Editing Photos

[Guest Eza]

Does everyone do it?

I took photos at the Adelaide Zoo on the weekend. The ones I like are very clear but I have had suggestions on how to make the images better (remove some background, brighten or whatever).

Do you (being professional, semi or amateurs) always edit every photo?

I have two main photos Im referring too....

Someone suggested I edit the branch out of the top left of the photo - Would you?

It was suggested that I brighten and crop this photo - again Would you?

Thanks in advance.

[rubiton]

Up the highlight for the second one (or contrast) - play with both just to bring it up a little.

Leave the branch in - adds some perspective to the shot.

ETA - only edit photos when needed though I do often crop but thats pretty minor in the editing department. The highlight tool brings up the dark areas while leaving the brght areas as they are.

Edited January 9, 2008 by rubiton

[kja]

One of the great myths of modern digital photography is that if an image doesn't come out of the camera exactly the way you want it, then it's "cheating" to work with it in post. This is absurd for many reasons.

1) When we shot film, we chose the film, the paper, the way it was developed, how we wanted it cropped, mock up prints were heavily marked for reprint with dodging, burning etc, filters were chosen - the list goes on and on. While not exactly the same, many of these things for digital are simply chosen at a later time in the creative process.

Beyond that:

2) if you are shooting a compact camera, that camera is making a whole host of decisions for you and applying all sorts of neat "post processing" to the image before you get to see it.

3) if you are shooing a dslr and/or a compact that allows RAW, then YOU get to make the decisions, not the camera. And you do this after you've shot the image. It's one of the enormous benefits of shooting RAW - you don't have to rely on what some geeky kid in a basement thought as he was developing the software your camera uses LOL

4) who cares? It's your image and you can employ as many tools to get your vision across as you are happy with. Adding elements (like cloning in extra birds) is often the big monster that everyone has a problem with - I think it has to do with the feeling of being misled that this is a simple photograph.

Does this mean you don't have to take any care to get it right and the image can look like crud and still be good later - mostly no. I think the image should come out of the camera as close as possible to what you want to achieve, most of the time. Then use post processing to complete the vision. It's simply another tool, just like your camera or the lens. And who wants to mess with that many photos for that long on the computer??

I would probably not take the branch out. I'm a lazy post-processor and do very little to most images. I would get in and play with the tone curves, contrast, exposure (just a touch), vibrance etc to make the image pop. The exposure isn't bad at all and you can see his face was in shadow, but you have detail. So a very nice image already. Here's literally a one minute fix on the small file - I'll take it down if you want:

I would definitely play with the second one if I wanted to keep it. First I'd tweak the contrast, brightness, vibrance, white balance etc. Then I'd probably turn it to black and white as I'm not sure that sky would ever have quite enough WOW for me personally. I'd also go back and reshoot coz I think the elements are great - I'd want separation between the man made tower and the tree for two points of interest.

If you want to do editing, have a look at Lightroom - it's awesome and easy to figure out the basics. I almost never open Photoshop for editing any more!

Edited January 9, 2008 by kja

[JAG]

Kja did you edit the photo in PS? Can you explain exactly how you did it please. I had a play in ps with the contrast and colours etc but didn't get the vibrant blue of the sky that you have managed to keep.

[kja]

jag - not PS, I use Lightroom (Adobe). Download the free trial version if you don't have it. It's fabulous and some of the best money I've ever spent on photography.

I believe the new PSCS3 ACR allows very similar control to Lightroom, but I have to admit I haven't even installed it yet as so far I haven't had the need to use anything other than Lightroom.

I treated this like a RAW image and In lightroom I tweaked to taste:

brightness

dark tone

light tone

vibrance

fill light

exposure

temperature/white balance

green & blue channels

Seems like a lot when you list it, but it takes no time at all and most tweaks are small movements of the individual sliders. Almost all of those things are done in camera when you shoot jpegs (with any kind of camera). Lightroom now allows you to tweak the jpeg image quite like you'd tweak a RAW - yes, you lose a bit of quality, but it's often better than not being able to salvage something!

