Post processing post

[Brettus]

Alright, I've got an idea thanks to Richie's daily pictures. Everyone processes their pictures differently (and each result is as right as any other) I thought it'd be interesting to post up a picture I've processed and post up the RAW file so anyone who feels like it can have a play with it and show how THEY would process the file.

Here is a quick example of what sparked the idea, Richie had a picture of Durham (I think it was) castle and it had a lot of yellow street lights, personally I remove as much as possible:
http://i.imgur.com/XUHrFzt.jpg
But it is a very much personal choice.

So, here goes my chosen image to see how you lot might process it:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m0m9r5e3m3fmmcs/IMG_0545.dng
and it looks like this: (before processing)
http://i.imgur.com/yzK6WUz.jpg

I'll post up how I did it later in the week if some others want to play along.

Feel free to post your own RAW files to see what others do with them BTW.

[Richie]

My attempt...

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/459/heot.jpg

[mister c]

Mines later at night ;) I'm not too good at this post processing malarky. I did try HDR, but it looked pants :(
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y177/croozenooze/IMG_0545_zps5644c850.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/croozenooze/media/IMG_0545_zps5644c850.jpg.html)

[Brettus]

Nice work on both counts! It is amazing how much detail is there but isn't readily shown in images. For those unsure, this isn't colouring in the image, it is just pulling out the elements you want to show, they have all been captured in the RAW format.

When you take a picture with a digital camera and just get the normal JPG image out of it, it has applied a "default" processing to the image, balanced to give the best results in most conditions. RAW lets you choose how to apply that process (it also means you have to do the work which isn't insignificant) if you have a DSLR then I'd advise shooting RAW+jpg so that if you (or the camera) screw a shot up, RAW can sometimes mean you can salvage something.


Anyway, back onto the two that have been done, I love the vibrant colours and how the whites stand out Richie. Mister_C, that is a really nice one, I was shooting to get a silhouette at the time but didn't want to miss out on the details of the structure (even if I didn't necessarily use them later), this one was a half way image, details in the structure but blown out sky for the most part too. I think I tried HDR myself for this one thinking it'd work well.

MOST of my HDR ones don't work out, haven't quite got the eye for it. I often shoot bracketed though just to hedge my bets :) I've got loads of panoramic series of shots I've taken but rarely use too, no harm in shooting them at the time. I'm just rubbish at throwing them away LOL.

I'm off to bed shortly as I'm beat but I'll post up what my final one looked like tomorrow.

[mister c]

Cheers Brett.
I use a program called Photomatix Pro to do my HDR, like I said, I'm no good at this processing lark, so anything to make life easy I'll use it. I use Photoshop to change the exposure of a RAW image, save about 9 exposures, then let Photomatix do all the work :) I get shots like this
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5327/8857475580_066b045070_b.jpg

[Brettus]

Nice work! I use the same program :) I try and shoot the different exposures whilst there as if your default exposure doesn't have much sky then you can't always pull it back from a single shot (although it does mean you don't ever have camera shake in between shots to align I guess)

I might also shoot myself in the foot as I only tend to shoot 3 exposures for any HDR, might give it a go using more.

Oh, before I forget, here was my processed shot of this scene:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8540/8608740559_6e9def609c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brettnet/8608740559)

Pretty mid way between the two posted to be honest. Anyone else got one for us to try?

[Richie]

see what you can do with this..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rljj0j8mmhy58q6/075.JPG

[mister c]

I might just have a play with that one later Richie.

Here's one of mine
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3vgofmd0pbpzql1/CRW_8276.CRW

[Brettus]

Have you got a RAW version of that shot Richie? processing jpgs is possible but most information is lost :(

[Brettus]

OK I had a go with Col's shot, decided to go heavy on the tweaks as it'd likely produce something that you hadn't gone for.
http://i.imgur.com/ChguccO.jpg
Looks a little "Brothers Grimm"-like to me.

I opted to crop a good portion of sky out as there was little of interest to be pulled back, the branches became more defined but the weight of that expanse of light colour distracted me. (I really don't mean to sound as pretentious as that sounds, I'm only trying to explain my thinking) There is now a rather dark area drawing the eye off to the left but I perceive that as adding to the mystery a little, if I were to bring that area up it wouldn't be as good, cropping wasn't an option as it'd put the house back in the dead center and the stone in the foreground works really well. I miss getting something like that in the foreground most of the time, I really need to work on spotting them (especially with my wide angle now, it needs a strong subject to keep it from being just a busy expanse of image)

I'd tried a monochrome conversion of the image too but no matter what colour balance I couldn't get the house to stand out sufficiently from the natural stone, in colour that works much better.

