Support NeoGAF

[BlueTsunami]

Perspective Correction is awesome if you take a lot of pictures of buildings and interiors (where you have to tilt your camera upwards).

Heres two "before and after"ers of something in Color and something in Black and White...

*In the above processed image (to the Right) I...
1) Added Contrast via the slider in Digital Photo Professional (raised it to 2)
2) Raised the sharpening to 4
3) Applied a slight tone curve to darken the shadows and bring out the mid tones. I did not touch the highlights (since they would have been blown out)
4) Corrected the white balance by making the tone cooler (and moving it away from the green shift it haded) and then warming it to desired taste
5) Transfered the photo to Photoshop then resized
6) I finally applied a Smart Sharpening filter (after the resize) to desired taste. This is very important if you're resizing your photographs for web consumption since you can increase acutance (or perceived edge sharpens) when you've resized an image. This is how people get really sharp photographs when posted to the web.
7) Used "Save as...", chose JPEG and moved the compression slider to a point where the photograph sits around 400kb-600kb

*In the above processed image (to the Right) I...

1) Added Contrast via the slider in Digital Photo Professional (raised it to 2)
2) Raised the sharpening to 5
3) Applied a true tone S-Curve (raised the highlight end, raised the mid point a bit and dropped the shadow point)
4) Dropped the Exposure by .50 (where 1 would be a full stop)
5) Transfered to Photoshop and resized
6) I used Nik' Silver Effex Pro to convert the image to Black and White (messing with the internal sliders, adding structure, applied a green filter that lightened the area below the dark clouds and applied a subtle Blue tone to the photograph)
7) I finally applied a Smart Sharpening filter (after the resize) to desired taste.
8) Used "Save as...", chose JPEG and moved the compression slider to a point where the photograph sits around 400kb-600kb

 

[pringles]

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I prefer the original photo in like 9 out of 10 cases in this thread..
But I'm not a huge fan of (heavy) post-processing so maybe it's just me.

The perspective change achieved in the OP's photo is crazy though.

 

[b.e.r.g]

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I prefer the original photo in like 9 out of 10 cases in this thread..
But I'm not a huge fan of (heavy) post-processing so maybe it's just me.

The perspective change achieved in the OP's photo is crazy though.

A lot of PP is to achieve results that could be done with just a camera, but that requires either very expensive equipment or perfect conditions. And in many cases the whole idea is that you wont even notice it.

There is a lot of science and research behind this as well. Like how non-linear contrast are more natural and appealing to the human eye than the standard linear contrast you get from the camera. Taste is individual, but there's a few rules non the less...

 

[captive]

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I prefer the original photo in like 9 out of 10 cases in this thread..
But I'm not a huge fan of (heavy) post-processing so maybe it's just me.

The perspective change achieved in the OP's photo is crazy though.

1. I hope my "after" was one of the ones you preferred. :lol

2. I was looking at this thread and was very surprised. I thought I did a lot of processing but its very rare that i clone things out. And as evidenced by my after picture I dont care about correcting lens traits like distortion. (the horizon curves)
But a lot of the images here are doing both. Nothing wrong with it, just depends on what the photographer wants and in some cases what the client wants.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Here's an underexposed RAW shot from my Canon 20D that I rescued for one of the Photogaf assignments. I mostly adjusted levels, brightness/contrast, and saturation:

 

[BronzeWolf]

Finally got home.

Here are some of the best examples of my post-proc work.

1. Cross Processing
Before

After


Lomo photo style.
Inverse selected the subject, in this case, the car, and dropped the medium levels way down to the .5's, adjusting everything else.
Flattened, then using the ever faithful Bent S on the curves menu.
It's impressive how much information is on the RAW format, since you can see how much of the graffiti detail was hidden in the low contrast and blurry RAW picture. Those things are difficult to get on JPEG
Sharpening, cropping and watermarking

Before

After


Basically the same but without inverse selecting the subject, and fiddling with the red, green and blue channels in the curves menu

2. B&W
Before

After


Hi dad

When doing black and white, I like to really crank up the levels and curves, because unsaturazing the photo always brings down the contrast, and that's what's working out for me. It totally changes the picture.
Cropped and aligned, obviously, I did some heavy handed sharpening to bring out the subject's wrinkles

3. Overexposed Recovering and getting the most out of the picture
Before

After


being in charge of sharpening before the compression is applied fills me with joy.

It's been a while since I took this picture, and I am thinking of reprocessing it so not as much detail is lost on the sea.

Before

After


So much wrong with the Before picture... wb is wrong, exposition is wrong.

I just desaturated some of the red channels on this one.