If your camera shoots RAW - move over to it. It's not that big of a learning curve - your shooting stays the same (actually it will likely improve) - and if you don't want to process, you don't have to (just like jpeg) but if you do want to do anything you have such a much higher quality image to work with and your end result will be much better!

If I had to shoot that scene over, and I had no extra lighting (coz who's gonna drag that around the zoo?), I'd expose it for the highlights more (make the image brighter). There's more information on the bright side of an image than on the dark side, so making the image darker to give it the zing to taste in post will result in a better image than making a darker image brighter (rule of thumb, assumes nothing is blown). With a little more exposure you would get more detail on the giraffe's face.

HTH

Edited January 10, 2008 by kja

[Guest Eza]

Thanks for explaining that Kja.

I was told shoot in Jpeg first before using Raw.

This was the first time Id done lots of photos, I had taken some odd ones of the dogs but thats it.

I will have it with me this weekend so Ill use RAW.

[JAG]

Thanks for the explanation Kja. I am guilty of the dark to light shots but it makes sense what you are saying. I have never used raw but wil give it a go.

[chezzyr]

Eza: beware that raw files EAT your cards and your computer space so make sure you have plenty!

[kja]

RAW is kinda scary. When I first got a camera with it, I ignored those who told me to just do it and shot jpeg for months. Worst thing I ever did. Some of those photos, with a little love, if shot in RAW could have been nice - but in jpeg the camera had simply thrown out so much data it wasn't happening.

And that's what shooting in jpeg does - it throws away any data that camera doesn't want to keep. RAW throws nothing away and everything you do in Lightroom to the RAW file is reversible and changeable without damaging the original file. Sweet!

Now I really try to push people to use RAW - it's just that much better.

You do need the software to work with it, though. BUT most cameras that shoot RAW come with something - it might not be great, but it will work. And at a minimum, you can always shoot RAW convert it with the software to jpeg and just go on as before...then later, when you want to work with the image more or when you add better software (did I mention how much I adore lighroom? lol) you can GO BACK to the original, undamaged image and play to your heart's content!

And yes, RAW files are MUCH larger (coz they don't throw away data that you might actually want) so a bigger card might be in order...but with the prices dropping like crazy, it's too easy to get a 2GB or bigger! Get 'em sent from the US - it's fast and way cheaper!

Anyway, I'm blathering. I don't profess to know everything about post-processing as I still really only do minimal and way easy stuff, but I'm more than happy to help however I can!

Edited January 10, 2008 by kja

[chezzyr]

If someone wants to use jpegs (to save space) they can simply make a duplicate copy of the image before working on it.

Safest thing to do.

eta: perhaps someone doesn't always "need" a huge file to work with, I have a ton of raw files that I will probably never use, weighing down my computer hard drives (multiple drives). I have a little think before I head out on a shoot "what am I going to do with these images?" and then decide whether to shoot raw, jpg or both Believe me, after trying to move GIGS AND GIGS AND GIGS of images across computers sometimes I think raw is a pain in the butt

Edited January 10, 2008 by chezzyr

[persephone]

Must admit..I got badly burned by digital post-processing... commented on a so-called professional's pics...

to find that he had indeed changed landscapes, removed houses, edited colour, and in a bird photo.. taken out all background branches etc,and added an airbrush look...

This is fine, if it is then described as DIGITALLY ENHANCED...but not if it is described as a PHOTO... 'cos, in my mind, it is not the photo which the camera produced.

I crop, and maybe darken/lighten, that's about all. Any more tweaking, and I decribe it as being photoshopped.

Edited January 10, 2008 by persephone

[Guest Eza]

Thanks guys

I have a 1gb card in the camera and a 256 spare from my easypix. OHs sourcing 2gb and 4gbs for me.

I have a 400gb HDD atm but Im sure I could arrange another one of those too hee.

Ill take RAW this weekend at a gathering and see how that goes, its at Rymall Park, Adelaide.

