Post Processing

[Chucaro]

Any subject matter, but only post processing allowed is crop and/or resize.



MMm....I do not about that, in any well done PP the following basic steps have to be taken:

inspect image and level the horizon if needed
crop
clean up any dirt from the lens
if you do not bother with levels then
rezise for web
convert to jpg
and sharp the image

I will give it a miss this time :(

[dullbird]

i'm hoping a few more people that like to PP win.....some of us actually enjoy that side of things......:(

[werdan]

i'm hoping a few more people that like to PP win.....some of us actually enjoy that side of things......:(

The irony is that in film days you *had* to post process, unless of course you enjoyed looking at very small negative images...

[Bushie]

I'm happy to open it up to PP if that's what is wanted, so far I see that 2 people want it and one of them has "picked up his goal posts and gone home" :).

I'm not really fussed either way but do appreciate that some have neither the software or knowledge to 'fully' implement PP other than what is done 'in camera'.

So I'm happy to alter the rules to allow PP. What I didn't want was backgrounds removed/altered, fences, power lines etc removed bits added (if you get my drift).

However the valid exif data rule still applies, and that already rules out one of the entries. :mad:


Martyn

[dullbird]

Bushy I dont think you should change the rules just because one or two of us have had a squinny :)

its just seems like almost all the comps your not allowed to do it in now......which in a way is sad as just because some might not have the software (which is easy to get off-line) or can't be bothered to learn or give it ago, all of us that like to do it don't have any fun.
it can be particularly frustrating for me only because my tamron lens doesn't give good colour like other peoples lenses it always seems to have that slightly washed out look and I can't adjust that which I feel sometimes may give me an unfair advantage in the comps...

I'm only saying why I would like it included (every now again) as you can see I still entered so if people don't want to that's fine(it is their rules after all)....I will just have to do everything with the 70-200 the only lens I have that takes rich photos :lol2:

[dullbird]

Personally I think that no PP shows just how good a photographer is. You might all argue this, but if you can get a good shot, not have to PP it then in my eyes that makes you a better photographer than someone who has to tweak every pic they take.

you kind of do have a point NM but even the professionals PP. if you have a **** photo you have **** photo despite whether you PP or not so should really have no bearing on anyone that doesn't want to do it really.

i.e it should make no difference whether you can PP or not if people are looking at the foundation of the photo so why disallow it?

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Personally I think that no PP shows just how good a photographer is. You might all argue this, but if you can get a good shot, not have to PP it then in my eyes that makes you a better photographer than someone who has to tweak every pic they take.
I agree with this. I am more impressed by a really well taken and composed shot that is sans PP than one with.

I don't post process at all pretty much. I do work at getting things right at the time though because of my film background.

That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work done in post processing as it is quite a skill (albeit one I'm not really interested in).

Maybe the photo competitions can stay excluding PP, but then have a PP competition.. showing before and afters ?

I know I hardly ever enter but I just seem to miss the whole competitions or the criteria. Like I took some crackers on the 1st but I'll save them for next time!

[dullbird]

the average person looks at the pic as a whole not the foundation of the pic ;)

DB...can we take this lot into a separate thread so we are not filling the comp thread with discussion?

by all means NM just star one:)....

[dullbird]

the average person looks at the pic as a whole not the foundation of the pic ;)

DB...can we take this lot into a separate thread so we are not filling the comp thread with discussion?


yeah thats kind of what I mean in why I use it though...if me and you took exactly the same pictures you took yours with a Nikon I took mine with a tamron.....and your colours came out better (more saturated) due to the lens is that really fair. as we both took a very good photo!!!

so you would have an added advantage would you not?

I only use PP for this very reason boosting colour back into the shot.

I totally understand what bushy is saying though in regards to cloning out fences and pylons etc...in this instance he and you guys are right take the photo right in the first place...(however there are occasions when thins in your photo are unavoidable)
But that then only leads me back to it shouldn't really matter if you PP or not as you always need a good photo to start with......and that is what people should be looking at whether its a good photo to start with and then good overall.