[Richie]

RAW = huh what is it good for ? sorry I'm dyslexic :)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/82qq56w67fggno6/075.CR2

[Richie]

here my version.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5636/rhfq.jpg

[mister c]

here my version.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5636/rhfq.jpg
Wow, that's vivid :) Like it though. It's a really good thread this, as you can see how other people perceive a picture.
This was how mine originally turned out
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y177/croozenooze/27CRW_8276_zps2435bb1a.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/croozenooze/media/27CRW_8276_zps2435bb1a.jpg.html)

[Brettus]

That is a very nice rendition Richie! pulled a lot more back into the sky too.
I'm guessing you HDR'd it?
Downloaded your RAW and having a play now :)

[Richie]

Brettus your wrong - no HDR

I used a mask and overlay and a gradient filter :) and a filter plugin called Topaz Labs (Topaz clarity)

[Brettus]

OK, thought I'd go a little arty with this one, I didn't think the candle got the attention it deserved so I threw probably way too many effects at it to give a surrealistic spotlight:
http://i.imgur.com/T0YOilh.png

I didn't want to adjust the crop (apart from the bright sunlit pew in the bottom) as the arch makes such a nice shape, the background was just a little too distracting for me so I tried to mute it without looking excessive.
I resisted the urge to clarity the crap out of it too and pushed the slider the other way to soften everything to give a more ethereal feel.

I really like the shot though, I'm usually too self conscious to go into anywhere religious so I usually only get shots from the outside.

[Brettus]

Brettus your wrong - no HDR

I used a mask and overlay and a gradient filter :) and a filter plugin called Topaz Labs (Topaz clarity)

ooh get you Mr Smarty Pants :) very cool, might have to look that up. I've still not gotten my head around masks. suppose it is because I use lightroom mostly so it either doesn't allow such detail or it does it very simply. I'll practise photoshop more some time though and I might have to bend your ear a time or two with silly questions :D

[DarrenSV650S]

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a519/PistachioNut99/123123123_zps863a1316.jpg

[Richie]

nice sky work :)

[mister c]

I ran the same type of thing as Brett, trying to focus on the candle, but tried it in B&W. The image wouldn't open in Photoshop, so tried using Lightroom. I don't like it at all :(
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y177/croozenooze/075_zps653273f8.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/croozenooze/media/075_zps653273f8.jpg.html)

[Richie]

lol MrC...

Cheers Brett was trying to get the candle myself... but was ushered out of the church too quickly.


ok my interpretation of it... could still do with some work.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1513/acnp.jpg

[Berlin]

This is why I've stopped entering the monthly photo(shop) competition :-(

[Brettus]

This is why I've stopped entering the monthly photo(shop) competition :-(

:-( fair point I guess but I'm pretty sure that a lot of the winners are from "normal" cameras or at least not so heavily modified.

I'll check the hall of fame to validate my theory though.

Personally, despite this thread showing the extremes of what CAN be done, I firmly believe good pictures are taken with anything. a DSLR just captures more information which means you can make more of your shots acceptable.

[mister c]

This is why I've stopped entering the monthly photo(shop) competition :-(
Most of my pictures are "on the fly" what you see is what I took. I don't like processing any of my pics, but can see why people do, some of the effects are stunning.

[Sir Trev]

Most of my pictures are "on the fly" what you see is what I took. I don't like processing any of my pics, but can see why people do, some of the effects are stunning.

Same for me. Mine is just a compact so don't have the RAW data to play with. Might crop a bit but that's it for me. Prefer to enjoy may day out snapping instead of spending ages behind a screen afterwards. Fair play to those that have flair for it though - some of the results are cracking.

[Richie]

the photo comp rules state if you photoshop your image then you must state what you did to the image.

I'll be handing in my notice at the end of Decembers comp (due to work commitments)

[Berlin]

Exactly Richie, you are allowed to basically photoshop the hell out of anything you take as long as you put "I'm good at photoshopping" under it. I realise it can make some stunning images ( love the stuff you post), but then its no longer a photography competition.

I used to spend hours and hours waiting for a great shot, with just the right light, and just the right time of day to get my entry. I usually took 4 or 5 for the month and posted the best one. So about 20 hours, and I'm entering against someone who can point a camera at pretty much anything, at any time, and spend 20 minutes turning it into a masterpiece in a computer.

But hey, its just a fun competition and I'm not bitter, I'm actually happy to have a few extra hours to go fishing :-) and if I happen to be in the right place at the right time I still might have something to enter. :-)

[Brettus]

hmm, tricky internal debate here (when I say internal I'm about to make it external as I'm thinking as I type), I sympathise with Berlin and hate when things turn exclusive but I'm not sure how you'd keep the playing field level practically anyway.

