Filter Packages?

[poker]

The more and more I've shooting in the past few months the more I realize I need to get more done in post processing. I don't have the time to become better at Photoshop and I'm starting to wonder about those prices filter packages.

Although I'll shoot a good pic (composition, exposure, subject) it still look dull. When I see other peoples work, I realize.....the others are doing more in post than I am.

Can anyone recommend a filter package that doesn't cost an arm and a leg??

[mjs1973]

Are you talking filters to use in Photoshop, or to screw onto your lenses? I don't think I use any aftermarket filters in Photoshop. I do have a bunch of them that I downloaded a long time ago, but I hardly ever use them. I do use a lot of adjustment layers though. Curves to add a bit of contrast. Vibrance to punch of the color a little big. Most of this can be handled in ACR before you even get to PS.

[poker]

Are you talking filters to use in Photoshop

Yes

I do use a lot of adjustment layers though. Curves to add a bit of contrast. Vibrance to punch of the color a little big.

I do similar things to give my shots a bit more punch. But, I notice many add a dreamy effect or intentionally add vignette. I know I'll either buy a filter package or start searching the internet to build a library of free actions.

Most of this can be handled in ACR before you even get to PS.

What is ACR?


I just shot a wedding and I was happy with the technical results but it now needs some FX that I see other photogs doing.

[mjs1973]

ACR is Adobe Camera RAW. It's the build in RAW converter in PS. You can add vignetts in ACR.

[poker]

found this....kinda cool....and free is always good

http://www.atncentral.com/download.htm

[Medley]

You might also look here: http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/home.html

Lots of tool tips and tutorrials, if you're looking for that sort of thing. But the PS actions are top notch, and come with full details on how to install and use them.

The actions are free to download, although the photographer requests a donation if you find them useful.

- Joe U.

[GB1]

Poker -

Like you, I really want to take my photos to the next level in PP. I see some incredible shots out there where the entire photo just seems to glow, and I wonder if it's got more to do with PP than the original image? Probably both.

Bumping up the saturation, contrast etc is what I consider the first pass PP effort. Like Mike mentioned, I think some pix need multiple layer work to get really good pop. If there's miracle filters out there that can do it though, I'm all for them !

Let us know what you find,

G

[GB1]

Ok, I've found an image that explains the kind of PP "pop" that can be added, assuming the photographer wants to go this far in terms of the 'edited' look. (Don't know who the photographer is btw):

http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?p...nt=1&group_id=

Now, take a look at this shot by me. I like it, but feel that there simply isn't the same amount of "pop" which I think probably has to do with the lighting not being as good (or controlled):

http://www.gregbulla.com/Photography...2434_px800.JPG

comments? I wonder how good PP could help my image?

[Medley]

Ok, first things first Greg. Credit for the photo goes to Jacob Andrzejczak, a professional photographer out of Las Vegas, NV.

To duplicate the effect in the first photo takes a lot of work, and some specialized equipment: a Wacom (or similar) tablet, with the optional airbrush. Yes, it can be done with the 'airbrush' setting in PS, but the actual airbrush pen has a roller on the top so you can adjust the 'paint' flow in mid-stroke, an invaluable aid.

As to the actual technique itself, you can Google "airbrushing skintones" or "painting with light" to find tutorials.

There is however a "quick and dirty" alternative:
Open the image, and duplicate the background layer twice. Turn the top layer (Background copy 2) off for a moment. On the middle (Background copy) layer, Go to Filter> Blur> Gaussian Blur, and give it healthy radius- say around 16 pixels. Now change the Blend Mode of the layer to 'Screen'. You'll see a general softening of the image, and an evening of skin tone, but the result is entirely to bright. Now turn on the top layer, and set the blend mode to 'Multiply'. This will darken the image, almost back to it's original state. Reduce the opacity of the top (Multiply) layer until the desired balance is achieved.

You can also use the Lens Blur filter rather than Gaussian Blur. The result will have the same evening of skin tone, but keep a bit more of the tonality, at the expense of the 'glow' effect. Both techniques have their place. The entire technique is a variation of the Orton Effect, a darkroom technique.

FWIW.

- Joe U.

[GB1]

Thanks Joe. Based on your info, I'm betting that Jacob Andrzejczak did indeed put some serious PP time into this shot, though with great results. I tried the described PS Orton Effect with the two added layers and it does create a pretty neat effect that I think will work nicely on many shots. I tried it on my shot of this model ("Talia") .. not bad! I think it may be best suited for lingerie shots -- something to ask Talia about maybe

Poker, hope you don't feel that I'm hijacking your thread. It's just interesting how discussions lead into related topics. And I guess there's a lot one can do with plain ol vanilla Photoshop, even w/o extra filters.

[Medley]

Yep, that's the effect. Nicely done Greg.

Poker, this effect should work well on any images of the bride from that wedding shoot too. It gives her that soft radiance that every bride should have!

- Joe U.

[poker]

I used an action I found on a wedding shot. I'll share it soon. Thanks for the other links of info.

Poker, hope you don't feel that I'm hijacking your thread. It's just interesting how discussions lead into related topics. And I guess there's a lot one can do with plain ol vanilla Photoshop, even w/o extra filters.

Not at all. I didn't realize the thread was growing.