I do feel sometimes when people make there choice they make it on what looks nice and not what is involved in the pic like whether it is sharp or out of focus etc etc. which really is what I think people should be looking at along with the rest of the photo.

so no one would ever choose mine over others as it wouldn't look at nice, because of the washed out colour. I'm just using this as an example by the way:)

Oh and I know its only a fun thing before anyone jumps n me for that...i'm merely putting up example arguments for why I think PPs should sometimes be allowed...as pointed out PP is not about totally takeing a pic away from its original form can be as simple as a straightened horizon for someone that doesn't own a tripod, or a boost in colour for someone that has a cheaper lens....or even someone that thiks the colours distract form the picture and its meaning and simply want to put it to black and white.

[bblaze]

I dont do post edit, call it lazy or what ever. I dont delete pics either if they are rubbish. My mate who is a pro had a hell of job to get me excited enough just to crop a few, have now cropped a few to print and they hang very nice. I personelly think color is a personal thing as each set of eyes see things different. I like some of the things some of you guys/girls do with the pics but it dosnt make me want to do it. Maybe one day if I shoot the perfect dead tree I may turn it into a painting. I wonder wether my lack of desire comes from some fairly extensive graphic works when I was sign writing full time. I also have about 25hrs of dvds that need to be edited into a 2 trip sets (maybe 4 dvd's in total), they still sit there just as they come outa the camcorder. Lazy I reckon. When I vote in the comps I look for what is pleasant to my eyes, for something I would print and hang. I know some of the rules that should be followed when taking pics but they dont always please my eye. My pro mate has been known to tell me there is a failure between my eye and brain. So in the end is photgraghy, Art and if it is isnt bueaty in the eye of the beholder.
cheers
blaze

[dullbird]

yeah I know what your saying what is nice to one is not nice to another.......

as for the editing of the film if that was mine it would of been done in the first 24hrs:lol2: but then I get excited about that sort of stuff :D

[Chucaro]

I think that this is an interesting subject, and the thoughts or needs of each individual are related in to how serious the person would like be to learn or get involved with photography.

I will express my opinion based in that I take the images and PP them to be able to sell them to individuals or magazines and also make the basic standards to be able to place my images in photographic competitions.

Before I go a bit more into depth in the subject, I would like to mention that well before Digital photography even the great masters of the dark Room era were doing their own PP on their negatives in their dark room, so PP does not mean that the photographer is not good if he is not capable of posting an image without doing PP’
The great Joseph Ransfiled with his photos of the J Class and 12 meters yachts comes to my mind when I think about these photographers.

Another point to take into consideration is that in Digital photography the PP begins by fitting the lens selected for the job, then settings on the camera like WB, Tonalities, saturation, and many more on camera possibilities.
Not to mention if the photographer is using filters on the lens.
This leaves the argument of not using PP to make the competition even more redundant; the PP is already done and continued by taking or saving the image as a JPG.
If the photographer take the shots in RAW and use ACR then here is another PP because ACR ignores the camera settings, the image should be downloaded using Nikon NX :)
Further more the same photographer taking a shot of the same spot using 3 different brands of cameras at the same time will produce 3 different images because the “in camera PP”
A common or “Traditional Work Flow” used by nature photographers like Tim Grey will be as follow:
1) Select image and establish game plan
2) Optimize in ACR or similar software by adjusting the slides in a conservative way and do a “gross crop”.
2) Open image in PS or similar software
3) Duplicate layer(or use smart filters) and Apply Shadows/Highlights.
4) Gross crop and rotate if needed.
5) Clean remaining image.
6) Tonal adjustments, first global and then localized.
7) Apply filters including noise reduction.
8) Final crop, merge layers and save master file.

Then for the web:
Resize for web, convert to 8 bit, change color space.
Sharpen the image.
Save as jpg.

This is a very acceptable workflow and PP for any High quality image
If you do not have PSCS you can use the free software like GIMP and for the Raw images instead of ACR use the free Silkypix (http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english)

There are some very good sites where they explain the subjects in depth and far better that I can do.
This site from University of Cambridge (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/about.htm) is excellent

And HERE (http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-image-editing/37-image-editing/103-processing-digital-images-for-web-presentation) is more

Good (http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-image-editing/37-image-editing/99-understanding-a-using-the-raw-file-format-)reading about working on RAW images

[Chucaro]

I don't post process at all pretty much. I do work at getting things right at the time though because of my film background.


I respect your point of view, but on the film days(i ahve 40 years of those) the PP began when you selected which colors you like most Fuji, Kodak, others?
Then on the lab regarding development techiniques.
Many times I have the same negative developed in diferent labs or in the same lab by diferent person. no 2 photos were the same!
PP at their best!
now I do my PP as my perception tell me how it was, and as long as I use the same printer all the copies are the same ;)

Just my opinion based on my experience.

