have had grueling shoots of models in swimwear for online web sales. We have about 2 to 4 minutes for each product to shoot the model in multiple views for the Amazon listing. We use two models, so one can change while the other is being shot. We shoot in high resolution as some of the shots will be used in printed catalogs. We can easily generate over 100GB of raw files in a single day. I have no desire to go back and rework images from this sort of shoot. Storing and keeping track of all those images costs a bot more than a dime.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with keeping all your raw files. I am merely suggesting that different photographers are in different situations and have different needs. Some photographers really don't need to store every image forever.
Spend a dime by comparison is an expression. I closely follow the cost of storage and I would say for most, it's really not that expensive. I tried to keep it simple as opposed to muddying the waters and trying to address every single case usage.

I can shoot well over 10GB of raw data in less than an hour in my normal early morning walkabouts . But I don't get paid a dime for doing so. So folks actually getting paid, might be able to actually find time to keep and store, everything. If that's what they actually want to do. Of course, your mileage may vary.
Absolutely. Different people have different needs. Personally, I save everything. But that's more a personality quirk. I readily admit that I can't make a rational reason for saving everything, other than It makes me happier. Truthfully, I really do prefer to work on new images than old image. I think that over the years I have gotten better with framing composition, etc.

As someone who saves everything, I can tell you that there can be a little more to it than just buying some low cost disk drives.

In addition to storing the images, I need a system to keep track of the images. It's doesn't do much good to keep an image if I can't find it when I need it.

Next is the realization that all storage media fails. Therefore I need to keep multiple copies. Furthermore, I need to transfer archived images from old media to new media as technologies become obsolete. At this point, I can no longer access anything that I have stored on Syquest cartridges, or even SCSI disk drives. Those multiple copies are kept in different locations, to minimize the chances that a single incident takes out all the copies.

When keeping multiple copies, I need a system to keep all the copies in sync.

All of this takes time and effort. The tools to make this easier cost money.

If you don't enjoy maintaining your archives, you might prefer spending that time doing something that you do enjoy, or something that directly generates revenue.
expression: "you are talking the choir"

If you say that someone is preaching to the choir, you mean that they are presenting an argument or opinion to people who already agree with it.

Initially, I save most if not almost all of my files to my Sony playmemories software which is on several Computers. So the dates are all taken care off. Often times, I won't even delete the data from my Memory Cards. So I am usually spending way more money then I I should. But I will delete files, straight from those cards recently after shooting, culling the obvious bad ones. So basically at that point, I already have two backups.

So at this point, I can always go back in History and store an entire folder by date or an select files from a given date. It takes little time to go through files via screen through the Sony app. At least for me. So it's more about wrist soreness and or eye soreness, more than anything else. When I make a folder, I try to put similar things in it plus a name that indicate such.

Then in another case of spending more than I should, I usually save those files/folders to Flashdrives which are far most costly per GB than almost any external Hard Drive. For instance, try pricing an 256GB flash drive as compared to an 2TB external Hard Drive. Because I still don't trust external hard drives, nearly as much. So I could do my backups, far cheaper.

Then as some point, I create an best of. This is my hobby. So I actually Enjoy going back an history and looking at the Marvels of Nature. I really don't do much in the way of people and or building. But I do love CARS.
 
It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.

All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).
Software is improving Year over Year. So why not have the best possible data saved, RAW, which one can view an or output very easily without much processing. Unless one doesn't want to spend a dime on the storage by comparison.
Some people would prefer to take new photos, instead of spending time going back to re-process old photos.

But this is a matter of personal preference, and the needs of your situation.

If you are taking photos of your kids growing up, you may enjoy going back and improving older photos that you took when they were younger.

If you are an event photographer, there may never be a need or desire to go back and reprocess images from years ago.

.

Storage is not always trivial. I've had days where we have had grueling shoots of models in swimwear for online web sales. We have about 2 to 4 minutes for each product to shoot the model in multiple views for the Amazon listing. We use two models, so one can change while the other is being shot. We shoot in high resolution as some of the shots will be used in printed catalogs. We can easily generate over 100GB of raw files in a single day. I have no desire to go back and rework images from this sort of shoot. Storing and keeping track of all those images costs a bot more than a dime.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with keeping all your raw files. I am merely suggesting that different photographers are in different situations and have different needs. Some photographers really don't need to store every image forever.
Micheal, NOBODY is talking about what you are describing.