I take the point that it could be unfair to post edited ones against non-edited but I also counter that editing a picture doesn't automatically make it better than a good shot, remember a while back we had a stunning image posted by a new member inside a church, HDR and reflections, looked great but it didn't win as people didn't like it because it was TOO good and too fake.

The voting helps keep it to what is liked but still entries that are modified win (I've obviously won a couple of times on edited images, notably the HDRs but I'd like to think I haven't duped anyone into voting for me) I have my own limits for editing (I won't composite different shots being the main one, HDR is exposures of the same shot IMHO) but given that the line is different for everyone it obviously isn't fair.

Thing is, if I went and opted to only shoot JPG for entries here I'd then turn my camera onto vivid setting and my image would look heightened against a default setting shot, is that still fair?

I appreciate this is a ramble, I'm not arguing any one point (I think) I'm just exploring the grey area between.

As much as I like processing my images and making them the best they can be (I can't CREATE a good picture with all the tweaks I do, I can only enhance what is there and captured) I try and make every topic I suggest to be as inclusive as possible so I'd like to think I'm not elitist with my stuff but I can't escape your point about making a normal picture look more than it started out as.

One point to make re the time invested in getting a good shot, I might edit my images up but I also plan for a whole lot of time or just invest it whilst out getting the pictures (like the 5hrs driving through Wales in the dark on Friday night looking for clear sky) and the countless hours spent on google maps dropping to streetview to find an ideal location that bluemarble.de's light pollution map shows would be in an unpolluted area or finding a subject to shoot and using suncalc.net to find out when would be best to get a sunset or sunrise at that site then checking weatherspark.com to see what the outlook is for said site. Then, assuming I've found a place and the forecast looks good, getting there and hoping the weather is something like suggested.
I can't step outside my front door, snap a pic and make it look awesome, you have to have the subject matter, composition and weather conditions for most shots (studio and other indoor ones notwithstanding)

I guess the only solution for the org photo competition (IF indeed someone else takes over when Richie can't herd us cats anymore) is to revert to JPG processing only (as in, in camera stuff only) as we can't get everyone to have and use photoshop or other image processing stuff.

I'd still get to post my tarted up images in the dedicated posts and if I want to compete on a level playing field I could go submit my pictures to places where everyone DOES have photoshop but I guess the reason I don't is I have the distinct feeling I wouldn't measure up and I'd feel hard done to when I couldn't compete (funny that eh? guess I have come to a conclusion which side I'm on of this debate after all)

aaaaand I should go to bed, night all :)

PS, would you come back to the photo competition if the field was leveled Berlin?

[Brettus]

Ooh, while I'm at it, anyone care to have a go with this one? Can't remember what it is now but I uploaded it to dropbox and the tab was still open.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5gj29wa2a378zik/IMG_8960.dng

[mister c]

Here you go. Messed about with the whole image in PS, then lightened the sign as a jpg.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y177/croozenooze/IMG_8960_zpse09da14a.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/croozenooze/media/IMG_8960_zpse09da14a.jpg.html)

[fenjer]

This is why I've stopped entering the monthly photo(shop) competition :-(

I was just thinking the same - I dont do anything to the photo's I post.

:(

[dirtyred619]

I don't do anything to the pictures when I put an entry in every now and then, but that's mainly because at the moment I can only do very basic edits to my pictures, which will hopefully change.

I don't think anything needs to be changed about the competion. As long as people state any and all processing that they've applied, whatever that might be, then that should be enough. If somebody likes a shot but chooses that they won't vote for it as it's HDR or whatever then that is their choice. Or at least when it comes to the voting stage, if you don't already, give your reasons or concerns for why you chose a certain picture and if there's enough of a concensus that something needs to be changed then take it from there from those comments.

[Richie]

one from early sunday morning - HDR 3 bracketed photos together.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7309/11177466864_e3fc3ba354_b.jpg

[dirtyred619]

What software would you guys suggest to someone who is a beginner at photo editing? Something that does a good job but is fairly easy to get to grips with. And obviously as cheap as possible!

[Richie]

Have a look Here (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6648389507/10-photo-editing-programs-that-arent-photoshop):)

[Viney]

This is why I've stopped entering the monthly photo(shop) competition :-(

In all honesty, there isnt much that is done to most photos that you can not do in Windows Live Photo gallery.

Ok, i use Adobe Lightroom to tweak some settings but i generally try to enter photos that i haven't done work to, or as i say, nothing that i couldn't do on a phone, or in Windows live etc.

Its all about composition sometimes and should not deter you from entering anything. Photos are all about how they make you feel, or something that you see that others may not. Don't stop entering as just because someone has spent hours editing a shot, does not mean its a) to your/my taste b) going to win. I cant use Photoshop for toffee, so you wont see anything like that from me.