 

[BlueTsunami]

This is for you Black and White converter/shooters and you heavy post processors (in regards to manipulating color but still trying to retain a semi realistic look). If your workflow involves RAW, a RAW processor (be it Canons or Photoshop) and transferring the image to Photoshop to save for web then convert your RAW file as a Wide Gamut TIFF. I've been doing this for Black and White conversions and it gives you way more latitude to play with (especially with the blues) when you want to manipulate the image. Generally when converting RAW files they're converted with the sRGB color profile which doesn't give as much latitude. The main thing you have to watch out for when doing this is that you convert the photo to sRGB within' photoshop. If you don't do this it'll be saved as a Wide Gamut photo and look weird on certain monitors and non-color managed applications.

 

[dark_chris]

Got home from work and figured this is a thread I'd like to contribute to with some details on what I did. I mostly just used photoshop for this.

Before

After

I really liked the theme I did for this shoot. All I did was put it black and white, add noise, and adjust levels and brightness a bit.

Before:

After:

Decreased color, played with curves, blurred, and one more but I forgot.

Before:

After:

In this shot, I increased the brightness, fixed contrast, played the curves, added a small bit of blur/smoothness, and played with the colors.

Before:

After:

Added the brightness but darkened the water a bit, smoothed it a tad bit, and adjusted color. Tried to balance the color of the water with the actual colors of her skin and sand, getting rid of the blueishness (lol) of the pic

 

[dark_chris]

Here are some of the best examples of my post-proc work.
Before

After


So much wrong with the Before picture... wb is wrong, exposition is wrong.

I just desaturated some of the red channels on this one.

I said wow. Looks great!

 

[Mar]

Pro looking photos are not just post proc though. The glass that you use to take the picture is 90% the picture.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this is some A grade bullshit right here. Sure, there are things you can do with complicated equipment that you can't do with cheap stuff, but taking a good photo is all about technique. If your claim was true 90% of professional photographers would be middle to upper class Joe Publics with their expensive DSLRs and multi thousand dollar lenses.

I know two professional photographers. One will tell you equipment is very important, as his work is taking photos of concerts in low light. The other who works for magazines will laugh at you if you ask what camera he uses. He has printed work taken from disposable cameras he bought from a convenience store 10 minutes before the shoot.

 

[revolverjgw]

I didn't know it was even possible to do shit like the thing in the OP

 

[Mar]

Oh, I forgot to mention.

Cropping is regarded as cheating in most circles around photography. You can post process the photos out the wazoo (besides changing the content of the photo itself), but cropping an image is frowned upon as you aren't relying on skill in composition nor are you growing your skill as a photographer.

Having said that, just about everyone crops.

 

[Kodiak]

NOTHING I SEE IS REAL

well technically nothing about even an unaltered photograph is remotely real.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Oh, I forgot to mention.

Cropping is regarded as cheating in most circles around photography. You can post process the photos out the wazoo (besides changing the content of the photo itself), but cropping an image is frowned upon as you aren't relying on skill in composition nor are you growing your skill as a photographer.

Having said that, just about everyone crops.

I have problems with that sort thinking, mainly due to the fact most digital cameras only show 95% to 98% of the scene within the viewfinder. There's only certain high end DSLRs that have viewfinders that'll give you 100% of the scene (unless you've got a camera that has liveview and you use it constantly). Working with a 100% coverage viewfinder or straight up film, I could almost agree with that (its definitely best to get it right at capture).

On Post Processing, people who only post images "Straight Out of Camera" are in reality getting a pre determined Tone Curve by the manufacture of the camera (essentially doing the post processing for them). This is why people who laud "Straight Out of Camera" images as deserving of a Gold Star come off as a bit ignorant to the inner workings of their camera.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this is some A grade bullshit right here. Sure, there are things you can do with complicated equipment that you can't do with cheap stuff, but taking a good photo is all about technique. If your claim was true 90% of professional photographers would be middle to upper class Joe Publics with their expensive DSLRs and multi thousand dollar lenses.

I know two professional photographers. One will tell you equipment is very important, as his work is taking photos of concerts in low light. The other who works for magazines will laugh at you if you ask what camera he uses. He has printed work taken from disposable cameras he bought from a convenience store 10 minutes before the shoot.

I can get down with this I absolutely love my $50 50 Year old lens. That lens is actually the one I had taken the flower photograph with. With that said, I still obsess over Carl Zeiss lenses cause I have an internal gear head that needs to be tended too.

 

[sprsk]

It annoys me as a photographer that people think setting the saturation extremely high looks good.

Isn't the opposite now what is in? Let's desaturate!

 

[JDSN]

Ive seen a lot of people in the pictures thread using some douchey filter that makes everything look pinkish and blueish, how can I make my pictures as hateable as those?

Edit:

Exactly like the one on the top right, any tutorials?

 

[thepatient666]

Found these old pics I took in high school the other day. So since I have no access to a scanner I just took pictures of them and then cleaned them up a bit.