[vnx205]

As far as the issue of whether PP should be allowed or encouraged in this or any of our AULRO comps goes, my attitude is that it works OK as we have been doing it. Sometimes it is in, sometimes it is out and sometimes it is more or less irrelevant.

It is true that some people will not feel inclined to enter the ones where PP is forbidden and some people will not have the resources to enter the ones where it is necessary. However, there is nothing unique about that.

There have been other comps where some people would have been unwilling or even unable to enter for quite different reasons. Although I have some quite good shots of Halley's Comet taken with an SLR, I couldn't enter the "Stars" comp because of the limitations of the digital camera I currently have access to and because it had to be a new shot. There have been others that I didn't bother because although I am very pleased with some of the shots I have taken with my SLR, particularly in Central Australia, those shots would have been very disappointing without my polarising filter and I don't have one to fit the digital camera. I don't see that as a problem. I don't expect that things will always suit me.

People have come up with quite convincing arguments for and against PP, but as I see it, the merits of PP are not the issue.

The winner of of the previous comp had the right to set the rules and he decided to forbid PP. That went down well with some people and was not to the liking of others. That has probably been the case, for different reasons, with several other comps.

I see no problem if sometimes it is in and sometimes it is out.

[dullbird]

As far as the issue of whether PP should be allowed or encouraged in this or any of our AULRO comps goes, my attitude is that it works OK as we have been doing it. Sometimes it is in, sometimes it is out and sometimes it is more or less irrelevant.

It is true that some people will not feel inclined to enter the ones where PP is forbidden and some people will not have the resources to enter the ones where it is necessary. However, there is nothing unique about that.

There have been other comps where some people would have been unwilling or even unable to enter for quite different reasons. Although I have some quite good shots of Halley's Comet taken with an SLR, I couldn't enter the "Stars" comp because of the limitations of the digital camera I currently have access to and because it had to be a new shot. There have been others that I didn't bother because although I am very pleased with some of the shots I have taken with my SLR, particularly in Central Australia, those shots would have been very disappointing without my polarising filter and I don't have one to fit the digital camera. I don't see that as a problem. I don't expect that things will always suit me.

People have come up with quite convincing arguments for and against PP, but as I see it, the merits of PP are not the issue.

The winner of of the previous comp had the right to set the rules and he decided to forbid PP. That went down well with some people and was not to the liking of others. That has probably been the case, for different reasons, with several other comps.

I see no problem if sometimes it is in and sometimes it is out.

I totally agree hence my comment i hope some that likes doing it wins soon:D

[vnx205]

I totally agree hence my comment i hope some that likes doing it wins soon:D
Good point.

I must be slowing down. :) I missed the full significance of your earlier comment.

I'm sure it will happen. Then a different group of people will feel that the rules don't really suit them. :p

You can't please all the people all the time. The best we can hope for is that everyone takes his or her turn at being miffed. :p

[slt]

I have to agree with Chucaro and DB...

IMHO there's no such thing as NO PP. With the P&S cameras you don't even have a choice, since they generally don't give you a RAW, but rather a processed JPG.

I shoot RAW all the time, because I get the most out of my images in terms of dynamic range. RAW to JPG conversion done on the computer IS PP, even if the software just applies default picture modes.

I ask this question: my D700 has bunch of picture controls, from standard to vivid, B&W etc. Which picture control would I have to use to be eligible for a 'no pp' contest? Standard? Even that one does things to the RAW image...

Btw. I'm don't make a living taking photos, but I do have a business on the side selling fine are landscapes. There's not way I would not PP any of my images, even if it's just properly balancing levels (which is something I would have done, like Chucaro, in a darkroom in the past).

FWIW

slt

[Chucaro]

I agree with your comments slt, if there is a person that does not like PP then we have news it is unavailable, so it would be better to start looking for a new hobby :)
It would be interesting to know the opinion of the members about which it is the real image, the one that comes from Canon or Nikon, or Pentax and so on, ah! and perhaps not one of them, can be the one that the software people from Adobe think that it is the correct one.

Doing photography without PP it is like writing a book without grammar or spelling checking.

For that reason I do not write a story :D

[dullbird]

Good point.

I must be slowing down. :) I missed the full significance of your earlier comment.

