PP... Your style?

nilhg · 06-02-2008 12:31am #1

I've been thinking about this for a while, but I suppose TelePauls before and after thread (and the variety of work in the random photo thread) crystallized it for me, what I would be interested in seeing is a typical example of peoples work before and after its been through PP.
I'm not really that worried about the mechanics of what you do, rather why do you do it? What are you trying to achieve, when do you feel that the shot from the camera is in need of major work and when are you happy to do very little.

Anyway one I did earlier should illustrate what I mean

Original, shot as RAW exported from Lightroom with just the default import settings

Adjusted, with some highlight recovery, sharpening, clarity, a little boost to the vibrance and saturation, and a tweak to the contrast using curves.

As you can see I don't tend to go over mad on the PP, I usually like to get the shot as close as I can to what I remember, with possibly a slight tweak to emphasize some elements.

Anyone else care to share?

melekalikimaka · 06-02-2008 2:43am

i always up the shadows,or contrast and up the saturation a fair bit

Borderfox · 06-02-2008 2:45am

Depends on the purpose but mainly I flit between contrast and alt-click and blacks in camera raw.

amcinroy · 06-02-2008 9:13am

Interesting question,

Everyone is different which is why I find photography so interesting.

My personal goal is to honestly represent what I saw and felt. Note that I use the word "represent" because no camera will see the same way the eye does.

I actually wrote an article on this very subject.

"Did you filter that? and other difficult questions"
http://www.andymcinroy.com/0704note.htm

Andy

AnimalRights · 06-02-2008 10:41am

I change nothing, maybe just crop sometimes.

Thirdfox · 06-02-2008 10:53am

Levels, noise and curves is what I usually do. Nothing too drastic but a definite boost in saturation.

elven · 06-02-2008 1:46pm

These days I'll generally either go much paler or much darker and contrasty than they come out of the camera. I try to expose as 'normally' as possible, although I usually have to underexpose since I'm handheld and shooting at max aperture, usually f2.8.

You can see the difference between this guy:

and the original which I've attached as out of ACR before any photoshop. I make adjustments in ACR to leave me wriggle room in photoshop - I don't do much except tweak the WB, usually increase the exposure and rescue any highlights if required. All other sliders get left at 0 - if I want to increase my blacks I'll do it in PS with levels, where I can control it with a mask...

Quite often these days I will actually decide how I'm going to process something as i shoot it - but sometimes it's when I'm doing the first pass in bridge that something shouts at me with 'soft and delicate' or 'dark and gritty' or something else. I find my favourite technique is photoshop is to add a gradient map layer (make sure it's set to black-white) and then change the blending mode to either multiply, screen, or soft light depending on if I'm darkening, lightening or boosting contrast, but it reduces the saturation in a way that I just loooove.

nilhg · 06-02-2008 1:50pm

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i always up the shadows,or contrast and up the saturation a fair bit

Borderfox wrote: »

Depends on the purpose but mainly I flit between contrast and alt-click and blacks in camera raw.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Levels, noise and curves is what I usually do. Nothing too drastic but a definite boost in saturation.

Thanks for the reply guys, we all do those things I suppose, what I really was wondering is do people see themselves as having a typical style or look they are trying to achieve and if you do I was hoping you would post a before and after shot. I know peoples style is a combination of the way they shoot and PP but was just interested in how folks approach getting the final look they want.

amcinroy wrote: »

Interesting question,

Everyone is different which is why I find photography so interesting.

My personal goal is to honestly represent what I saw and felt. Note that I use the word "represent" because no camera will see the same way the eye does.

I actually wrote an article on this very subject.

"Did you filter that? and other difficult questions"
http://www.andymcinroy.com/0704note.htm

Andy

Thanks Andy I would have usually the same philosophy as you, what I'm wondering is how you close the gap between the eyes perception and the image captured by the sensor.

Paulw · 06-02-2008 2:00pm

What I do would really depend on the photo and what I'm using it for.

In Raw, I just alter the white balance and then exposure. Everything else is in Photoshop.

Just adjusting contrast, brightness, sharpening and saturation. Basic things to bring the photo back to the way I remember the scene.

I have the Guy Gowan actions, and find that they cover 95% of what I ever need.

amcinroy · 06-02-2008 2:15pm

nilhg wrote: »

what I'm wondering is how you close the gap between the eyes perception and the image captured by the sensor.

So you want to create as literal an image as possible? One as close as possible to the eye's perception?

This is a very difficult question.

The eye is a scanning system. The eye scans the frame with a variable iris to control the light being detected. The brain then puts the image together. The camera sees all the frame in one instant. These are two completely different imaging systems.

These differences mean that the camera's biggest drawback is dynamic range. The camera just can't simultaneously see into the deepest shadows and brightest highlights within the same frame. All you can do is use contrast control technques such as grads, blends or HDR. But these techniques wouln't necessarily make a more "vision" like image. The camera is still seeing in a totally different way.

Obviously, subtle saturation and contrast can create more "vision like" images. Also steer clear of long exposures which could be considered abstractions and unlifelike (not my opinion).

You might want to seriously consider why you need to match your vision so closely. Just accept them as totally different systems and give yourself a bit more scope for creatvity. Landscape never has been a documentary genre. Even Ansel Adams images are far removed from what he saw.

Andy

Stephen · 06-02-2008 2:54pm

The only PP I ever really do is a bit of cropping or auto-balance because I don't know any better

Plus I haven't coughed up the dough for photoshop so I'm doing this in Paint.NET/GIMP.

AnimalRights · 06-02-2008 3:37pm

I took some photos of my dog today and decided to try and learn a bit, so some photos I added a wee bit of saturation and er auto adjustment.

Oh and crop/

http://pix.ie/punkrock/album/319428

Tips more than welcome..

Paulw · 06-02-2008 3:42pm

AnimalRights wrote: »

I took some photos of my dog today and decided to try and learn a bit, so some photos I added a wee bit of saturation and er auto adjustment.
Oh and crop/

http://pix.ie/punkrock/album/319428

Tips more than welcome..

Ok, a few comments - hope you don't mind. In a string of images, the grass is different shades. That doesn't look good.

As for the photography, for such a small dog, you should nearly be flat on the ground to capture some "low level" photos.

AnimalRights · 06-02-2008 5:59pm

Paulw wrote: »

Ok, a few comments - hope you don't mind. In a string of images, the grass is different shades. That doesn't look good.

As for the photography, for such a small dog, you should nearly be flat on the ground to capture some "low level" photos.

Have read alot of your posts and I take these tips very highly.

Today was 1st time to use the app that came with my Canon and found it fascinating!
The grass tip I would never have sussed.
Cheers.

PP... Your style?

Comments