How can these shots be improved?

Hi guys,

Was out practicing with the D80, and took the following shots:

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/augm30.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/augm31.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/augm32.jpg

I was playing around in Photoshop, trying to improve the richness of the colors, but it didn't seem to be working for me.

I want to know what is involved in getting quality like this:

http://www.neiconi.com/bavision/images/IMG_4471.jpg

What sort of post-processing would be involved? There's no HDR here, so what do you guys think might give these photos such rich and smooth color and texture?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks :thumbsup:

Anyone? Please help! Hehe...

Firstly the shot at the bottom was probably extensively worked over to enhance just about everything.
It was also taken under totally controlled conditions with a professional lighting set up and could have been made from a montage of several shots (note how the lighting on the bonnet and windscreen does not seem to relect the overall lighting set up.)
Add a polarizing filter and you are probably there.
Your shots were taken in surroundings virtually guaranteed to make them look lifeless.
Try shooting outdoors, setting the White balance on your camera and with a polarizing filter.
The add some colour later when you have got everything else right.
And get low down and closer in.

I think you need to work on your lighting. Since cars are so shiny and reflective, they can be a hard subject to photograph. I agree with the polarizing filter, as that will reduce glare. Also I would find some open shade to shoot in, or wait for an overcast day.

Quality of shot notwithstanding, there are some things that can be done. First, and from the point of view of an avid Photoshopper: Either change the lighting or ditch the brick background. The reflection on the hood picks up the rough texture, giving the glare a pitted or pocked appearance. It is for that reason that I chose not to enhance the glare in my edit.

Secondly, forget about color. There's not enough of it in this shot to make a difference, and in my editing, a subdued much of what WAS there. This image is about lightness and contrast. Here's my edit:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...lr/augmFix.jpg

And the original, for comparison:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...tlr/augm32.jpg

The first thing I did (and the one that is most obvious) is to apply Shadow/Highlight to the entire image. This lightens the right side of the car (left, as you look at it) and enhances the wheels and highlights on the passenger side.

The headlights, fog lights, grill, wheels, and windshield were all selected individually with the pen tool, and copied to their own layer for enhancement. In most cases they were either lightened with a Levels command, or given increased contrast with the Curves command. The grill, wheels, and windshield had the blue desaturated to varying degrees.

Increasing the "shine" of the car involves painting with white or a light grey on a new layer, changing the blend mode to "soft light" and applying a luminosity selection as a mask.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have. You might want to google for a tutorial tough. Just a thought.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

Quality of shot notwithstanding, there are some things that can be done. First, and from the point of view of an avid Photoshopper: Either change the lighting or ditch the brick background. The reflection on the hood picks up the rough texture, giving the glare a pitted or pocked appearance. It is for that reason that I chose not to enhance the glare in my edit.

Secondly, forget about color. There's not enough of it in this shot to make a difference, and in my editing, a subdued much of what WAS there. This image is about lightness and contrast. Here's my edit:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...lr/augmFix.jpg

And the original, for comparison:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...tlr/augm32.jpg

The first thing I did (and the one that is most obvious) is to apply Shadow/Highlight to the entire image. This lightens the right side of the car (left, as you look at it) and enhances the wheels and highlights on the passenger side.

The headlights, fog lights, grill, wheels, and windshield were all selected individually with the pen tool, and copied to their own layer for enhancement. In most cases they were either lightened with a Levels command, or given increased contrast with the Curves command. The grill, wheels, and windshield had the blue desaturated to varying degrees.

Increasing the "shine" of the car involves painting with white or a light grey on a new layer, changing the blend mode to "soft light" and applying a luminosity selection as a mask.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have. You might want to google for a tutorial tough. Just a thought.

- Joe U.

---

Hi Joe,

Thank you for the edit, and thank you for all of the very helpful tips - I really appreciate you going out of your way here :thumbsup:

I'm going to hopefully get some time to do more shots this weekend, and then I'll post them with the great advice I now have under my belt.

I'm still amazed though at how crisp some people can get there shots such as this one: http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...s/dsc_0694.jpg

It's so perfect - you barely see any pixels.

Yet, regardless of what I shoot, it never comes out like this? Does it have anything to do with shooting in RAW?

Again, any help is greatly appreciated!