I'm sure it will happen. Then a different group of people will feel that the rules don't really suit them. :p


You can't please all the people all the time. The best we can hope for is that everyone takes his or her turn at being miffed. :p

lmfao this is so true:D

[Bushie]

Another point to take into consideration is that in Digital photography the PP begins by fitting the lens selected for the job, then settings on the camera like WB, Tonalities, saturation, and many more on camera possibilities.
Not to mention if the photographer is using filters on the lens.
This leaves the argument of not using PP to make the competition even more redundant; the PP is already done and continued by taking or saving the image as a JPG.
If the photographer take the shots in RAW and use ACR then here is another PP because ACR ignores the camera settings, the image should be downloaded using Nikon NX :)
Further more the same photographer taking a shot of the same spot using 3 different brands of cameras at the same time will produce 3 different images because the “in camera PP”
A common or “Traditional Work Flow” used by nature photographers like Tim Grey will be as follow:
1) Select image and establish game plan
2) Optimize in ACR or similar software by adjusting the slides in a conservative way and do a “gross crop”.
2) Open image in PS or similar software
3) Duplicate layer(or use smart filters) and Apply Shadows/Highlights.
4) Gross crop and rotate if needed.
5) Clean remaining image.
6) Tonal adjustments, first global and then localized.
7) Apply filters including noise reduction.
8) Final crop, merge layers and save master file.

Then for the web:
Resize for web, convert to 8 bit, change color space.
Sharpen the image.
Save as jpg.




You'll really have to explain that bit to me :confused::confused::confused:

Otherwise to me even a RAW pic would have some degree of post processing.

To me anything that happens to the light before it hits the film or capture device can't be 'post' processing'

or have I totally missed what you are trying to say :o.


Martyn

[dullbird]

no but I guess it can be "Pre"

[slt]

no but I guess it can be "Pre"

:D:D:D

i'd like to see the result of a comp where there is to be NO PP and NO PP

[Chucaro]

Martyn what I trying to say is that many people are against PP because it could alter the image in the way that it is not shows "what it was (the scene as an example) at the time of pressing the trigger. It is not realisic.
Well before pressing the trigger start that "processing" of altering the image by selecting the lens, the aperture, the camera settings, etc, etc
You know that a photo of a bird with using a large aperture will blur the bg therefore on the image it is the perch, the bird and nothing more, far unrealistic because our eyes captured all the surrondings when we took the shot but they are not there.
On the top of that we selected the WB, saturation and other adjustments that will be embebed in the image.
I hope that this is clear, sorry for my limitations with my english :(

[dullbird]

:D:D:D

i'd like to see the result of a comp where there is to be NO PP and NO PP

be images like this one below........taken today :lol2:





































































:D

[Chucaro]

I think that by taken out the lens front cover the image will improve considerable, but then again it will be an unacceptable Pre Processing :lol2:

[Captain_Rightfoot]

So, in summary, what the people in favour of PP are saying is that all photos have some PP anyway, so why not allow full PP.

I take on board that the cameras do some adjustments, and in the film days all the printing processes did some PP for colour as well.

However I think the PP people are missing the my point. It's the actual intention of PP. Those in favour say I'll fix it later, and cropping and sharpening and fixing the colours is a different way of doing things.

I try really hard to look at what is in the viewfinder before I take the shot. I may fit a different lense, move closer or further away. If I don't like the light I'll move or come back later. I generally don't have trouble with focus so don't get all the sharpening stuff the PPers do. If the photo is blurry I'll write it off. If there is a pole sticking out of someones head I'll move or ask them too.

I'm sorry, but that is a different process and skill set. I'm not saying one is better than the other but they are different. Not everyone will be able to do both. I see the key difference is the intention to fix it later.

In competitions where PP is allowed I'm probably not going to have a chance in so I guess it cuts both ways.

IMHO the definition of PP is the decision to consciously alter an image. As you've all pointed out, it's virtually impossible to determine how much PP'ing has been done, so if the competition says no PP the if you think you've fixed anything then you can't enter.

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and the idea of sitting and slaving over an image doesn't appeal to me. I take photos for the memories, and the joy of taking the photo. I guess everyone is different. :)

[slt]

So, in summary, what the people in favour of PP are saying is that all photos have some PP anyway, so why not allow full PP.

I take on board that the cameras do some adjustments, and in the film days all the printing processes did some PP for colour as well.