[kja]

Yeah I hate that massive changing and creating thing, but each to their own. My biggest thing is who possibly has the time LOL

I shoot a massive amount of photos and don't have a hard drive problem. My smallest drive is 250 and I'm just moving my imaging over to new 500GB drives (eventually, they are just sitting on the shelf waiting now). I back everything up onto at least two hard drives. Drives are so insanely cheap now (picked up two 500GBs for under $200 total)

I never let things like storage and memory limit my shooting - I might just not take that one shot that I'll really miss! And I suck at deleting stuff - but every once in a while I'll clean out the folders of the rubbish - usually three or four edits that are just consuming space.

jpegs are fine and you can dup them BUT they are originally smaller images because the camera has thrown away the data. You can never get that data back. For me, it isn't worth it to not have data that I might really want one day.

[kja]

Eza - you'll do great this weekend - looking forward to seeing some!

If you have a histogram (not sure what camera you are using) turn it on and use it. It's an excellent and easy tool. Basically keep the peaks off either end. Expose slightly to the right (highlights), even if it looks a tad too bright in the viewfinder, without touching the right side. This will give you the most information in the image to work with.

And most importantly - have FUN! Taking photos should always be fun first, IMHO.

[chezzyr]

I was simply saying there is a benefit to shooting jpeg and people shouldn't feel

pressured into shooting raw. I'd rather shoot jpeg than not get the shot at all (this happened to me

one time when I was quickly running out of space and this was before cards got cheap).

Anyway people have the facts, they can choose based on their experience/needs/resources.

Persephone: don't open a can of worms, but basically I agree

[kja]

I'd rather shoot jpeg than not get the shot at all

This is so true!

[Guest Eza]

Im using a Pentax K10D and I have either a 70-300m or a ? -80mm.

[rubiton]

What are you planing to take pics of Eza - if you need to zoom in go for the 70-300 but if its something up close go for the smaller lens.

I always shoot in jpegs. Have always meant to try raw but havent bothered that format uses up WAY too much space and when I go out for a day of taking pics I need that space (no matter how many cards I take). However I really havent had to 'correct' much at all. Only if its really really dark and then Im probably pushig the limits anyway. Try taking a few images on RAW and the rest jpeg if you are going out for the day or you may run out of space very quickly.

Eza if you are using photoshop the 'highlight' tool will do a lot of what kja did to that photo. That tool is great for bringing up areas that might be in shadow without 'blowing out' the rest of the image.

AS for storage - as soon as I have enough for a CD or DVD I'll burn a couple of copies and put them away and after a number of months I delete the images on the computer as it takes up to much space. By burning you also have a back up copy of the images somewhere too.

However take time to learn the manual workings of the camera and you leave less up to the machine to work out what its doing. If its sunny on Saturday try the settings on ISO 400, Speed 1000 and aperture on F8. If they are still bright up the speed or go to F11 etc. Try some other manual settings too.

[Ripley]

There seems to be a trend atm for chocolate box looking landscape images. HDR is a popular thing in the digital camera mags, which I think means taking 3 separate exposures of the same image and blending them together in PS to get a perfect exposure - one for the sky, one for the land etc. Personally I hate that over photoshopped look with unnatural looking skies. I saw a photo recently of a before and after shot of an urban scene at twilight and the after shot looked amazing but totally unnatural, whereas the before shot was underexposed and nothing you'd glance twice at. The guy was very good at post image work.

I'm currently at the end of a 2 week road trip and have shot in both RAW and Jpg - but have a 2 gig CF card. I am using a 2 stop ND grad filter on landscape shots at sunrise and sunset to hold the sky and it's a pain in the butt to affix it and take it off but I'd rather do it this way than in photoshop - call me antiquated, old fashioned etc.

It's a personal opinion and one which will get you into arguments - either heated or polite. Adjusting curves or levels is about all I hope to do with these photos if anything as I don't like sitting on the computer for ages and not very good at PS and if my photos suck, well they get left on the 'puter not to be printed and I learn and start again.

I think the lens my OH bought me for Christmas has worked in my favour this trip - that and doing a short weekend workshop. Still so much to learn for this newbie though.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Ripley

[Guest Eza]

Photos will be mainly of people and gardens (in the park). Ill take both lenses and see how I go.

I only have UV filters on the lenses.

The 70-300mm is a macro lens.