Shooting in RAW is essential if you want maximum sharpness.
A few weeks ago after a spell where my camera had been left in it's case for about 3 months I took it out and went out to shoot a few pics on a reasonable day (In Britain we've had floods, cold, sleet, storms and lightning in the past few months - while the rest of Europe has been roasting!).
When I loaded the pics onto my computer they were all fractionally unsharp.
I spent about a week trying to figure out what was wrong, even comparing my camera (Canon EOS 350D) to a similar one a friend has.
I was all set to return it to the shop under my insurance when I checked the settings.
I had set it to Jpeg!
And even though the size at Max Jpeg was the same size as RAW the sharpness was definitely inferior!
Now I make sure it's on RAW before I shoot anything.
And naturally the lens counts as well, as well as the speed you shoot at.
With the Canon and my telephoto set to say 200mm, I have to shoot above 1/500 sec to be reasonably sure of a sharp shot, even of a static subject.
And at 300mm I have to shoot nearer 1/2000 to be sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sean_damien

Hi guys,

Was out practicing with the D80, and took the following shots:

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/augm30.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/augm31.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/augm32.jpg

I was playing around in Photoshop, trying to improve the richness of the colors, but it didn't seem to be working for me.

I want to know what is involved in getting quality like this:

http://www.neiconi.com/bavision/images/IMG_4471.jpg

What sort of post-processing would be involved? There's no HDR here, so what do you guys think might give these photos such rich and smooth color and texture?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks :thumbsup:

---

Hi Sean,

You said you're practising and you want to improve so I'll take you at your word and be frank with you about the shots.
1/. First thing that strikes me is that the point of view you are using for the shots is pretty poor it's very high and also very distant from the subject. I think it was Capa said there are no bad photographs you where just too far away. That's very true in these images. I notice in most commercial car photography the killer point of view seems to be low down to the car or close in and abstact. I'd experiment with different focal lengths, heights and positions. Work really hard at your composition it needs attention if you wish to crack this kind of photography.
2/. Cars shot commercially are shot in controlled conditions with humongous softboxes and spill kills, tremendously complex lighting set-ups are used. I doubt very much you have this option. I know I don't and I have studio equipment just not enough! The only other option then to reduce reflections is cloudy overcast days, evening shots and polarizers. The good news is that cars don't move on long exposures like the shots you've taken so it's not hard to do.
3/. Ever thought of getting a manfrotto gadget to fasten camera to car body at various angles and drive about taking pictures with a remote release. You could get the gear to do that for about £50 and it makes for some killer photography and some great fun also. Check out Chase Jarvis's blog this week for inspiration on that front.

Hope that all helps,

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEvianT

Hi Sean,

You said you're practising and you want to improve so I'll take you at your word and be frank with you about the shots.
1/. First thing that strikes me is that the point of view you are using for the shots is pretty poor it's very high and also very distant from the subject. I think it was Capa said there are no bad photographs you where just too far away. That's very true in these images. I notice in most commercial car photography the killer point of view seems to be low down to the car or close in and abstact. I'd experiment with different focal lengths, heights and positions. Work really hard at your composition it needs attention if you wish to crack this kind of photography.
2/. Cars shot commercially are shot in controlled conditions with humongous softboxes and spill kills, tremendously complex lighting set-ups are used. I doubt very much you have this option. I know I don't and I have studio equipment just not enough! The only other option then to reduce reflections is cloudy overcast days, evening shots and polarizers. The good news is that cars don't move on long exposures like the shots you've taken so it's not hard to do.
3/. Ever thought of getting a manfrotto gadget to fasten camera to car body at various angles and drive about taking pictures with a remote release. You could get the gear to do that for about £50 and it makes for some killer photography and some great fun also. Check out Chase Jarvis's blog this week for inspiration on that front.

Hope that all helps,

David

---

Thanks for the advice David.

Here are a couple of new shots from today:

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/m3silo1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/m3silo2.jpg

Please let me know when you guys think.

Any post processing tips on these as well?

Thanks!

Nice shots. of the two, I prefer the first one. A question- were these shot in Raw? If they were, you can create two versions from the same file: one the exposes the sky correctly, and one that exposes the foreground correctly. Then put them in Photoshop and use a layer mask to combine them. I think you can improve the foreground contrast of both shots quite a bit using this technique.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

Nice shots. of the two, I prefer the first one. A question- were these shot in Raw? If they were, you can create two versions from the same file: one the exposes the sky correctly, and one that exposes the foreground correctly. Then put them in Photoshop and use a layer mask to combine them. I think you can improve the foreground contrast of both shots quite a bit using this technique.

- Joe U.

---

Hi Joe, thanks for the feedback!

I have been planning to try out that HDR technique. I actually just installed Photoshop CS2 today.

For some reason however, I can't open my NEF (RAW) files in Photoshop. It tells me that the file is not valid.

Is there something I need to do to get the RAW data into CS2?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks :thumbsup:

Adobe's Camera Raw plug-in probably needs to be updated to support your camera. What model Nikon are you using?

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

Adobe's Camera Raw plug-in probably needs to be updated to support your camera. What model Nikon are you using?

- Joe U.

---

D80.

Can't seem to find what I need to get these RAW files open.

I'm using Photoshop 9 CS2.

Thanks a bunch!

