Photography Post Processing--Before and Afters

[swampfrog]

Thought about doing this for awhile. Instead of just posting in the regular thread, this one is to see what the original looks like compared to a final version. Also post processing tips, tricks, and techniques. You can click on the pictures to go to the full resolution versions.

Start it off with a morning at the Osprey nest.


OspreyBefore




OspreyAfter

[swampfrog]

Mount Hood this evening



HoodBefore




HoodAfter

[mtnbiker]

I'm curious about the Mt Hood pictures. How closely do the before and after images represent how you actually perceived the scene? I know a lot of 'before' pictures come out hazier and more washed-out than my own perception, but this 'after' picture seems a little more saturated than I'd expect. But maybe you do that on purpose for effect. When to make it realistic, and when to make it pop a little more?

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Nice work, as usual. On a funny, related note. I recently asked my supervisor to approve my upgrade from Elements to Lightroom and CS. She had no problem with the request, so I put in a well worded justification to IT. After a few days, I received a response from them that it wouldn't be a problem. They had me log off, so they could put the software onto my machine. After ten minutes, they called me back to inform me that I was good to go. I log back on and immediately opened the new program, only to find the latest version of Elements.

Our Web and Graphics teams all use Creative Suite, so I know that it gets used here, but I'm curious how long of a fight this is going to be. I just want to do pretty things!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swampfrog]

I'm curious about the Mt Hood pictures. How closely do the before and after images represent how you actually perceived the scene? I know a lot of 'before' pictures come out hazier and more washed-out than my own perception, but this 'after' picture seems a little more saturated than I'd expect. But maybe you do that on purpose for effect. When to make it realistic, and when to make it pop a little more?

The original photo was purposefully overexposed for the time of day (8:53 pm), so the original capture looks like afternoon instead of sunset. This is Exposed To The Right (ETTR), which simply means as long as you don't push any pixels past their blown point, you capture more data by exposing as long as possible, even if the result looks too bright. Then in processing you adjust the exposure back down. More data = less noise in the end result. Haze is almost always a problem anywhere near civilization. Besides the bottom line of trees, this *almost* would be how I imagine it would look like at this time of day without the haze. Waiting for a fully clear day is almost impossible now, so you work with what you can get.

I gave up on "realistic" landscape photography some time ago. How the human optical system (eyes and brain) deal with light is completely different than how the camera's optical system deals with light (lens and sensor). The camera has significantly less dynamic range available. So yes, a little more contrast, and a little more saturation has been added to counteract the haze--and then I added a little more, especially to the sky/mountain. This left the lower row of trees darker and more saturated (they were closer and therefore less affected by haze). I left them that way by choice.

I'm more concerned that the end result provides something that I enjoy looking at, even if it's not "real". Saturation and contrast are two easy changes that most people prefer. It really isn't as far off as it looks because of the ETTR, but it definitely goes beyond "natural looking".

[swampfrog]

Our Web and Graphics teams all use Creative Suite, so I know that it gets used here, but I'm curious how long of a fight this is going to be. I just want to do pretty things!

There are a ton of tutorials on the web, both written and video. Photoshop is incredibly powerful, but if you aren't working in it full time, it's almost pointless to try to learn too much of it. I always find myself having to google certain things repeatedly because I don't use them often. The osprey was LightRoom with Google Nik Color Efex Pro to finish (does a great job enhancing detail in fur/feathers).

The Mt. Hood picture was LightRoom only. If I need to do a serious amount of removing stuff I don't want or it's tricky to remove it, I go to Photoshop, otherwise I mostly stay out of it. Lightroom does not take too long to learn. Photoshop take a lifetime.

[mtnbiker]

The original photo was purposefully overexposed for the time of day (8:53 pm), so the original capture looks like afternoon instead of sunset. This is Exposed To The Right (ETTR), which simply means as long as you don't push any pixels past their blown point, you capture more data by exposing as long as possible, even if the result looks too bright. Then in processing you adjust the exposure back down. More data = less noise in the end result. Haze is almost always a problem anywhere near civilization. Besides the bottom line of trees, this *almost* would be how I imagine it would look like at this time of day without the haze. Waiting for a fully clear day is almost impossible now, so you work with what you can get.

I gave up on "realistic" landscape photography some time ago. How the human optical system (eyes and brain) deal with light is completely different than how the camera's optical system deals with light (lens and sensor). The camera has significantly less dynamic range available. So yes, a little more contrast, and a little more saturation has been added to counteract the haze--and then I added a little more, especially to the sky/mountain. This left the lower row of trees darker and more saturated (they were closer and therefore less affected by haze). I left them that way by choice.

I'm more concerned that the end result provides something that I enjoy looking at, even if it's not "real". Saturation and contrast are two easy changes that most people prefer. It really isn't as far off as it looks because of the ETTR, but it definitely goes beyond "natural looking".

Thanks for the explanation. Another frustrating factor is that even if you think you have it looking just right on one monitor, it may look way off on another monitor. I just don't normally have the patience or skill to do much post-processing. And I don't know if I'd really be in danger of this, but I wouldn't want to do so much that an image looks like a Thomas Kincade painting.

[swampfrog]

Thanks for the explanation. Another frustrating factor is that even if you think you have it looking just right on one monitor, it may look way off on another monitor. I just don't normally have the patience or skill to do much post-processing. And I don't know if I'd really be in danger of this, but I wouldn't want to do so much that an image looks like a Thomas Kincade painting.

The next step after learning a good editing tool, if you want to continue to get more consistent results, is to buy a calibration device and have it build a profile for you monitor. As with all hobbies, the longer you continue, the more you spend to get volume and consistency. Pros don't necessarily do better work, but they can create it quickly and lots of it. Digital photography as an *art* form is definitely at *least* 50% learning and mastering processing techniques. If you decide you do *want* it to look like a Thomas Kincade, there is likely a solution for that.

[swampfrog]

Picture from Photography thread original (1/800 @f/5.6, ISO 800, 140mm):

1C2A3783, on Flickr

Edited

1C2A3783-2, on Flickr

[Pelado]

Picture from Photography thread original (1/800 @f/5.6, ISO 800, 140mm):

1C2A3783, on Flickr

Edited

1C2A3783-2, on Flickr

That is a lot different. The flowers seem to stick out more in the original. In comparing the images on my phone, I don't see much change in the actual flowers.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[swampfrog]

That is a lot different. The flowers seem to stick out more in the original. In comparing the images on my phone, I don't see much change in the actual flowers.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Yes, the flowers were originally more yellows and browns, so they are affected less by the processing. The intent was to make the distinction more subtle, which is a taste thing. Easily could have made the flowers stand out. So many different ways to process.

[BigFatMeanie]

Yes, the flowers were originally more yellows and browns, so they are affected less by the processing. The intent was to make the distinction more subtle, which is a taste thing. Easily could have made the flowers stand out. So many different ways to process.

I wouldn't mind seeing a version where the flowers stand out...

[swampfrog]

I wouldn't mind seeing a version where the flowers stand out...

I'll see what I can do. In this thread I'm linking to my Flickr images, where you can view the full resolution images--just click on the pictures. Doing versions in a less saturated color or black and white emphasizes differences in shape, contrast, or texture instead of color. This might be interesting in black and white also.

[swampfrog]

I wouldn't mind seeing a version where the flowers stand out...

Exaggerated contrast a bit

1C2A3783-Edit, on Flickr

[BigFatMeanie]

Exaggerated contrast a bit

Cool! I prefer this one. But I'm an art neanderthal so, you know...