However I think the PP people are missing the my point. It's the actual intention of PP. Those in favour say I'll fix it later, and cropping and sharpening and fixing the colours is a different way of doing things.

I try really hard to look at what is in the viewfinder before I take the shot. I may fit a different lense, move closer or further away. If I don't like the light I'll move or come back later. I generally don't have trouble with focus so don't get all the sharpening stuff the PPers do. If the photo is blurry I'll write it off. If there is a pole sticking out of someones head I'll move or ask them too.

I'm sorry, but that is a different process and skill set. I'm not saying one is better than the other but they are different. Not everyone will be able to do both. I see the key difference is the intention to fix it later.

In competitions where PP is allowed I'm probably not going to have a chance in so I guess it cuts both ways.

IMHO the definition of PP is the decision to consciously alter an image. As you've all pointed out, it's virtually impossible to determine how much PP'ing has been done, so if the competition says no PP the if you think you've fixed anything then you can't enter.

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and the idea of sitting and slaving over an image doesn't appeal to me. I take photos for the memories, and the joy of taking the photo. I guess everyone is different. :)

Partly my point is that where do you draw the line. Most of the 'NO PP' comps I've seen specifically allow cropping and resizing. Well I for one believe that CROPPING is a major PP item. If you want to show what you are capable of producing in the camera only, let's see the uncropped/un-rotated images then! :twisted:

[dullbird]

So, in summary, what the people in favour of PP are saying is that all photos have some PP anyway, so why not allow full PP.

I take on board that the cameras do some adjustments, and in the film days all the printing processes did some PP for colour as well.

However I think the PP people are missing the my point. It's the actual intention of PP. Those in favour say I'll fix it later, and cropping and sharpening and fixing the colours is a different way of doing things.


I try really hard to look at what is in the viewfinder before I take the shot. I may fit a different lense, move closer or further away. If I don't like the light I'll move or come back later. I generally don't have trouble with focus so don't get all the sharpening stuff the PPers do. If the photo is blurry I'll write it off. If there is a pole sticking out of someones head I'll move or ask them too.I'm sorry, but that is a different process and skill set. I'm not saying one is better than the other but they are different. Not everyone will be able to do both. I see the key difference is the intention to fix it later.

In competitions where PP is allowed I'm probably not going to have a chance in so I guess it cuts both ways.

IMHO the definition of PP is the decision to consciously alter an image. As you've all pointed out, it's virtually impossible to determine how much PP'ing has been done, so if the competition says no PP the if you think you've fixed anything then you can't enter.

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and the idea of sitting and slaving over an image doesn't appeal to me. I take photos for the memories, and the joy of taking the photo. I guess everyone is different. :)

this is exactly what I do.....and I spend around 2/3mins per image when I PP if that, so as you can see I don't go full PP. Hopefully the fact they I only spend a max of 2/3mins on an image shows that I do strive for a good photo in the first place....doesn't stop my washed out colours though no matter how great the light is or how much I re frame the picture..its just the way the lens takes the shot. and the very reason why when I can eventually get the money up it will be going:)

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Sorry for the edits all.

Neither of the following two shots have had ANY PP.

Have you got any idea how much of a berating I gave myself for not waiting for these two people to walk off?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/885.jpg

Or how proud I am of this photo which I can't think of anything I could enhance on it?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/886.jpg

I'm sorry Chucaro I think you can take lovely images without any form of PP and I think that makes them extra special.

@DB we had a canon ixsus and it has a horrible quality lense. You would need to sharpen every image. Now it sits and gathers dust. Stump up for a good one :) Until then you shouldn't enter the sans PP comps, and like I said I won't have a chance at the ones where PP is allowed :)

[dullbird]

Sorry for the edits all.

Neither of the following two shots have had ANY PP.

Have you got any idea how much of a berating I gave myself for not waiting for these two people to walk off?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/885.jpg

Or how proud I am of this photo which I can't think of anything I could enhance on it?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/886.jpg

I'm sorry Chucaro I think you can take lovely images without any form of PP and I think that makes them extra special.

@DB we had a canon ixsus and it has a horrible quality lense. You would need to sharpen every image. Now it sits and gathers dust. Stump up for a good one :)
Until then you shouldn't enter the sans PP comps, and like I said I won't have a chance at the ones where PP is allowed :)

Why not? I feel it does hinder me and the lens I use but I use these comps as an excuse for me to get off my arse and get out and take photo's and try and be creative, also try my best to support bushies comps. As I have noticed again that the entries are dropping off.