There is no one set Raw format, so Adobe has to keep updating their plug-in for Raw files to accomodate new camera models. Support for the Nikon D80 started with Adobe Camera Raw version 3.6. My guess is that you have an earlier version installed.

You can get the updates at Adobe's website.

Here's the 3.6 update for MAC: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...jsp?ftpID=3553

And for WINDOWS: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...jsp?ftpID=3554

Instructions for installing the updates can be found there as well.

Hope this helps.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

There is no one set Raw format, so Adobe has to keep updating their plug-in for Raw files to accomodate new camera models. Support for the Nikon D80 started with Adobe Camera Raw version 3.6. My guess is that you have an earlier version installed.

You can get the updates at Adobe's website.

Here's the 3.6 update for MAC: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...jsp?ftpID=3553

And for WINDOWS: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...jsp?ftpID=3554

Instructions for installing the updates can be found there as well.

Hope this helps.

- Joe U.

---

Thanks Joe, I can now open the RAW files :thumbsup:

Any suggestions on shooting pics for HDR? I tried today, but when I changed the exposure for each shot, it moved slightly (this putting the shots out of alignment).

Does the BKT option work for this?

Any tips would be appreciated :D

Lining up shots for HDR is just something you get used to. Even if you have everthing set up perfectly, a gentle breeze can sc#$@ things up royally.

My best advice for aligning images is this: Open your first two images. Select All on one image, and move it onto the other. When you think you have things lined up just about right, zoom in to at least 100% view, and change the blend mode of the top layer to "Difference". If the two images are identical, and you have them lined up exactly right, you'll see a black screen. That almost never happens on the first try, at least not for me. Most likely, you'll see a mostly black screen with some white outlines- an indication that the images aren't lined up exactly. Highlight the move tool (v), and strat playing with the arrow keys. The arrow keys move the image one pixel at a time in the direction indicated. If the white outlines get smaller when you press an arrow key, you're going in the right direction.

It takes a little practice to get the hang of this. You might try it on a single image, duplicating the layer and moving out of alignment to see if you can put it back. Because when you start working with images that have a different lightness, that can change the shading on the difference layer as well.

Now for some good news. If you decide to automate the conversion by using Photoshop's "Merge to HDR" command (File> Automate> Merge to HDR) then most of this will be done for you, and there's even an option to auto-align the layers. Inasmuch as I hate an automated workflow, this one can literally save you hours of time.

And yes, you can use bracketing for HDR. But I usually find that it doesn't give me enough variation. Canon's bracketing takes three shots at various exposures. I rarely use less than seven in my HDR shots.

Good Luck! Im glad you got your Raw thing sorted out.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

Lining up shots for HDR is just something you get used to. Even if you have everthing set up perfectly, a gentle breeze can sc#$@ things up royally.

My best advice for aligning images is this: Open your first two images. Select All on one image, and move it onto the other. When you think you have things lined up just about right, zoom in to at least 100% view, and change the blend mode of the top layer to "Difference". If the two images are identical, and you have them lined up exactly right, you'll see a black screen. That almost never happens on the first try, at least not for me. Most likely, you'll see a mostly black screen with some white outlines- an indication that the images aren't lined up exactly. Highlight the move tool (v), and strat playing with the arrow keys. The arrow keys move the image one pixel at a time in the direction indicated. If the white outlines get smaller when you press an arrow key, you're going in the right direction.

It takes a little practice to get the hang of this. You might try it on a single image, duplicating the layer and moving out of alignment to see if you can put it back. Because when you start working with images that have a different lightness, that can change the shading on the difference layer as well.

Now for some good news. If you decide to automate the conversion by using Photoshop's "Merge to HDR" command (File> Automate> Merge to HDR) then most of this will be done for you, and there's even an option to auto-align the layers. Inasmuch as I hate an automated workflow, this one can literally save you hours of time.

And yes, you can use bracketing for HDR. But I usually find that it doesn't give me enough variation. Canon's bracketing takes three shots at various exposures. I rarely use less than seven in my HDR shots.

Good Luck! Im glad you got your Raw thing sorted out.

- Joe U.

---

Awesome tips Joe! I'll be trying them out!

I have an issue I was wondering if you (or anyone else on this forum) might be able to answer...

When I open my RAW (NEF) photos directly in Photoshop, the color seems to get washed up a bit when I convert to JPEG. However, if I use the Nikon software (PictureProject) to open and export to JEPG, it comes out just as rich as the original.

Any ideas on what might be causing the change in color in Photoshop?

Thanks again :thumbsup:

That sounds like a color profile issue. Do you know what colorspace Photoshop is set for and what colorspace your camera is using?

Nice HDR car shot for you...

