Post Processing

[Animal]

Everyday brings new learnings and discoveries in the world of digital photography. I must say I never realized there was so much to it... I guess if all you've ever known were P&S what else can you expect?

Anyway, I posted up some pics of my trip to the zoo and various other other pictures to my picasa account. However, I always thought the images looked like total ass compared to what they should look like. I have recently discovered that pretty much all RAW files need to, at the very least, be "sharpened" by a RAW editor. Right now, my RAW editor is DPP (Digital Photo Professional by Canon) which was supplied with my camera. It's free and works as well as I need it to.

Anyway, I felt that my pictures weren't as sharp and crisp as I had imagined and prayed and hoped for. Oh well, I was let down. BUT! Today, I was viewing some videos on DPP and discovered all the neat things you can do to RAW files without actually having to know much about photoshop or editing programs. With about 3 clicks of the mouse all 200 of my pictures all of the sudden had that sharp crispy look I was after.

One perfect example I have is of a tiger. In the original RAW file the tiger is an almost pastel yellow color and the stripes are a little blurry. The whole scene lacks "pop". I changed the sharpness in DPP and changed the "picture style" from Standard to Landscape and now not only is the tiger a more orange color, but the whole scene is much more vibrant.

On to my dilema... I seriously doubt I could have achieved the same great looking pictures without post processing. At what point does post processing destory the original image? The consensus seems to be split down the middle. Some say that too much post processing takes away from the photographers intended shot. Others say that post processing is part of the entire creative photo taking process. I guess my biggest concern is that my pictures will look too fake or something.

What program(s) do you use for post processing? I actually like the program that Canon includes with the camera. Other than the interface looking like poo it does everything you need it to and it works. I am actually surprised at how good the software is.

[Hae-Yu]

All RAWs need processing - at the very least a White Balance setting. Don't feel guilty. Only amateurs who don't know about the photography process complain about cheating. Very few (I'd guess less than 1%) go straight from the camera to the magazine.

Ansel Adams said something like 70 or 90% of a picture is made in the darkroom. Just because you aren't splattering yourself with corrosive, carcinogenic chemicals doesn't mean Photoshop is less of a tool. It's just a digital emulation of the chemical processes and therefore you have more control. When you turned your 35mm rolls into Fotomat, they did all the tweaks. What's the difference between punching up a saturation slider in Photoshop vs buying Velvia film? What's the difference between buying a red filter for your camera vs applying it in photoshop? There's nothing. They are all deliberate acts to manipulate the finished image.

With that said, it's easy to overdo. You properly frame and shoot the clearest, sharpest picture you can. I don't clone out wires but a lot of pros do. My take is that if the image looks like it's been processed then it's overprocessed.

As I look at older pics, I see that I overprocess my images, but I get better as I go (I hope). Look at Sammie's Magic Kingdom pics. She included a before and after post too.

Examples:
When you use unsharp mask, (one of the #1 processes), look for a white outline or halo on the edges, then back off a bit until it goes away.

I use Noise Ninja to take out the graininess in low light pics. I can send it to you - it's a small PS plugin. If you process too much, the image goes soft.

[Sammie]

when you have the finances for it, I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom. It is by far the easiest and most comprehensive post processing system I have ever used.
It wond do everything so you will need photoshop but it works wonders for contrast, saturation, white balance, exposure...the list goes on and on. Its detailed and user friendly.

And I agree about the over processing. I have done that a lot but I'm getting a litte better each time

[Animal]

Shit... for some reason I thought Lightroom was $100 bucks. For $300 bucks they can suck it, at least for now. The Canon provided software is so damned good that I can't see there being anything $300 better than it. I might see a program that is a small bit better being worth maybe $50 or maybe paying for a program that compliments it. I know the Canon software has noise reduction but I haven't tried it yet. Instead, I download a free version (no watermarks and only a few downfalls) of Noiseware by Neat Image. This program came highly recommended and I tried it on a few images, it's amazing to me how well all this stuff works, I just can't believe it.

I might have to give Lightroom a whirl since they do offer a free trial. I do invite you guys to try out the Canon software though, you can download the latest versions from their website. They also offer some videos (http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html) on the functionality of the program. You guys might not need them because, I assume, all RAW editors are probably similar when it comes to the interface. The only downfalls for the Canon program is that file management requires another program or you can do it manually and the interface is craptastic (really it's just the looks because the functions are all there and easy to use).

[Animal]

And does Lightroom EVER alter RAW files? Like can you even purposefully edit the information in a RAW file?

[Animal]

Here are my zoo pics after some post processing.

http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed

Most of the changes involved exposure compensation. I was surprised that most only required 1/3 stop or something around there to get what I wanted. Some, of course, required almost 2 full stops but those were few. I would definitely like to know what you guys thinks about some of the pics, especially after PP. I really want to get out there again and get some more shooting in! =)

[Sammie]

And does Lightroom EVER alter RAW files? Like can you even purposefully edit the information in a RAW file?

yes, that's what its made for but it can alter other file formats as well.

its DETAILED. Almost too details, too many choices. But its SOOOO easy to use.

Worth every penny in my opinion. In fact it is the only software program that I have ever paid money for. I used it in beta trail and got hooked. I was a bit disappointed that it was 300 too, but I bought it and do not regret it in the least.