Im not always for over processed images myself. Ok, i do have some HDR stuff and that's my other half's fault as she shoots EVERYTHING in Auto Bracketing and HDR them up. Its interesting but not always what im looking for. She also uses Hipsamatic for iPhone which is pretty cool. Not available on Droid though :(

So keep it up and dont be affraid

[Viney]

I was just thinking the same - I dont do anything to the photo's I post.

:(As said. It dont make it a bad photo, and not worthy of entry. I liked your Forth Bridge shot.

Keep entering

[fenjer]

As said. It dont make it a bad photo, and not worthy of entry. I liked your Forth Bridge shot.

Keep entering

I will do, and thank you for the vote last month, made my day!! :)

[GowerSV]

http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc504/Radyr/11177466864_e3fc3ba354_b2_zpsf25980bb.jpg (http://s1215.photobucket.com/user/Radyr/media/11177466864_e3fc3ba354_b2_zpsf25980bb.jpg.html)
http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc504/Radyr/11177466864_e3fc3ba354_b3_zpsa6e2d45d.jpg (http://s1215.photobucket.com/user/Radyr/media/11177466864_e3fc3ba354_b3_zpsa6e2d45d.jpg.html)

[mister c]

What software would you guys suggest to someone who is a beginner at photo editing? Something that does a good job but is fairly easy to get to grips with. And obviously as cheap as possible!
Don't know if the link is still live (I downloaded it months ago) but here is a free full version of Photoshop CS2
http://www.techspot.com/downloads/3689-adobe-photoshop-cs2.html

[dirtyred619]

Have a look Here (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6648389507/10-photo-editing-programs-that-arent-photoshop):)

Thanks I'll have a look through those.

Don't know if the link is still live (I downloaded it months ago) but here is a free full version of Photoshop CS2
http://www.techspot.com/downloads/3689-adobe-photoshop-cs2.html

It looks to be I'll download that later when I'm home form work. Might as well have a play with some free software before splashing out cash on others, cheers.

[mister c]

I prefer CS2 over the other photoshops, nice & easy to play with, I was really pleased when Adobe were giving it away (I got rid of a hooky version of CS4)

[Brettus]

Not to burst your bubble Col but they weren't technically giving it away. They were discontinuing the DRM servers for that version so had to put out a DRM free version for existing users. The link got shared and everyone now has it but it isn't quite legal unless you have a license (a key isn't a license)

There are plenty using it though and try aren't chasing people down for it as it is their own fault.

[Richie]

do your worst...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5ecsfjpvmhrguq/006.CR2

[Brettus]

Finally got round to having a play (very much like this shot Richie!)
I went for a simple approach and cropped it to remove the red bouy and then re-framing to give the lighthouse the presence.
I desaturated the lights on the island (told you I hated orange lights) and the purple around the highlight on the lighthouse.
Bumped the vibrance a little and upped the contrast.
http://i.imgur.com/cu6PcEo.jpg

I'm surprised you didn't get more cloud movement over 2.5 minutes, the sea looks great and too much movement in the sky would distract. Nice shot! :smt038

[Richie]

^^^ I like it Brett :) Thank you ^^^

[Richie]

Totally FREE image editors! (Please review if you use these)

Photopad editor
http://www.nchsoftware.com/photoeditor/index.html?gclid=CIeS_OGroLsCFWjmwgodnV8AuA

Paint.NET
http://www.fileparade.com/listing/122688/Paint.NET?gclid=CNaR9pSsoLsCFUrJtAodTigAxA

Photo Pos
http://www.photopos.com/

Photo filtre
http://www.photofiltre-studio.com/pf7-en.htm

Chasys draw
http://www.jpchacha.com/

RAW Therapee
http://rawtherapee.com/

Phoxo
http://www.fileparade.com/listing/123903/PhoXo?gclid=CJ3tmpqsoLsCFRLMtAodwDkAlw

Photoscape
http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/index.php

Lightzone
http://www.lightzoneproject.org/

Gimp
http://getgimp.com/lp/index.php?pk=4769&c=Getgimp_UK_Broad

Gimpshop
http://www.gimpshop.com/

[Brettus]

After Richie's post and quite a few new members getting cameras for Christmas, I got to wondering if any of the free software let you do the same manipulations that I'm used to in Lightroom, first one I tried RawTherapee seems to do the job admirably and looks surprisingly similar. This is my new go to recommendation for new shooters. I always thought lightroom was worth the money (£100ish) but this does the important bits for free. (it seems to lack spot healing and gradient filters which can be useful but aren't used often)
http://rawtherapee.com/ is well worth a look

[Richie]

Ok boys & girls have a go at this one :)

RAW image (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qcchif71n7erhx8/030.CR2)



my attempt

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3149/ywl0.jpg

better quality image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richie1743/12645506523/lightbox/)