post production... before and after shots

[chelle]

i would be really keen to see the original out of the camera images from some of the competition winning photos. Is anyone willing to share their unprocessed shots?

What was it about the unprocessed shot that caught your eye?
Did you see the scene and just have something you wanted to capture/alter about it?
Was it a shot you took and then later looked at and wanted to explore?

[MrJorge]

Chelle. I'd be happy to show you before and after on any of my pics... although I've never won any comps. You'll find some people are willing to show before and after but some of us are pros (not me) and probably might not want to show before and after, which in respect to their reputations etc I understand.

Perhaps if there is one in particular you want to see a Private Message (PM) to the person asking might be a way to go... or if you see a thread where you like a photo even post in the thread asking to see the original and if they don't want to share publicly that they could PM you and show you or something.

[Kym]

There are very few 'professional' photographers on AP (i.e. those that make their prime income from photography).
There are however, many many very talented amateurs who are enthusiastic about their hobby and even quite a few of us have done paid work or sold images.

Some of my best images have had very little PP. The minimum that happens is:
- Raw conversion and white balance (a must)
- Exposure adjustment (because I usually shoot with some -Ev)
- Noise reduction (usually only if using ISO 400 and above)
- Straighten horizons (if needed)
- Crop (if needed)
- High pass sharpening (a must)
- Save hi-res image (.psd)
- add a border (sometimes)
- change to 8 bit mode, resize for web
- a bit more sharpening (USM or Hi-pass)
- save for web (.jpg)

While that sounds like a lot - its not, I've not done anything specifically to select portions of the image or played with saturation etc.

[davesmith]

Like Kym, I think most of my better images have had minimal processing. Most of the images I'm most proud of though haven't come close to a POTW either. Anyway, I've won a couple POTW's and happy to show "before and afters". If there's any in particular you'd like to see let me know and I'll put them up.

Except maybe my most recent one. It was taken a couple of years ago with an old Fujifilm s5500. I didn't know what I was doing then and saved the processed copy over the top of the original. Yes, I've learnt my lesson.

[bigdazzler]

Anyway, I've won a couple POTW's .

A couple ?? Dave your banner is longer than my street .. And i reckon you probably should have a couple more too ..

chelle, as you understand more about your camera and start working in RAW mode ( every manufacturer has their own RAW format, in our case as Sony users they are called .ARW files, these are straight out of camera, uncompressed and totally unaffected images containing all the data that your camera "saw" when the photo was taken with absolutely no in camera processing whatsoever)

This is important to know because RAW files cannot be displayed on a computer in their native format. They need to be opened in RAW conversion software ( you would have gotten the Sony Image Data Suite with your camera on a CD/DVD , this software contains the RAW converter and processor. ) Most of the core processing of the RAW image can be done in this software and then when youre ready the file needs to be converted to another format for display in your PCs image browser, web display etc.

The most common format is .JPG ( commonly known as J-Peg ). When you convert a RAW file straight to a JPG, there is a major downside if you want to further work on your photo in another photo editing/manipulation programme such as the GIMP, PICASA or even Photoshop. JPG is whats known as a " lossy " format. This means that if you want to open a JPG image, edit or work on it, then save it, and do this over and over, each time you resave the file you lose a little more data through jpeg compression, and therefore you lose a little more quality from your picture.

There are much better alternative formats to convert your RAW files to if you plan to keep that particular image as a work in progress and want to keep working on it. A very common format is called .TIFF, and if youre using an Adobe programme ( ie. Photoshop Elements, Photoshop CS2/3/4 or Lightroom ), they have their own format called .PSD

.TIFF and .PSD are known as " non lossy " formats and can be opened, edited, saved and resaved as many times as you like without losing quality.

You really should only convert to, or save to JPG when youre finished working on your photo and it is ready to print or display on the web.

If youre looking for some editing/manipulation software to have a play with, both GIMP and PICASA are a free download from the web and are more than capable.

Youre probably not even thinking about shooting RAW at the moment but I thought it might be beneficial to point out that RAW images have much more potential for improvement and you are much more capable of salvaging a picture that you like with post editing if it was shot in RAW as opposed to JPG.