 

[LastExile]

 

[BronzeWolf]

Sorry to be so blunt, but this is some A grade bullshit right here. Sure, there are things you can do with complicated equipment that you can't do with cheap stuff, but taking a good photo is all about technique. If your claim was true 90% of professional photographers would be middle to upper class Joe Publics with their expensive DSLRs and multi thousand dollar lenses.

I know two professional photographers. One will tell you equipment is very important, as his work is taking photos of concerts in low light. The other who works for magazines will laugh at you if you ask what camera he uses. He has printed work taken from disposable cameras he bought from a convenience store 10 minutes before the shoot.

Woa! So MUCH bitching.

I am just saying that it's very hard, especially for the beginner, to do a 1.4 depth of field effect without a 1.4 lens. That's all I am saying, but even then time is money, and every minute not spent post-processing and adding quasi-depth of field effects is better spent taking pictures, planning shoots and getting out there.

Some of my best work was taken with a cheap $80 manual 50mm f1.4 lens.

But saying the lens is not a vital part of the photography is retarded.

Oh, I forgot to mention.

Cropping is regarded as cheating in most circles around photography. You can post process the photos out the wazoo (besides changing the content of the photo itself), but cropping an image is frowned upon as you aren't relying on skill in composition nor are you growing your skill as a photographer.

Having said that, just about everyone crops.

Yeah, retarded is retarded

It's not like you learn composition by cropping your photos, no sir!

*Sigh*

Ive seen a lot of people in the pictures thread using some douchey filter that makes everything look pinkish and blueish, how can I make my pictures as hateable as those?

Edit:

Exactly like the one on the top right, any tutorials?

Look for cross processing

 

[Visualante]

I know

Spoiler

it's not that great

 

[BronzeWolf]

That's a great PS!

I am not usually a fan of centered subjects, but the triangle effect of the marina is great!

AWESOME PS.

 

[captive]

Woa! So MUCH bitching.

I am just saying that it's very hard, especially for the beginner, to do a 1.4 depth of field effect without a 1.4 lens. That's all I am saying, but even then time is money, and every minute not spent post-processing and adding quasi-depth of field effects is better spent taking pictures, planning shoots and getting out there.

Some of my best work was taken with a cheap $80 manual 50mm f1.4 lens.

But saying the lens is not a vital part of the photography is retarded.



Yeah, retarded is retarded

It's not like you learn composition by cropping your photos, no sir!

*Sigh*

agreed on both accounts. I've been saying it and saying it but lenses > cameras. A sharp lens will allow you to enlarge a lot better than more megapixels will.

And sometimes you just have to crop, especially for myself and birds theres only so much reach you can have with telephotos and sometimes birds just wont let you get closer.


Here's another from me. This is one of my favorite pictures. But its pretty simple editing(at least i think). I tend to prefer natural to slightly embellished representation.

Again its a straight raw conversion so it looks lifeless to me.
before

tone curve highlights +60
lights +10
darks -20
shadows -60

blacks 14
recovery +25
exposure +1.15


cropped to 2x3 and rotated to level as my camera was not level on the tripod. I was in a ditch with tripod legs bent to about 15 degrees level from the ground and the extender at a 90 from where the legs meet(im sure theres a name for it), shooting through barbed wire.

then fill light 11 because i've noticed prints on the particular paper i use are just a shade darker than my screen, and canvas is about half a stop darker.

after

 

[Rentahamster]

Cropping is regarded as cheating in most circles around photography.

Wha?

 

[Zaptruder]

Oh, I forgot to mention.

Cropping is regarded as cheating in most circles around photography. You can post process the photos out the wazoo (besides changing the content of the photo itself), but cropping an image is frowned upon as you aren't relying on skill in composition nor are you growing your skill as a photographer.

Having said that, just about everyone crops.

Most circles of photography are retarded

I also have to say the blatantly obvious...

Not everyone's post processing is an improvement on the original here. You need a good eye for detail and overall composition if you're going to play around with those tools.

And @ everyone exclaiming holy crap at the perspective change... it's literally 3 button clicks. It's the easiest damn thing to do in the world in photoshop.

 

[samusx]

Some good stuff in here.
I think post processing is up to the photographer. Everyone has their own taste and style.
Yes going overboard with effects and filters and such can be very amateurish and doesn't look too good usually, but that's how we learn I guess.

Here are two more. I did this one a long while ago so I don't remember what I did.
But there is some saturation, colour adjustments, multiply layers, levels. Something along those lines.

 

[tokkun]

 

[345triangle]

i'm a reasonably big believer in iphoto's "enhance" button, as long as it's a daytime shot without shadow detail or clouds...usually does a pretty good job!