You're basically having a knee-jerk reaction to what some have said including me. WHAT you do with your work photos is up to you. I don't think anybody had work photos in mind. If I do a model shoot and shoot 500 images I usually cull out 2-3 hundred and erase them...., gone forever. Of those, for myself I might process 3 and store as many as 6 or 7 on my computer drive or off computer drive. Those I keep because I feel they have portfolio potential. I would never revisit the other hundred or so. In fact if they have not been requested in a couple of years I delete them entirely, I have no use for them.

I did recently redo one from 5 years ago. It was always a favorite but it had a lot of problems with the backdrop. My skills have improved to the point that I could make it printable.I would cull your 100 GB down to 10 photos and store those. the rest would either be stored by someone else or they would be deep six'd!

John
 
Micheal, NOBODY is talking about what you are describing.
What he wrote seems quite reasonable and pertinent to me.
It may be pertinent to you but shooting 100 GB of the same shot over and over and over...., for work, is not pertinent to very many! For one there is NO ART involved which is why most of us shoot. And sometimes we revisit a favorite shot after we improve to eek out a bit more of the processing out of it.

IF taking 100GB of swimsuits, taking 2 minutes to shoot each change pertains to you, there's nothing wrong with that but the chances that it would pertain to many others is probably a long shot but that's just my opinion.

When I revisit a shot, maybe years later, that's not them!!!

John
 
It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.

All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).
Software is improving Year over Year. So why not have the best possible data saved, RAW, which one can view an or output very easily without much processing. Unless one doesn't want to spend a dime on the storage by comparison.
Some people would prefer to take new photos, instead of spending time going back to re-process old photos.

But this is a matter of personal preference, and the needs of your situation.

If you are taking photos of your kids growing up, you may enjoy going back and improving older photos that you took when they were younger.

If you are an event photographer, there may never be a need or desire to go back and reprocess images from years ago.

.

Storage is not always trivial. I've had days where we have had grueling shoots of models in swimwear for online web sales. We have about 2 to 4 minutes for each product to shoot the model in multiple views for the Amazon listing. We use two models, so one can change while the other is being shot. We shoot in high resolution as some of the shots will be used in printed catalogs. We can easily generate over 100GB of raw files in a single day. I have no desire to go back and rework images from this sort of shoot. Storing and keeping track of all those images costs a bot more than a dime.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with keeping all your raw files. I am merely suggesting that different photographers are in different situations and have different needs. Some photographers really don't need to store every image forever.
Micheal, NOBODY is talking about what you are describing.

You're basically having a knee-jerk reaction to what some have said including me. WHAT you do with your work photos is up to you. I don't think anybody had work photos in mind. If I do a model shoot and shoot 500 images I usually cull out 2-3 hundred and erase them...., gone forever. Of those, for myself I might process 3 and store as many as 6 or 7 on my computer drive or off computer drive. Those I keep because I feel they have portfolio potential. I would never revisit the other hundred or so. In fact if they have not been requested in a couple of years I delete them entirely, I have no use for them.

I did recently redo one from 5 years ago. It was always a favorite but it had a lot of problems with the backdrop. My skills have improved to the point that I could make it printable.I would cull your 100 GB down to 10 photos and store those. the rest would either be stored by someone else or they would be deep six'd!

John
There is a wide variety of photographers, and a wide variety in what we shoot.

Consider someone who primarily shoots landscapes in order to create art. They may be of the mind to capture an image and continually work on it over the years to incrementally improve the image. Or they may move on, and spend their time an effort working on new captures. Neither is right, and neither is wrong. It's all a matter of style and what you want to do. Consider George Lucas who has repeatedly gone back and reworked the original Star Wars movie. He has not only added characters, and additional scenes, he even changed the title. Of course some directors don't continually revisit old work, and move on to new work.

Someone who exclusively shoots images of his family, may very well want to save everything. I might want to re-work a baby picture of my kid for display at his wedding.

There's nothing wrong with going back and using new editing skills to improve old images. Of course, there is also nothing wrong with using new editing skills to improve new photos. If you can rework an old mediocre photo to make it great, imagine what you can do with a new photo (I assume, that like most, you photographic skills imrpove over time).

Again, it all boils down to the individual photographer. Some will never need to rework old images, some will spend a lot of time and effort in exactly that.
 