[Hae-Yu]

If I read the lit right, Lightroom uses non-destructive editing. Meaning it saves and applies the edits, but you can always have the originals. Another big benefit is that it is a good, heavy duty organizer.

I use iView mediapro, but I'd get Lightroom if I could just so I could do most of my work in it. Look up Gramps' postings on cameras too. He had some good info in there.

[Animal]

yes, that's what its made for but it can alter other file formats as well.

Actually, I don't think it does edit the files, which is what you want. I was playing with it last night and it behaves as it should in regards to the RAW files. You never ever want to actually edit the information contained in a RAW file. You only want to create new files from that information.

I did play around with it (for a VERY short time) and I didn't see a huge difference between it and the program Canon includes. In order to give it a fair chance, I am going to watch some of the Adobe videos on it and try and pick up some workflow tips.

Did you guys manage to look at my pics? I left the original gallery up and I also put up a new gallery with some post processed pics.

[Santa]

nice pics pete, i love the details in the tiger. Boy how i miss brookfield zoo its a wonderful place to take kids except maybe in the winter :P

Ill be moving back to illinois in 30 days or so cant wait 2 years in california is my max i miss my friends and family and besides getting a permenant government job is well worth the wait here

[Hae-Yu]

It's great to take a million shots - you have to in order to get a really good one, but for us it's hard to see them when there's a 105 shots to look at.

Pruning photos is where you really learn because you look at them critically. I use iView Media specifically because I can compare 1-4 photos at once, zoom and scroll all at the same time. I sort people shots on sentimental value.

An easy way to prune photos is to see them in sets. In the first grouping of 5 giraffe photos there are 2 sets: 1 closeup, 1 far away. Pic one from each and delete (or archive) the others. Then look at supersets - all of the remaining giraffe closeups from the first and second groupings and pick a couple. No need to keep 21 giraffe closeups. I pick a soft target such as 10% or 25% of the total photos I took.

You look for sharpness, composition, then over/under exposure using a histogram. If a photo is fuzzy and lacks sentimental value, then delete it. Nothing you can do with a fuzzy photo. This tiger one (http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed/photo#5101398423454914162) is out of focus and in this one he's looking away (http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed/photo#5101398749872428722) but in this one (http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed/photo#5101398573778769554)he looks like he's playing with the stick so maybe it's a keeper. This (http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed/photo#5101401245248428354)and this (http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed/photo#5101401309672937810)bear shot are iconic but while this bear shot (http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed/photo#5101401369802479970) has the best fur color, it doesn't say anything.

Looking at the 2nd set of giraffe photos, I would keep 3,4,6,7,24, and 26. 3, 8,9,10, 22 can be cropped or kept for snapshots. My favs would be 4 and 26 because they have the most personality.

In that second set, #1 and #2 get deleted on composition grounds: heads are cut off. 3 has a lot of personality with the V necks, but the tree detracts from the lines. I'd crop out the tree and some of the left and top. In #17, he's looking away so what's the point? If you have to have a full body shot, keep #10.

This (http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed/photo#5101401567370975634)and this (http://picasaweb.google.com/petelopez/BrookfieldPostProcessed/photo#5101401816479078866)are my favorites. They have a whole lot of personality.

My favorites out of all these are the ones with personality. The goofy bear, the polar bear playing with the tray, the giraffe sucking on the tree. This is the way I sort things and you'll develop your own way.

You have a really good eye for getting the personality; I would have missed all of those because I was looking at a rock or something. Getting 10 +/- good personality shots out of 100 is fantastic.

[Animal]

Thanks for the comments, Darrell. My wife and I have a nasty habit of just batch resizing whatever pictures we have and throwing them all up on our website. I definitely want to go through all those pictures and pick out the best ones. My primary reason for putting them ALL up there was to get some feedback.

I only looked at a few of the pictures you pointed out and I agree that there are too many pictures (but you need a lot to get a few good ones, like you said). I also agree that there are quite a few bad ones. I'm going to take a closer look at all the pictures and suggestions you made along with the lightroom tutorials I've been watching and start working on my workflow.

It's very difficult for me to get any shooting in during the week let alone any editing/organizing especially since I don't have any methods down. We'll see what I come up with. I'll keep the pictures I think are the best, post process those (again) and we'll go from there.

[Hae-Yu]

Don't take that as a negative criticism. I was going through your pictures as I would go through my own.

When you say "a lot of bad pics" just think of a pro photographer. Ansel Adams (or any pro) may have taken hundreds of thousands of photos, but we only know him for maybe 30.

A lot of times I look at a photo and say "I know it sucks, but I took it for a reason" or "this one can be fixed." As you said in your last paragraph, it takes too much time. Unless it's a people pic, then delete it.

All those maybes usually turn into deletes after a few months.

My process is to quickly sort for obvious flaws: sharpness (out of focus), composition (back to camera, head cut off), exposure.

I flag them as I go (iView allows colored labels, Lightroom has similar) - red for great, green for good, yellow needs crop, gray for b/w candidate, blue for sentimental keeper...

Then I go through each grouping/ set picking out the best and deleting the others. This is the most time consuming. I repeat the process every so often.

Then process the favs.

Then what? Costco does quality 8x10 prints for cheap, cheap. Upload and order by mail, hassle free. They are cheap enough where you can order them to experiment with processing. IE - sharpening is a must for prints.

With Gramps going pro, I'd like to see how he does things.