| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2010 04:57:25 PM · #1 |
Since the subject comes up regularly, I'd like to suggest that people who have been here a while sound off on their experiences with thye learning curve. I know I never really saw PP as an unfair advantage when I got here.....I just thought that the people who inhabited the front page were better, more experienced photographers than I.
I still feel that way. Yeah, there are some really serious PS wizards here, but it's all about how much time and effort you want to put into learning, and I know I'm a bunch better than I was when I got here.
I truly feel that what I've learned mostly have been better photographjy techniques than PP techniques. The old "Polish a turd" adage to me has never been more patently obvious than trying to salvage a bad image. No amount of post-processing can rescue bad composition, lousy lighting, focus being off, or any of a plethora of other mistakes than we can make with alacrity.
The single most important thing that I feel has improved for me is the ability to see mistakes I would make before I shoot, and to look at what I'm shooting before, during, and after shooting, yet before I go home so that if I need to do more work, I can. I have discovered I'm more likely to have three or four images that are exceedingly close to each other in basic composition, yet that are different enough that I can tell that I was making every effort to compensate for issues when shooting. It makes me realize that I'm not only covering my bases to ensure I got the shot I intended, but it's making me feel like I actually know what I'm doing.
Who'd of thunk it! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
04/16/2010 05:23:44 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Since the subject comes up regularly, I'd like to suggest that people who have been here a while sound off on their experiences with thye learning curve. |
I was lucky enough to have my former employer send me to a class on photo editing back in 1991 (Photoshop v 2.0). That's before there was any such thing as a "digital camera," and a Crossfield drum scanner to create high resolution digital files (e.g. for magazines) cost about $130,000 (we didn't have one of those!).
I think there are just a few basic things you need to understand about how digital editing works, and with that understanding you can quickly learn to use any new tool or adjustment.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Resolution and file sizes -- it's just simple arithmetic, honest!
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Resizing and resampling
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Color spaces (personally, I avoid using profiles)
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Making and saving selections; masks
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Tonal Adjustments: Curves, Levels, Hue/Sat, etc.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Sharpening, Unsharp Mask
ΓΆ€ΒΆ File formats, compression
We have tutorials on-site which cover most of these, and lenty of discussions of them. I find that as I've gotten more familiar with my camera and controlling the exposure I have to do less editing than before, and probably 80% of all my entries require only editing legal under the Basic rules.
FWIW, my regular editing program is Photoshop 5.0, released in 1998.
Message edited by author 2010-04-16 17:25:40. |
|
|
|
04/16/2010 05:24:04 PM · #3 |
Well....
The old adage you're quoting, "you can't polish a turd", is of course pretty much correct, but it's only part of the story. When we get to a certain level, PP is all about *visualization*, about seeing the finished result in your mind when making the exposure, using the actual capture of the image to give you raw material that can be USED to attain that vision, then going into the processing stage with a will towards achieving or even exceeding the vision.
It's a pretty seamless continuum, there's not really a point where one stops being a photographer and becomes a photoshop wizard, at least not when one's working with single images, as opposed to crafting montages out of many images.
The key, of course, is to realize the potential of what you're seeing at the outset, and to be prepared to follow through even when the RAW image, frankly, LOOKS like a turd. Here's a case in point: exhaustive processing notes on the finished version, which garnered me a ribbon. The finished version is what I was SEEING when I made the shot, literally, and the RAW version is the sort of exposure I was doing to attain it. There were, of course, 3 of them, but they were all equally flat, just of varying degrees of over/under.
From this:  to this: 
R. |
|
|
|
04/16/2010 05:26:21 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well....
The old adage you're quoting, "you can't polish a turd", is of course pretty much correct, but it's only part of the story. When we get to a certain level, PP is all about *visualization*, about seeing the finished result in your mind when making the exposure, using the actual capture of the image to give you raw material that can be USED to attain that vision, then going into the processing stage with a will towards achieving or even exceeding the vision.
It's a pretty seamless continuum, there's not really a point where one stops being a photographer and becomes a photoshop wizard, at least not when one's working with single images, as opposed to crafting montages out of many images.