Indeed, I believe John is correct. Photoshop's default color setting, North American General Purpose2, sets the colorspace to web colors. Go to Edit> Color Settings. In the "working RGB" section, change the setting to Adobe RGB 1998. While you're there, look about midway down the box to the section label "Profile Mismatches". You'll see two boxes there. Check them both.

Now, Photoshop will display the full range of colors available from your Nikon. Further, if you open any file that doesn't use Adobe RGB 1998, Photoshop will give you the option of converting the image to those colors.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEvianT

Nice HDR car shot for you...

---

Those HDR shots are awesome!

Sorry, I'm new to HDR photography, so I'm a little confused as to how this was achieved: http://www.petecarr.net/hdr#id=1&num=8

I assume he only got the one shot, and then made multiple exposures in Photoshop, and then Merged them via HDR?

Or, do you think the photographer took multiple shots live, and then merged them all? I just wonder how that would be done considering these dancers were likely in constant motion.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

Indeed, I believe John is correct. Photoshop's default color setting, North American General Purpose2, sets the colorspace to web colors. Go to Edit> Color Settings. In the "working RGB" section, change the setting to Adobe RGB 1998. While you're there, look about midway down the box to the section label "Profile Mismatches". You'll see two boxes there. Check them both.

Now, Photoshop will display the full range of colors available from your Nikon. Further, if you open any file that doesn't use Adobe RGB 1998, Photoshop will give you the option of converting the image to those colors.

- Joe U.

---

Hi Joe,

I changed the settings as you noted, but it didn't seem to make a difference.

Here is a screen capture showing the difference between a RAW file (top) and the converted JPEG:

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/colors1.jpg

Sorry, I know it's not the best photo, but if you trace the shoddy lines I drew, you will see that the car in the top photo has a richer black color, the orange in the top is brighter, and that tower also has a different tone.

Here are my settings:

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/colors2.jpg

And here is what I am prompted with when I go to save into JPEG (if this matters at all):

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/colors3.jpg

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks :thumbsup:

One last thing, when I convert files, it creates a XMP file? Anyone know what/why that is?

OK, last things first, lol. When you modify a Raw image in the ACR plug-in, it doesn't actually alter the image in any way. Instead, it creates a list of modifications to that file, and stores it in the XMP file. When you re-open the image, Photoshop looks at the xmp file and reapplies the same modifications again. This is why Raw files are great for archiving: The original image never changes.

And re-opening the Raw image is what I'm about to tell you to do. When you save the image, you see the icc profile under color? sRGB IEC91966-2.1 is the color profile for web colors. You've changed your default setup, but this file is still using the old settings. Converting it won't help, as the image has already been desaturated...etc by converting it to sRGB. The best plan is to open the raw file again. This time, when it opens in Photoshop proper (not the raw plug-in), it should carry the new, larger, color profile. I think you'll find what you're after then.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

OK, last things first, lol. When you modify a Raw image in the ACR plug-in, it doesn't actually alter the image in any way. Instead, it creates a list of modifications to that file, and stores it in the XMP file. When you re-open the image, Photoshop looks at the xmp file and reapplies the same modifications again. This is why Raw files are great for archiving: The original image never changes.

And re-opening the Raw image is what I'm about to tell you to do. When you save the image, you see the icc profile under color? sRGB IEC91966-2.1 is the color profile for web colors. You've changed your default setup, but this file is still using the old settings. Converting it won't help, as the image has already been desaturated...etc by converting it to sRGB. The best plan is to open the raw file again. This time, when it opens in Photoshop proper (not the raw plug-in), it should carry the new, larger, color profile. I think you'll find what you're after then.

- Joe U.

---

Hi Joe,

Thanks for all the info.

However, the files still seem to be getting desaturated.

Here is the message I get when I try to open the RAW files or even the TIFF files I've converted using Nikon's PhotoProject:

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/rgb.jpg

Anyone clue on how I can maintain the color even after saving it to JPEG?

I was able to do it yesterday, but now it seems to be screwing up every photo.

Any help would be appreciated :thumbsup:

OK, question. Have you played with your camera settings? Nikon sRGB would be your camera's native web-color space. It sounds to me like you're taking pictures in web colors. Look thru the menus of the camera for how to change the colorspace (I shoot Canon, so I'm not much help here). But I know my camera allows me to shoot in sRGB, if I so desire.

- Joe U.

From a 1st year photographer, I would say contrast, saturation, & levels. Basically the basics!

Set your destination colourspace to Adobe RGB1998. Shoot your RAW files in Adobe RGB1998. Calibrate your monitor. When you make a TIFF or RAW into a jpg for web use convert it to sRGB IEC91966-2.1 as web won't recognise an RGB profile and image will become darker and more muted unless converted.

Thanks for all the help guys!

Here's one I took this weekend:

http://www.geocities.com/seandamien/m3_alley1.jpg

So, what do you think?

Am I improving at least?