editing

All posts tagged editing

Laundress Lane

Unedited original, D700, ISO200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, Nikkor 50mm

Yeah, I know… There are some pictures that everyone probably has taken. In that sense I’m a tourist like everyone else.
But then… In many ways I’m not just a tourist, so I probably tend to do things from a different angle (pun intended) than most of the people. So here’s the recipe:

  • 1 over-photographed street sign in Cambridge
  • Lightroom
  • appr. 5 cms crop (it doesn’t have to be that exact, but don’t overdo it!)
  • a pinch of exposure correction
  • two cups of fill light
  • 250 gr tone curve adjustments
  • Photoshop
  • a splash of HDR (two instances of the same image, with different highlight settings)
  • 1 tablespoon curves for good contrast
  • 1 teaspoon curves for over-all enlightenment
  • some cloning
  • add noise to taste
  • (and back into Lightroom) add some post-crop vignetting and split toning for seasoning
Laundress Lane

After 20 minutes in the oven...

Anyone who wants can have a piece of the pie. Prints available, prices depending on the size and material.
Inquiries via photos [that funny symbol here] arnoenzerink.com.

Awhile ago I wrote about how Adobe’s CS4 (and other products) are so stupidly over priced at this end of the world (compared to the US).
Well… There is an alternative now available for everyone.
The good people of Worth1000 have developed a software package that can do the same as Adobe’s -and more!- at a fraction of the price that Adobe wants for their stuff.

Aviary, by the makers of Worth1000 (image courtesy www.aviary.com)

Aviary, by the makers of Worth1000 (image courtesy www.aviary.com)

It contains, among others, photo editing software, vector / drawing / illustrator software, and 3D, and… and… and…
And the beauty of it is, that it all works in your browser. So anywhere where there’s an internet connection, you can use this. Isn’t that great?
You just have to go and take a look yourself.
Aviary is its name. Creativity is its game.

Ever since photo editing software saw the light of day the discussion has been going on whether or not post-processing is acceptable.
Many a “photographer” firmly believes that you’re not a good photographer if you can’t do “it” in-camera.
I think the whole discussion is too hilarious for words, if not even hypocrite.
I might not be the best person to get this discussion going, since I’ve been an avid Photoshopper (whooopsie! According to Photoshop’s Permission and Trademark Guidelines we’re not allowed to use Photoshop as a common noun or verb) ever since version 2, but what the heck… I’ll get it going anyway.

So… Why do I think it’s hilarious or even hypocrite?
Ansel Adams was a darkroom master. And he was a post-processing master. He dodged and burned the living daylights out of (or into?) his photographs.
Oh, but he used FILM! That’s different!
Yeah, right.

What about all those film photographers who pulled out their Velvia film, which was supposed to saturate the colors more?
The only thing that’s changed in the digital world is that we don’t pull out the Velvia film for extra saturation BEFORE shooting, but we go into Photoshop or Lightroom and do the saturation afterwards. And clean up some beans that got stuckon our sensor.

Oh, and all you photographers shooting JPG.
What do you think happens in-camera with the image when the data is processed into a JPG format? There’s a good amount of contrast added, a good amount of saturation, a good amount of sharpening.
But I guess that doesn’t count, because YOU’re not doing it, right?

I absolutely agree that editorial images should be untouched. That’s the golden rule.
But if you’re a landscape photographer, or any other kind of photographer…
Whatever it takes to make your images look good (just be careful not to overdo it) and makes them sell.
I’ve had discussions with people about this and even if I agree that you can’t make a good picture out of a bad picture, no matter how well you know Photoshop, you can enhance pictures.
If you get to know the possibilities of software like Photoshop, you learn to see potential in images that you didn’t see before. And you learn to create a unique style to your images if you’re going towards a more fine-artsie look.

And well… Be honest… Which one would YOU buy (if any)?

Before editing

Before editing

After editing

After editing

Or which one of these?

Before editing

Before editing

After editing

After editing

Note that these changes are all very minor changes. We’re not talking radical changes here, like one of my other creations:

Now this is Editing with a capital E. It some Photoshop knowledge and a peak in your other half's underwear drawer ;o)

Now this is Editing with a capital E. It requires some Photoshop knowledge and a peek in your other half's underwear drawer ;o) (source image courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox)

A screenshot of some of the Photoshop layers that were used to make this image

A screenshot of some of the Photoshop layers that were used to make this image (yeah, yeah, I know, not all the layers are named... ;o) )