Micheal, NOBODY is talking about what you are describing.
What he wrote seems quite reasonable and pertinent to me.
It may be pertinent to you but shooting 100 GB of the same shot over and over and over...., for work, is not pertinent to very many! For one there is NO ART involved which is why most of us shoot. And sometimes we revisit a favorite shot after we improve to eek out a bit more of the processing out of it.

IF taking 100GB of swimsuits, taking 2 minutes to shoot each change pertains to you, there's nothing wrong with that but the chances that it would pertain to many others is probably a long shot but that's just my opinion.

When I revisit a shot, maybe years later, that's not them!!!

John
Whether or not it's art isn't the issue. They can be great swimsuit images, but I don't need hundreds of them, no matter how good they are.

You are correct that most here probably don't have days where they generate a 100GB of images. But I suspect that most here do have days where they do something out of the ordinary.

As to whether or not most people are here to shoot "art", I wouldn't be so sure. I suspect a lot of people shoot to make memories. Some to document their life and family. Some shoot because it's fun. And let's not forget the guys who shoot as an excuse to see scantily clad ladies.

Even those that do shoot art may prefer to create new work, rather than re-visiting old work. I have a lot of artists in my family. Looking back, the style of their paintings have changed over the years. They generally have little desire to go back and revisit old work.

From a commercial perspective, prints can have more value if they are a limited edition. You can actually increase the value of art by destroying all of the digital files.

Then again, those creating art in an effort to be commercially successful, may be a minority of those here. But those looking to document their family may also be a minority. My guess (and I could be wrong) is that there is enough variation in photographers here, that you would have a hard time coming up with a useful category that includes most.
 
It's good that you have discovered editing, but are you sure about this photo?
Ha. No!
Would you like me to try editing one or two of the photos?
WOW, Sure!! That's so nice of you to offer - Thank you! How about these? I saved both of these unedited to jpg with PS (is it 'saved' or 'processed'?); or would you want the raw files?

No edits, no crop, no resize, just saved to jpg with PS at Quality 12 / Maximum
No edits, no crop, no resize, just saved to jpg with PS at Quality 12 / Maximum

No edits, no crop, no resize, just saved to jpg with PS at Quality 12 / Maximum
No edits, no crop, no resize, just saved to jpg with PS at Quality 12 / Maximum

THANK YOU, again! 😎🤜🤛
 
Last edited:
Would you like me to try editing one or two of the photos?
WOW, Sure!! That's so nice of you to offer...
Here you go. First your original version.
Zero editing of the raw file, no healing, nothing, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. One thing that does bother me is that the red looks somewhat orange-y. The car is a very red, maybe a little lighter than blood red, in person.
Zero editing of the raw file, no healing, nothing, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. One thing that does bother me is that the red looks somewhat orange-y. The car is a very red, maybe a little lighter than blood red, in person.
Here's what I did with it. I started with your original jpeg version. All adjustments are fairly small, so it was easy. I took my time to make sure I liked it, but it still took 9 min., 41 sec. with Gimp.

This isn't a definitive version. It's just a hint what you can do if you like these changes. To view them, click on "Original size", and put each picture in a separate browser tab. Then you can switch between them instantly.

I made separate adjustments in three separate areas: body, racing stripe, and front wheel. The rear wheel is unchanged. I did it the easy way with global changes to three separate layers, using a custom curve, but it could also be done with dodging and burning. Since the histogram was completely filled, I did not change white or black levels. Gimp has a very nice brightness curve tool, and the adjustments I made were very simple and easy.

I applied a slight S curve to the body area, increasing the contrast. This made the red a bit richer. I think it also makes it look a little brighter, and it may reduce the slight orange tint that you mentioned. I further burned the midtones a little in the area of the racing stripe. Most of the front wheel area was white or nearly white, so I increased the contrast there, pulling the curve down to darken the nonwhite areas. The rear wheel is unchanged. I created three separate layers to do this, then used a soft brush to make parts of two of the layers transparent, so the underlying area would show through. That's an easy way of making separate adjustments in different areas, and it was easy to blend the layers smoothly in this case.

1. Contrast increased in car body; white stripe area midtones burned; 2. Contrast increased (mostly darkened) in front wheel; 3. Rear tire not changed. White and black levels not changed.
1. Contrast increased in car body; white stripe area midtones burned; 2. Contrast increased (mostly darkened) in front wheel; 3. Rear tire not changed. White and black levels not changed.

Here's version 2. I took a moment to darken the driveway, exactly like the front wheel. That is to say, I used the same layer as the front wheel.