The key, of course, is to realize the potential of what you're seeing at the outset, and to be prepared to follow through even when the RAW image, frankly, LOOKS like a turd. Here's a case in point: exhaustive processing notes on the finished version, which garnered me a ribbon. The finished version is what I was SEEING when I made the shot, literally, and the RAW version is the sort of exposure I was doing to attain it. There were, of course, 3 of them, but they were all equally flat, just of varying degrees of over/under.
From this: to this:
R. |
Wow! that is an absolutely amazing transformation....
Would there be any chance that you could provide a list of things that you did to this photo? This would greatly help me in tinkering around with some of my own photos, and to get a better feel for PS.
Thanks, and again, great pic! |
|
|
|
04/16/2010 05:27:38 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by glockguy:
Would there be any chance that you could provide a list of things that you did to this photo? This would greatly help me in tinkering around with some of my own photos, and to get a better feel for PS.
Thanks, and again, great pic! |
The list is in the photographer's notes on the finished version. If you need more, let me know, but I think I covered it.
R. |
|
|
|
04/16/2010 05:48:24 PM · #6 |
| my bad.....i didnt look that far down on the page...... |
|
|
|
04/16/2010 05:58:11 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Since the subject comes up regularly, I'd like to suggest that people who have been here a while sound off on their experiences with thye learning curve. I know I never really saw PP as an unfair advantage when I got here.....I just thought that the people who inhabited the front page were better, more experienced photographers than I.
I still feel that way. Yeah, there are some really serious PS wizards here, but it's all about how much time and effort you want to put into learning, and I know I'm a bunch better than I was when I got here.
I truly feel that what I've learned mostly have been better photographjy techniques than PP techniques. The old "Polish a turd" adage to me has never been more patently obvious than trying to salvage a bad image. No amount of post-processing can rescue bad composition, lousy lighting, focus being off, or any of a plethora of other mistakes than we can make with alacrity.
The single most important thing that I feel has improved for me is the ability to see mistakes I would make before I shoot, and to look at what I'm shooting before, during, and after shooting, yet before I go home so that if I need to do more work, I can. I have discovered I'm more likely to have three or four images that are exceedingly close to each other in basic composition, yet that are different enough that I can tell that I was making every effort to compensate for issues when shooting. It makes me realize that I'm not only covering my bases to ensure I got the shot I intended, but it's making me feel like I actually know what I'm doing.
Who'd of thunk it! LOL!!! |
I think you pretty much covered it Bear. Also even if you are trying to exactly capture what you see, the camera is very unlikely to reproduce this and you are going to need to do some processing to get the WOW vista you ran out to shoot. Partly you are probably going to have to enhance the image to compensate for being a a two dimensional thing that is really small compared to what you are looking at being huge three dimensional reality. Plus your eyes can handle a greater dynamic range then a camera sensor.
Then of course there is just plain old artistic intention :)
Everything I have learned and am learning about PP is through experimentation, looking at what others have done and reading stuff now and again. Mostly experimentation. you can get decent results even with iPhoto! I rarely use Photoshop and use Aperture almost exclusively. |
|
|
|
04/16/2010 10:31:58 PM · #8 |
For me it's been one small thing learned at a time. Often my best images are nearly complete when I save them from my RAW converter. Such as this one, which only had some minor adjustments done to it and very little advanced editing. (Some selective sharpening, I think)
On the other hand, this one had some serious exposure variations and would not have done as well as it did if I'd not been able to do some selective adjustments. At the time I had not learned how to use layers yet, so it was a lot of work with selections. Layers and masks makes such things a while lot easier and more natural looking.
I've sometimes seen some challenge entries from others that I felt were very good shots, but had almost no adjustments done to bring out their potential.
I do like the tonemapped look and I struggle with riding the line between "wow" and "overprocessed". Sometimes I'll just scrap it and start over. My original edit of this entry left something to be desired and a do-over was needed.
Original edit:
Actual entry, re-done several hours before rollover:
 |
|
|
|
04/16/2010 11:12:29 PM · #9 |
Here is a Before & After posting thread arising out of an earlier, similar discussion. Some of the images are about how to maximize the impact of an already-good original, and some are "rescue" jobs:
Original:  Entry:  |
|
|
|
04/16/2010 11:59:40 PM · #10 |
One thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post was that what I see in my mind's eye is not too often what is actually there and/or what the camera sees. Post processing skills allow me to create the vision that I have when I shoot something.