[dullbird]

here is a quick example for me all be it not a great one....with original shot and 30sec on PP

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/887.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/1003.jpg

now although I have probably gone a tad dark...this is purely to show that 30sec in PP with my lens can make an improvement. I know i have some really good examples somewhere in my albums but its to late to find them so I thought I would just do a quick one.

The original picture displays the rocks in a washed out kind of pinky tone...that was not the colour of the day. Anyone lend me a couple of thousand bux so I can rectify this situation? :D

[Captain_Rightfoot]

now although I have probably gone a tad dark...this is purely to show that 30sec in PP with my lens can make an improvement. I know i have some really good examples somewhere in my albums but its to late to find them so I thought I would just do a quick one.

The original picture displays the rocks in a washed out kind of pinky tone...that was not the colour of the day. Anyone lend me a couple of thousand bux so I can rectify this situation? :D
What would happen if you dropped the exposure at the point you take the photo? Would that help?

If so it strikes me that there is something wrong with the aperature mechanism in the lense. Could you always with that lense like a third or a half a stop?

I don't have any 2k lenses and none of them do that :o

[dullbird]

What would happen if you dropped the exposure at the point you take the photo? Would that help?

If so it strikes me that there is something wrong with the aperature mechanism in the lense. Could you always with that lense like a third or a half a stop?


I don't have any 2k lenses and none of them do that :o

this is not a 2k lens....I would be pretty ****ed off if it did.

I could stop it down a bit I suppose but quite often it is exposed correctly just washed out with colour...its the way the lens is and always has been from new....its just different I think in the way it sees colour its just not as rich...you get spoilt with canon and Nikon even my cheapo kit lens from nikon is richer in colour...that only goes to 5.4 though and is not a fast lens so anything other than standing still and its not sharp..but the colour is heaps better.

[Chucaro]

DB, on your first image looks to me that the WB is a bit out and also a tad overexposed.
Did you used auto in the WB settings?
If you have the original try to go to ACR and play with the WB just a touch on the plus and bring down the exposure to -020 to -030 and see what it is the result.
To me the WB in auto of the Nikon is out a tad and many photographers believe that on the forums.
Just a thought
Cheers

[dullbird]

could be but i have also shot (not this photo) in the same set a 18% grey card and there has been no difference in well not that I can notice in a lot of photos when sync'ing the white balance from it...

I will try your suggestions but I honestly think its the lens regardless of the exposure. as I have manual exposed as I like to shot in manual sometimes using the exposure bar and that does not make the colours richer....you can't in my experience make colours richer from tweaking an exposure a fraction.

[vnx205]

Back in the days before digital cameras and Photoshop, it was possible to get quite a bit of variation in the appearance of photos because of decisions made before the shot was taken.
A lot of Bell's Gorge shots look like this.



https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/885.jpg


I remember the colours of the rocks looking more like this.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/16/2005444/Bells%20Gorge.jpg

My first reaction to this shot (because I have taken some that look the same) is that it needed a polarising filter rather than exposure correction.



https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/887.jpg



Compare the colours in these two shots of Chambers Pillar.
This one is taken with the polarising filter.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/16/2005444/Chambers%20Pillar%20Map.jpg

This one without the polarising filter because I don't have one to fit my longer lens.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/16/2005444/Chambers%20Pillar%20Camp.jpg

I was under the impression that shots in the bright glare of the Australian sun often needed a polarising filter for pretty much the same reason we wear good polaroid sunglasses, to cut down the reflected glare.

So even in the days of SLRs and film, it was possible to take photos that showed the colours of Central Australia as we remember them or to have the glare wash out the rich colours that make the scenery so memorable.

Would some purist object to the use of a polarising filter because it doesn't render the shot the way the film wants to record it? :)

[dullbird]

I always use a polariser on days where there is glare or chance of lots of reflection....

that shot taken above was I think at like 9 in the morning wasn't hazy or anything just really lovely...

good example with yours though does look very similar.

however I do have shots in my back yard where the lens just doesn't do the dogs any justice....I don't think there is a shot I haven't taken with this lens where I haven't felt the need to adjust.

I remember being really happy with this lens when i first got it.......could it be the lens is now faulty? or could it be my perception has changed with experience as to what a better photo looks like?