Version 2. Same as version 1, but driveway was darkened (contrast increased), using the same layer as the front wheel.
Version 2. Same as version 1, but driveway was darkened (contrast increased), using the same layer as the front wheel.
 
Last edited:
Here you go. First your original version.
Zero editing of the raw file, no healing, nothing, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. One thing that does bother me is that the red looks somewhat orange-y. The car is a very red, maybe a little lighter than blood red, in person.
Zero editing of the raw file, no healing, nothing, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. One thing that does bother me is that the red looks somewhat orange-y. The car is a very red, maybe a little lighter than blood red, in person.
Here's what I did with it. I started with your original jpeg version. All adjustments are fairly small, so it was easy. I took my time to make sure I liked it, but it still took 9 min., 41 sec. with Gimp.

This isn't a definitive version. It's just a hint what you can do if you like these changes. To view them, click on "Original size", and put each picture in a separate browser tab. Then you can switch between them instantly.

I made separate adjustments in three separate areas: body, racing stripe, and front wheel. The rear wheel is unchanged. I did it the easy way with global changes to three separate layers, using a custom curve, but it could also be done with dodging and burning. Since the histogram was completely filled, I did not change white or black levels. Gimp has a very nice brightness curve tool, and the adjustments I made were very simple and easy.

I applied a slight S curve to the body area, increasing the contrast. This made the red a bit richer. I think it also makes it look a little brighter, and it may reduce the slight orange tint that you mentioned. I further burned the midtones a little in the area of the racing stripe. Most of the front wheel area was white or nearly white, so I increased the contrast there, pulling the curve down to darken the nonwhite areas. The rear wheel is unchanged. I created three separate layers to do this, then used a soft brush to make parts of two of the layers transparent, so the underlying area would show through. That's an easy way of making separate adjustments in different areas, and it was easy to blend the layers smoothly in this case.

1. Contrast increased in car body; white stripe area midtones burned; 2. Contrast increased (mostly darkened) in front wheel; 3. Rear tire not changed. White and black levels not changed.
1. Contrast increased in car body; white stripe area midtones burned; 2. Contrast increased (mostly darkened) in front wheel; 3. Rear tire not changed. White and black levels not changed.

Here's version 2. I took a moment to darken the driveway, exactly like the front wheel. That is to say, I used the same layer as the front wheel.

Version 2. Same as version 1, but driveway was darkened (contrast increased), using the same layer as the front wheel.
Version 2. Same as version 1, but driveway was darkened (contrast increased), using the same layer as the front wheel.
Wow! Beauty! Now I see that my orig looks kinda flat and lifeless. I really like how you reduced the garage door reflection in the car door, and the color is def richer. I do think I prefer your 1st edit. which looks brighter overall, as the 2nd one with the darker concrete makes the overall image look a little dark ... even tho the darker concrete might be more accurate. THANKS! You've def given me some ideas 👍 Not nearly as sophisticated as your edit, but would you be willing to comment on my try?

Orig.
Orig.

In PS, Contrast +5, Highlights +5, Shadows +40, Saturation +7, all applied to the entire image. (apparently I'm already gaining a scrutinizing eye: now I'm distracted by the expansion joint in the driveway 🙈 ... and the dead branch at upper-right 😫)
In PS, Contrast +5, Highlights +5, Shadows +40, Saturation +7, all applied to the entire image. (apparently I'm already gaining a scrutinizing eye: now I'm distracted by the expansion joint in the driveway 🙈 ... and the dead branch at upper-right 😫)

BTW, part of my issue is that the images need to be taken right here on my driveway as shown and/or in my garage, because the car has only 351 miles on it, so driving it to a better location could be very expensive as I'm sure most people know that adding miles generally devalues collector cars. And I don't have a trailer for it. That said, I could prob rent a trailer, if you all think this environment is poor enough that a change is needed ... ?
 
Last edited:
BTW, part of my issue is that the images need to be taken right here on my driveway as shown and/or in my garage, because the car has only 351 miles on it, so driving it to a better location could be very expensive as I'm sure most people know that adding miles generally devalues collector cars. And I don't have a trailer for it. That said, I could prob rent a trailer, if you all think this environment is poor enough that a change is needed ... ?
Looks good! I can see that you like to show the details of the undercarriage. For those who don't understand, that's one of the reasons why we edit photos.