A little away from your question but still relevant

[chelle]

thanks for all that Darren. You're right about me not shooting in RAW yet. I'm actually not even trying to take a good photo yet. My camera is full of a hundred photos of my toes (practising apertures) and my husband's bald head where he sat reading the newspaper in front of a window so i practiced the backlighting things! So not quite PP worthy images :-)

I have Photoshop CS2 and i used to do digital scrapbooking so i know about a lot of the features in it but not as they relate to photography but that;s what i'll be using when i start playing with PP.

You'll find some people are willing to show before and after but some of us are pros (not me) and probably might not want to show before and after, which in respect to their reputations etc I understand.

oops! Is asking for originals like asking a middle-aged woman how old she is?!?! LOL! Sorry, folks. There was no one particular photo i wanted to see just yet. I was just really curious what the originals looked like and wondered how you recognised a shot with great potential. I had only recently realised that a lot of images were altered..... but it was also good to read hrough Kym's list of what is often done.... more of a tidy up than actually altering the look of the photo....

[bigdazzler]

after I read my post back i realised i probably went into a little too much tech detail .. sorry if it was too much

Toes are always sexier in RAW ..

ok ill go away now ....

[ricktas]

Here you go Chelle

* The first is my winning photo from week 94
* The second is a straight conversion from the RAW file

To answer your questions. I like photographing fungi, Come March - June each year I wander around the Tasmania bush looking for great specimens. Taking shots of fungi requires a macro lens, and a good eye (some fungi are the size of a pin head). Then it can take a few minutes to setup my gear, get a good angle, clear out some debris (leaves, etc) to take the final shot. I often take several shots of the same fungi, using different settings and angles. I then look for the best when I get home on the PC.

There is not a great deal of difference between the two. I did a levels adjustment, sharpening and a slight increase in saturation

[ricktas]

Here is my winning shot from week 101

* First is the winning entry
* Copy straight from RAW

This one is an obvious setup shot, taken indoors with black cardboard. LED light covered with blue cellophane. Final version had some cloning to remove imperfections in the flower, sharpened and saturation boost of the yellow in the stamen. I also used the burn tool to darken the background more and increased the canvas size to give the flower some space.

[NatalieM]

Sure, I'm happy too

This is the winning shot -



This is the unedited version:



Quite a bit of editing on this one, but I mostly had an idea of what I could do when I took it. Basically made it landscape via some cloning, some burning, and the colour was done in lightroom.

[chelle]

oh, that's magic guys!!! thank you, thank you. Exactly what i wanted to get a feel for.

I started listing things in my head to comment on when i looked at the first fungi photo... i had more i wanted to say when i saw the flower. Then the orangutan (is that what it is?) just blew me away.

I have no idea how to clone or burn but i don't really care. Seeing those has been a massive help. How huge is the transformation of a photo just by adding some space to the flower or changing to landscape! wow. His face totally comes alive in the final photo and has so much soul. I find the colour really interesting cos if i just looked at the original i would have said that the colour of his coat was great the way it was, but the black and white just makes each hair so defined. hhhmmmmm. Nice!

Rick, I can see what you mean when you say the original photos are not altered very much. Cos essentially everything that is in the original is in the finished version. But the colours all have so much more impact.

thanks for sharing!

[MrJorge]

Cos essentially everything that is in the original is in the finished version.

Unless you're deliberately setting up to do something like Natalie did and you know you want to deliberately post process in a particular way then that's the way to do it. Get it right when you take it.

Not only does it saves time but you'll feel a lot better that it's you that did it and not Photoshop

[bigdazzler]

a very experienced photographer once told me .. " if you spend more time in front of the computer creating a great picture as opposed to holding your camera shooting great pictures , youll end up more geek than photographer "

Good advice ..

[smorter]

I just posted this in another thread, but I'll repost it here.

This is probably my most drastically pushed file to date. I think the flash just failed, I don't know what happened but the exposure was obviously way off.

Not all Before and Afters are to improve the shot, but rather, to rescue the shot


Pushed file up about 3+ stops, and performed Noise Reduction

The file looks crap close up but it makes a decent 6X8

Post Production is an essential part of Photography though. Unfortunately the laws of physics and time and equipment constraints means that we can't always get it right in the camera We all have incentive to get it right in camera though because it saves a lot of time afterwards

[chelle]

nice. a lot of my photos are taken indoors. Just candids of the kids. But they are often dark and even when playing with the ISO recently they are not great. Learning to do that in PS will come in handy. thanks.