[bblaze]

Sorry for the edits all.

Neither of the following two shots have had ANY PP.

Have you got any idea how much of a berating I gave myself for not waiting for these two people to walk off?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/885.jpg

Or how proud I am of this photo which I can't think of anything I could enhance on it?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/09/886.jpg

I'm sorry Chucaro I think you can take lovely images without any form of PP and I think that makes them extra special.

@DB we had a canon ixsus and it has a horrible quality lense. You would need to sharpen every image. Now it sits and gathers dust. Stump up for a good one :) Until then you shouldn't enter the sans PP comps, and like I said I won't have a chance at the ones where PP is allowed :)

I like that the 2 people are there, to me it drags you to the bag but my eye tells my brain to look closer cause there is some thing else there and then sorta drags me out , nice and suttle
cheers
blaze

[bblaze]

Hi DB
Have you thought about puttin the camera on a tripod, shooting some shots with the tamron and then shoot with the nikon (you still have it dont you) and comparing, maybe you can make some camera setting changes to bring it up to the rich color of the nikon and then save those settings as user defined or what ever you call them.
cheers
blaze

[Chucaro]

could be but i have also shot (not this photo) in the same set a 18% grey card and there has been no difference in well not that I can notice in a lot of photos when sync'ing the white balance from it...

I will try your suggestions but I honestly think its the lens regardless of the exposure. as I have manual exposed as I like to shot in manual sometimes using the exposure bar and that does not make the colours richer....you can't in my experience make colours richer from tweaking an exposure a fraction.

The WB adjustment in this case will pop up a bit the reds and the exposure adjustment will dark it a bit.
I agree with you that can be the lens.
My Nikkor 70-240 in the range f/7 to f/9 is very good out of that range very average lens and I have to compensate the colors with adjustment in the camera settings and ACR to imitate the fuji velvia film

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Out of interest, my Bells photo was taken with a polariser. I take most of my landscapes with polarisers. I definitely don't regard it as post processing, and the decision to do that was made before the shot was taken!

[Chucaro]

Out of interest, my Bells photo was taken with a polariser. I take most of my landscapes with polarisers. I definitely don't regard it as post processing, and the decision to do that was made before the shot was taken!

I written about PP because I have the impression that many people believe that PP is "manipulating: the image beyond reality.
Unfortunately there is not one camera in the market that have the power to capture what the human eye can do and no to metion the emotions that have the artist/photographer at that particular time. So the images do not reflect100% reality.
We are aware of that and for that reason we select, lens, filters, camera settings and other equipment and or options before we take the shot.
IMO there is nothing wrong with PP as long as the image reflect something close to what the photographer saw at thet particualr time.
If the photographer feel that the image captured does not reflect his emotions, also there is nothing wrong with PP manipulation beyond the basic adjustments as lon as the author mention that in the photography or classfied it as an "abstract" or "digital art" We do that in the photo forums where is a section for that particular type of photos.

[DeanoH]

The original picture displays the rocks in a washed out kind of pinky tone...that was not the colour of the day. Anyone lend me a couple of thousand bux so I can rectify this situation? :D

Not withstanding what Chucaro said about WB and exposure, and not knowing what camera you've got, have you tried playing with the in camera settings to compensate for deficiencies in the lens ?
The D70 for example lets you adjust all sorts of things in camera including saturation and hue. I only know this cos I've just read the book, amazing what this camera can do if you can figure it all out.

Deano

[Chucaro]

Deano, it is important to know that if you process the nef or any other image from Nikon with Adobe Camera Raw, the settings of the camera are deleted.
If you like to keep the Nikon settings use Capture NX instead of Adobe,

Cheers

[DeanoH]

Deano, it is important to know that if you process the nef or any other image from Nikon with Adobe Camera Raw, the settings of the camera are deleted.
If you like to keep the Nikon settings use Capture NX instead of Adobe,
Cheers

Thanks again Arthur. The question I was trying to ask is with known deficiencys in the lens is it possible or even desirable to compensate for these with the in camera settings ? Perhaps not so much for serious work, but for jpeg day to day 'snapshots' ?

Deano

[dullbird]

Thanks again Arthur. The question I was trying to ask is with known deficiencys in the lens is it possible or even desirable to compensate for these with the in camera settings ? Perhaps not so much for serious work, but for jpeg day to day 'snapshots' ?