I'll show you a little of what I did. I used Gimp, but PS should work in a similar way. Here is the color adjustment tool in Gimp. (It's called that, but it can be used to adjust composite brightness, as here.) It's a beautifully designed tool that allows complete and easy global control of the brightness values. I clicked on three spots on the body, to show you the brightness values on the histogram. I marked three spots with dots and a line. On the left is about the darkest spot on the body, on the bottom of the rear fender. On the right is one of the bright reflections. The vertical line show the deep red near the top of the rear fender.

From left to right, the three dots on the straight-line curve show brightness of: underside of fender; top rear of fender; reflection on fender.
From left to right, the three dots on the straight-line curve show brightness of: underside of fender; top rear of fender; reflection on fender.

Here is the approximate (recreated) adjustment I made to the body. The split screen shows the effects of the adjustment. The curve is a little steeper in the middle portion. That darkened the dark areas a little and brightened the reflections. In so doing it increased the contrast in the red paint, and made it look a little richer. (I'm sure it really is a rich red paint!.)

The split screen shows before and after adjustments; the vertical line on the picture is moveable. Oooh! Aaah!

Adjustments that were applied to the body
Adjustments that were applied to the body

Here is the recreated adjustment I applied to the front wheel, and later to the driveway. I needed a fairly strong adjustment to the bright areas to show nice detail in the wheel, while still maintaining bright highlights.

Adjustments to the front wheel and driveway
Adjustments to the front wheel and driveway

I also did a little burning to the midtones around the racing stripes and logo. That isn't shown here, but it darkened the red a little in that area.

I'll just leave you with some suggestions on some basic skills to learn. These are the bread and butter of photo editing, and they aren't difficult to learn.

I already showed you the brightness and contrast changes I made. Next, you need the skill to apply these brightness and contrast selective to selective parts of the image. You may want changes in one part of the image but not another. You need to be selective, and you need the skill to blend your changes without visible artifacts.

First, dodging and burning is the classic technique in photo processing. You wave a fuzzy brush around parts of the image to darken or lighten parts of the image. With digital processing you have your choice of the image range to operate on. You can also choose the size and shape of the brush, fuzziness of the edges, and strength of the operation.

Second, uaw of layers is a beautiful and very useful tool to learn. Basic use is not difficult, but of course you have to learn what some of those inscrutable symbols mean. Here is the Gimp layer tool. I created three layers of your car image, then made some crazy edits to the two lower layers. Then I created layer masks and spray painted parts of the masks black, to create fuzzy windows to the layers below.

Gimp layer tool, showing three layers of the same image. Some crazy adjustments were made to the lower layers. I painted parts of the white layer masks to create windows so parts of the lower layers can be seen.
Gimp layer tool, showing three layers of the same image. Some crazy adjustments were made to the lower layers. I painted parts of the white layer masks to create windows so parts of the lower layers can be seen.

Good luck with your editing. I'll leave you to it.
 
Last edited:
OK! I'm getting the idea! On this one I learned that my driveway is sloped a lot more than I realized:

Orig.
Orig.

Contrast +5, Highlights +5, Shadows +40, Saturation +7, healed some concrete blems, rotated CCW until house is plumb/level and cropped off the black part of the driveway. So for the next shoot I'll orient the car 90 degs which is the direction the driveway is level, and woods will be the background like the rear image of the car.
Contrast +5, Highlights +5, Shadows +40, Saturation +7, healed some concrete blems, rotated CCW until house is plumb/level and cropped off the black part of the driveway. So for the next shoot I'll orient the car 90 degs which is the direction the driveway is level, and woods will be the background like the rear image of the car.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention. The expansion joint would be very easy to remove with a clone tool, in the lit part of the driveway, but hard to remove underneath by the wheel.

The expansion joint would be very easy to remove with a clone tool if the joint ran through the middle of the car.

So, add the clone tool to the list of skills to learn. It's very easy to use.
 
BTW, part of my issue is that the images need to be taken right here on my driveway as shown and/or in my garage, because the car has only 351 miles on it, so driving it to a better location could be very expensive as I'm sure most people know that adding miles generally devalues collector cars. And I don't have a trailer for it. That said, I could prob rent a trailer, if you all think this environment is poor enough that a change is needed ... ?
Looks good! I can see that you like to show the details of the undercarriage. For those who don't understand, that's one of the reasons why we edit photos.