 

[Lorr]

Across the board I messed with the curves and added more contrast, gave them all a higher color temp, played with the hues and saturations on them, sharpened, and did some cropping/realigning. Did these a little while back when I first got my camera and Lightroom, so it was quite the learning experience.

 

[mr_nothin]

I REALLY wanted to be apart of this thread and so I started gathering my after photos...and then when I added my "original" photos to the "before" folder, that's when i realized I saved over them.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

 

[Salsa]

Just messing with the curves

 

[ScientificNinja]

Shot was taken ages ago, so I can't remember for the life of me what I did in post...

 

[tomjr]

 

[hEist]

must have as wallpaper >.< pleaseee!

send me an pm with the size you want.

Oh? Hm, I rarely check flickr, but might have been there I saw it then. That, or somebody's stealing your work...

i hope not... :/

 

[rass]

tagging this thread for when I get a chance

 

[ScientificNinja]

 

[BronzeWolf]

shots

Woaaaa

I know it's a personal thing, but way too much contrast, some details are lost on the highlights.

 

[Hellraizah]

 

[ScientificNinja]

Very nice - I'll have to try this one day

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

definitely like most of the befores.......

 

[ScientificNinja]

Sorry to be so blunt, but this is some A grade bullshit right here. Sure, there are things you can do with complicated equipment that you can't do with cheap stuff, but taking a good photo is all about technique. If your claim was true 90% of professional photographers would be middle to upper class Joe Publics with their expensive DSLRs and multi thousand dollar lenses.

I know two professional photographers. One will tell you equipment is very important, as his work is taking photos of concerts in low light. The other who works for magazines will laugh at you if you ask what camera he uses. He has printed work taken from disposable cameras he bought from a convenience store 10 minutes before the shoot.

I am totally down with this, as well as the criticism about cropping, etc. It's one thing to know how to screw around with expensive cameras and turn those bits and bobs on CS5; it's another thing entirely to be able to do it according to an artistic style that people would be willing to pay money for, and then actually being able to get paid for it. That, in my experience, is the difference between the pros and the wannabes.

That said, I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into a finger-pointing thread about what constitutes photography and what does not (as many of the Photo-GAF assignments have in the past). It's plainly obvious to me that people in this thread are aiming for different things, at different skill levels, and using different equipment. Let's just leave that be, eh? I'm just here because I'm curious to see the kind of techniques other people use, and there's at least one I've seen that has inspired me to try something new.

 

[Dali]

before:

after:

 

[b.e.r.g]

Ive seen a lot of people in the pictures thread using some douchey filter that makes everything look pinkish and blueish, how can I make my pictures as hateable as those?

Edit:

Exactly like the one on the top right, any tutorials?

It's a single curve layer. Go to Layer -> New Adjustment Layer -> Curves and try to make it close to this:

On the top where it reads "RGB" you can select the separate color curves. Just mess around, there is a lot to learn

 

[Tk0n]

scan from a badly stored (1 year in the trunk of my car) film:

after lots of work on sharpening and colors and replacing the sky

 

[Why would you do that?]

Looking at this thread, I finally understand the importance of post processing and its powers. I guess I'll have to go practice that more, now.

 

[b.e.r.g]

Before:

After:

I'm not in control of the light, I'm not in control of the people, the situation, nor the moment. But what I am on control of is the shutter and the post processing. Pros can call it cheating all they want, but in my eyes it's all about what you're left with, and I'm left with a photo I'm quiet happy with, a lot thanks to post processing.

 

[samusx]

b.e.r.g I don't mean to be rude, but I think your crop is still too wide. There is a distracting empty space on the right of the photo, and my eye is drawn to the bag in the bottom right of the image.

I think you should make this a really tight crop. So it is just the two people.
Nobody cares about a window and a photo on a wall. ^_^ Focus on the party. So many people with nice big smiles.

Something like this.

 

[samusx]

 

[LosDaddie]

Awesome stuff in this thread. Keep up the great work!

 

[b.e.r.g]

b.e.r.g I don't mean to be rude, but I think your crop is still too wide. There is a distracting empty space on the right of the photo, and my eye is drawn to the bag in the bottom right of the image.

I think you should make this a really tight crop. So it is just the two people.
Nobody cares about a window and a photo on a wall. ^_^ Focus on the party. So many people with nice big smiles.

Something like this.

Ha, seems better indeed. I was afraid it might get a little tight, but guess not. I tried to keep the guy on the right within 1/3, and I also have a fetish for squares so wanted to keep it squared. You got them both within 1/3 though, and I noticed how much better the main subjects stand out! Anyways, these are just photos for Facebook, so I'm not too picky.

Don't be afraid to criticize my photos though This is just a hobby and I'll never stop learning.

*EDIT*

How about this?

Had to chop the cake, but you think it's a big deal?