Deano

I dont take day to day jpeg snap shots everything is done in Raw....
I would also far rather correct an image PP then in camera other than your usuals like exposure etc not that I can change to much in camera.

[DeanoH]

I dont take day to day jpeg snap shots...........

Is this akin to being accused of infidelity or some other hienous crime :eek::eek:

My question is more of a general one. Are these settings there to allow compensation for differing lenses ? :)

Deano

[dullbird]

Is this akin to being accused of infidelity or some other hienous crime :eek::eek:


My question is more of a general one. Are these settings there to allow compensation for differing lenses ? :)

Deano

Sorry as you quoted me with the original question I assumed you were asking the question at me

[Chucaro]

Thanks again Arthur. The question I was trying to ask is with known deficiencys in the lens is it possible or even desirable to compensate for these with the in camera settings ? Perhaps not so much for serious work, but for jpeg day to day 'snapshots' ?

Deano

Deano,

problems with the lens can be corrected (not 100%) in PP but it is important thet the original image have the much information posible.
JPG will eliminate a lot of parameters or information in the image which will be lost.
If you are worried to start taken shots in raw or nef only what you can do is use more memory card but shot on dual mode nef/Jpg
Allways save in a separate file your nef files because even if they are bad today in the future when you developed more understanding of PP you will be able to recuperate a lot of images.
When you open the processed image from ACR in PS work in tiff format and save your copy in tiff as well.
While you work on your tiff image
do the following:
Go to layers and duplicate the layer so you do all the adjustments on the duplicate layer (image) and do not apset the original file.
Only do your adjustments in "new adjustment layer" wher you will adjust firts the levels and then work in curves.
In this way you do not destroy the original information and you can delete the layers if you are not happy with the result.
I recomend to you to get a copy of Photoshop for Nature Photographers by Ellen Anon and Tim Gray. It is an excellent book and easy to follow.
Please do not hesitate in asking questions, that it is why we are in this forum to help each other ;)

[dullbird]

Deano,

problems with the lens can be corrected (not 100%) in PP but it is important thet the original image have the much information posible.
JPG will eliminate a lot of parameters or information in the image which will be lost.
If you are worried to start taken shots in raw or nef only what you can do is use more memory card but shot on dual mode nef/Jpg
Allways save in a separate file your nef files because even if they are bad today in the future when you developed more understanding of PP you will be able to recuperate a lot of images.
When you open the processed image from ACR in PS work in tiff format and save your copy in tiff as well.
While you work on your tiff image
do the following:
Go to layers and duplicate the layer so you do all the adjustments on the duplicate layer (image) and do not apset the original file.
Only do your adjustments in "new adjustment layer" wher you will adjust firts the levels and then work in curves.
In this way you do not destroy the original information and you can delete the layers if you are not happy with the result.
I recomend to you to get a copy of Photoshop for Nature Photographers by Ellen Anon and Tim Gray. It is an excellent book and easy to follow.
Please do not hesitate in asking questions, that it is why we are in this forum to help each other ;)

I use lightroom and what I like about this is you can set it up with the before and after photo side by side while you work on it...if I don't like then I just click on the history back to the original image.

I prefer to work in lightroom much more than PS.....but you need PS for things like touch ups and getting rid of more complex blemishes in the image etc....I often only need lightroom as it pretty much does everything I want it to unless I start getting arty

[Chucaro]

I read that lightroom is a very nice software but I never tested my copy because I have my PSCS3 fully optioned with lots of excellent plugins
So for my landscaping photography I open the nef image first with NX and save it in a safe place and then I play with the PSCS3
There is so much software out there that my rusty brain have problems to keep up with them :D
To telling you the trough I rather be on the outdoors taken photos that seating in front of the PC.
I bet that you are the same :)

[DeanoH]

Thanks both for your input. Its been a long time since I was seriously involved in photography, think when the switch was from bromide paper to the 'new' Ilford paper, and that will give you some idea . That's how far out of date I am.
The principles are the same but the technology is very different. I've tried in the past to use Photoshop but it turns my brain to mush. I can work my way around ACDsee and even PaintShopPro but Photoshop defeats me. I'll get that publication you suggest Chucaro and thanks for the info on Lightroom DB, I'll see if I can get a copy of that too. But I think I'll have to bite the bullet and have another go at Photoshop.

Thanks again :thumbsup:

Deano