I'll show you a little of what I did. I used Gimp, but PS should work in a similar way. Here is the color adjustment tool in Gimp. (It's called that, but it can be used to adjust composite brightness, as here.) It's a beautifully designed tool that allows complete and easy global control of the brightness values. I clicked on three spots on the body, to show you the brightness values on the histogram. I marked three spots with dots and a line. On the left is about the darkest spot on the body, on the bottom of the rear fender. On the right is one of the bright reflections. The vertical line show the deep red near the top of the rear fender.

From left to right, the three dots on the straight-line curve show brightness of: underside of fender; top rear of fender; reflection on fender.
From left to right, the three dots on the straight-line curve show brightness of: underside of fender; top rear of fender; reflection on fender.

Here is the approximate (recreated) adjustment I made to the body. The split screen shows the effects of the adjustment. The curve is a little steeper in the middle portion. That darkened the dark areas a little and brightened the reflections. In so doing it increased the contrast in the red paint, and made it look a little richer. (I'm sure it really is a rich red paint!.)

The split screen shows before and after adjustments; the vertical line on the picture is moveable. Oooh! Aaah!

Adjustments that were applied to the body
Adjustments that were applied to the body

Here is the recreated adjustment I applied to the front wheel, and later to the driveway. I needed a fairly strong adjustment to the bright areas to show nice detail in the wheel, while still maintaining bright highlights.

Adjustments to the front wheel and driveway
Adjustments to the front wheel and driveway

I also did a little burning to the midtones around the racing stripes and logo. That isn't shown here, but it darkened the red a little in that area.

I'll just leave you with some suggestions on some basic skills to learn. These are the bread and butter of photo editing, and they aren't difficult to learn.

I already showed you the brightness and contrast changes I made. Next, you need the skill to apply these brightness and contrast selective to selective parts of the image. You may want changes in one part of the image but not another. You need to be selective, and you need the skill to blend your changes without visible artifacts.

First, dodging and burning is the classic technique in photo processing. You wave a fuzzy brush around parts of the image to darken or lighten parts of the image. With digital processing you have your choice of the image range to operate on. You can also choose the size and shape of the brush, fuzziness of the edges, and strength of the operation.

Second, uaw of layers is a beautiful and very useful tool to learn. Basic use is not difficult, but of course you have to learn what some of those inscrutable symbols mean. Here is the Gimp layer tool. I created three layers of your car image, then made some crazy edits to the two lower layers. Then I created layer masks and spray painted parts of the masks black, to create fuzzy windows to the layers below.

Gimp layer tool, showing three layers of the same image. Some crazy adjustments were made to the lower layers. I painted parts of the white layer masks to create windows so parts of the lower layers can be seen.
Gimp layer tool, showing three layers of the same image. Some crazy adjustments were made to the lower layers. I painted parts of the white layer masks to create windows so parts of the lower layers can be seen.

Good luck with your editing. I'll leave you to it.
If you're going to do this kind of thing processing for editing is a good idea.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
 
BTW, part of my issue is that the images need to be taken right here on my driveway as shown and/or in my garage, because the car has only 351 miles on it, so driving it to a better location could be very expensive as I'm sure most people know that adding miles generally devalues collector cars. And I don't have a trailer for it. That said, I could prob rent a trailer, if you all think this environment is poor enough that a change is needed ... ?
Looks good! I can see that you like to show the details of the undercarriage. For those who don't understand, that's one of the reasons why we edit photos.
Yeah, I feel like buyers will want to see the condition of as much as much of the car as possible, without over-exposing it to where the images look bad.
 
I just discovered I had front and back of the car reversed. So "front wheel" = back wheel, etc. Maybe the descriptions will make more sense now.
 
If you're going to do this kind of thing processing for editing is a good idea.
Oh boy, I dunno what that means. Searching for it now, tho. Tks.
I think that I talked about it up the top of the thread. What it means is processing your raw file to produce an output file that's good for editing, rather than viewing. So, when you process you set the white balance, use a really low black point, a high white point and a linear tone curve. Save it to a wide data format such as 16-bit or 32-bit floating point TIFF. It's kind of the stills equivalent of a video 'log' file. It'll look to grey and uncontrasty to the eye, but it means that you haven't lost any (or maybe much) raw information. Then you're going to set the white, black points and tone curve in the editor. It's a bit of a faff for normal use, but if you're using different layers it gives you much more flexibility with each of the layers. Whilst a lot of raw processing tools offer some 'editing' functions they rarely offer as much as a tool like the Gimp or Photoshop. Typically they don't have layers and all the paraphernalia that goes with them
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top