post-processing

All posts tagged post-processing

A suitable door is all it takes.
Before:

 

Door before metamorphosis

D700, ISO200, 1/125 sec @ f/4, Nikkor 50mm

Oh, and of course a tad bit of Photoshop:

Screenshot Photoshop

Screenshot Photoshop, what you can’t see: the Hue/Saturation layer is set to blend mode Overlay.

Which then results in:

The door after post-processing

The door after post-processing

Following up on yesterday’s post I have another phone booth (enough of those around the country, obviously 😉 ). Without a distracting old lady in the frame we can now entirely focus on the booth. So: Color, weathered old style or toned black and white?

Classic phone booth

D700, ISO200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, Nikkor 70-200mm

Classic phone booth

D700, ISO200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, Nikkor 70-200mm, some Lightroom post-processing

Classic phone booth

D700, ISO200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, Nikkor 70-200mm, some Photoshop post-processing

After the second post about cross-processing I thought I’d make second post about HDR to even things out. So here goes. Victim this time was the old church in Uusikaupunki, Finland.

No auto-bracketing or anything, just two straight-forward exposures. One for the church, one for the sky. Manually merged in Photoshop (CS3). I’ve never been too impressed with the auto-merge in Photoshop. Just upgraded my system to CS5 and I have yet to test those features there (I’ve heard they’ve improved a lot, so I’m curious to give that a go).

Old Church in Uusikaupunki

Left: D700, ISO800, 1/350 sec @ f/13, Nikkor 50mm. Right: D700, ISO800, 1/1500 sec @ f/13, Nikkor 50mm.

Old church in Uusikaupunki

The above two images merged in Photoshop CS3. Levels, curves, contrast and saturation adjusted.

See there’s no halo around the church (sure, go ahead, click image to enlarge)? That’s one of those typical things you see when HDR exposures are merged together automatically using software. It’s one of the reasons why I prefer to do things manually (still). Then you’re sure that things are looking more natural, and if you HAVE to cheat, you decide where you cheat and how you cheat. Of course I’m cheating. Do you really think I’m masking around branches and leaves in the trees? Of course not. I cheat. But I make sure you don’t see it, unless I want you to see it 😉

in which words don’t need any place…

D200, ISO100, 1/8 sec @ f/16, Tamron 90mm macro

D200, ISO100, 1/8 sec @ f/16, Tamron 90mm macro

D200, ISO100, 1/8 sec @ f/16, Tamron 90mm macro

D200, ISO100, 1/8 sec @ f/16, Tamron 90mm macro

D200, ISO100, 1/8 sec @ f/16, Tamron 90mm macro

D200, ISO100, 1/8 sec @ f/16, Tamron 90mm macro

D200, ISO100, 1/10 sec - 1/15 sec - 1/30 sec @ f/16, Sigma 10-20mm, HDR post-processing in Photoshop

D200, ISO100, 1/10 sec - 1/15 sec - 1/30 sec @ f/16, Sigma 10-20mm, HDR post-processing in Photoshop

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) )