Here's an example.....when I go into an abandoned or really run down building, and I look for old, grand structures, I can see their beauty & power; the magnificence of their former personality, and this is the kind of thing that I see.
This was what I shot.
No, it doesn't fundametally differ, but I see the brightness, the richness of the textures and the architecture. I know it's nt honestly accurate, but I'm creating the visiomn, the view, the image that my mind conjures when I'm wandering around in one of these old places that won't be with us much more.
Sappy and wishful? Rose colored glasses? Maybe......but this is the vision I have when I explore. Post processing helps me to achieve this vision.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2010 12:24:43 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well....
The old adage you're quoting, "you can't polish a turd", is of course pretty much correct, but it's only part of the story. When we get to a certain level, PP is all about *visualization*, about seeing the finished result in your mind when making the exposure, using the actual capture of the image to give you raw material that can be USED to attain that vision, then going into the processing stage with a will towards achieving or even exceeding the vision.
It's a pretty seamless continuum, there's not really a point where one stops being a photographer and becomes a photoshop wizard, at least not when one's working with single images, as opposed to crafting montages out of many images.
The key, of course, is to realize the potential of what you're seeing at the outset, and to be prepared to follow through even when the RAW image, frankly, LOOKS like a turd. Here's a case in point: exhaustive processing notes on the finished version, which garnered me a ribbon. The finished version is what I was SEEING when I made the shot, literally, and the RAW version is the sort of exposure I was doing to attain it. There were, of course, 3 of them, but they were all equally flat, just of varying degrees of over/under.
From this: to this:
R. |
Personally, I wish you entered the original in that challenge. :P
|
|
|
|
04/17/2010 12:33:28 AM · #12 |
The day I stopped post-processing the hell out of my shots was the day that photography became fun. It was also the day my average here started to sink (and it's still sinking). I look at shots like this now and cringe. I selected this, noise reduced that, desaturated this, spot sharpened that, etc., etc. The voters loved it. It'll probably be on my front page forever.
I'm much more interested in the documentary aspect of photography Or, more simply, composition. I'm finding that if the exposure and focus are right, a little contrast boost or some fill light is all that my shots need. And I can do both in my RAW editor. I don't even sharpen my images anymore.
Not saying that my way is the right way, necessarily. It's just what works for me. |
|
|
|
04/17/2010 12:57:11 AM · #13 |
Here's what bvy means. Is radical.
 and  for starters. (His stuff).
Message edited by author 2010-04-17 00:58:15. |
|
|
|
04/17/2010 01:10:55 AM · #14 |
Here is an example of how PP was a crucial step. Take into consideration the image was originally RAW so it looks worse probably then if you had shot it in JPEG.
Original:
Entry:
 |
|
|
|
04/17/2010 02:09:23 AM · #15 |
Taken with my 10 year old camera while on my way to pick up  Isaac:
Source files:  
Unadjusted composite:  Final edit:  Print: 
Message edited by author 2010-04-17 02:10:20. |
|
|
|
04/17/2010 07:31:44 AM · #16 |
|
|
|
04/17/2010 08:14:30 AM · #17 |
I would love to share one of my first entries here.
This was taken with a Canon G9 (noisy little thing for long exposures..), handheld, on a railing.. This took tons of processing, but I was very pleased with the final result (except the noise in the sky, but there wasn't much to be done..)
Original:
Entry:
|
|
|
|
04/17/2010 09:59:52 AM · #18 |
From this 
to this 
This is about the most post processing I have ever done on an image. The original really was pathetic. |
|
|
|
04/17/2010 10:06:11 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Lonni:
From this
to this
This is about the most post processing I have ever done on an image. The original really was pathetic. |
WOW! One of the best transformations I've seen yet. |
|
|
|
04/17/2010 10:08:17 AM · #20 |
to
 |
|
|
|
04/17/2010 10:11:25 AM · #21 |
to
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 11:16:44 AM EDT.
