The Goal of PP [Wildlife Specific]

[Singletracklovr]

Is it the goal in post processing to make the photo as close to the natural conditions as you remember it?
Basicly fixing human errors like wrong camera setting and or equipment limitations.
or
Do you make the photo as pleasing to eye as possible?

[Medley]

Neither is "wrong", it's all a matter of personal taste. That said, I lean towards the 'as pleasing to the eye' side of things.

When I shoot wildlife, I try to get a depth-of-field just wide enough to get the subject in complete focus, as blurring the background helps the eye focus on the subject. It can make a world of difference in things such as elk or deer, that blend naturally with their surroundings.

Having done so though, I feel I've already departed from the 'natural conditions' before the shot even gets to the computer.

- Joe U.

[GB1]

Bob -

Good question but also one without a definitive answer. Everyone will have different opinions, which is to be expected in the art field (you should see some of the discussions I have with a friend of mine about photography and art in general .. they are never resolved, but they are also very interesting).

I'd say that every technique has its place. Some photos are best with just very minimal cleanup, like fixing tilts, sharpening, etc. Perhaps cloning out the trash here and there also. Modifying the scene to your memory is also OK if that is the intention. More aggressive PP - "airbrushing" models' lines out, etc - moves the pic into another category IMHO. Then there's pretty extreme PP where you give the photo minor or even major surgery, which is OK if your intention is to create a piece of art. Then there's digital fantasy stuff, and collages, and .... etc etc. The list is endless.

That being said, execution is also a big part of making the above of high quality and believable. You can have the best plan in the world but if it isn't implemented very well, .. so much for that!

As for me, I prefer moderate cleanup at this point in time, but I may get more aggressive (or artistic, depending on how you view it) in the future. I'm hoping this forum enlightens me a bit ..

-G

[Singletracklovr]

Hi Joe and G,
Thank you for the input and discussion.
I knew when posting this question that there is no one answer. I think it's a great topic as well and hope other will offer their opinions and ideas.


I seem to go thru phases in my PP.
When I first started, I use to crank the saturation to almost cartoon levels, up the contrast and heavy on the unsharpen mask.

I look back at those photos now, with no masters stored, and feel the photos are ruined.

[Ron Kruger]

I shoot for publication, Bob, and have been told by a few photo editors that the less PP done to a shot the better. They prefer to do that stuff, if needed, and told me the tendency of most photographers is to overdue PP, especially on uncalibrated screens. (The way one of them put it was: "Most guys PP all over a shot.") lol, I loved that.
The real pros can fix anything but poor focus, and according to them, oversharpening a shot ruins it. My approach has long been to concentrate upon getting as good a shot as possible when the shutter button is pressed, and what I've learned from the people who play with digital every day for a living backs that up.
I play around with PhotoShop once in a while, just for the fun of it, and I usually have to do a little something to shots just to make them emailable (is that a word?), but if I bring a shot into PhotoShop and it looks like I have to do a lot to make it look good, I usually just try to figure out what I did wrong at the time of capture, trash it and reshoot the scene if possible.

[Medley]

I agree with most of what you say Ron, and coming from someone who shoots strictly for publication, I can see why you'd have that point of view. Most people new to pp DO tend to overdo things, and yes, oversharpening WILL ruin a shot.

But I think it's also important to learn to do pp correctly, if for no other reason than the fact that some of my images AREN"T meant for anyone but me, and those images have the toughest critic, lol.

But it's also good to be prepared for whatever a publisher may ask of you. I don't often get asked about things like bleed and ink percentage values (unless there's some problem, of course), but it's always good to know what they're talking about, and how to fix an image to their liking. For example, Japanese publishers have a different standard for converting their images from RGB to the profile of the printer used. They prefer the Perceptual rendering intent, versus the Relative Colorimetric intent that is the standard of North America and Europe. Even if they don't ask, it's nice to know how to modify the file to fit their needs, and still look the way you intended it to.

- Joe U.

[Ron Kruger]

Hey, Medley: You mention something I'm trying to figure out and haven't been able to get an answer from photo editors yet (I think I'm starting to bug them). Anyway, I've started shooting everything in aRGB, because that's the profile for printing. Plus, I want to have images in that color in case I want to submit to stock agencies or advertising agencies in the future.
However, I realize that most, if not all, of the shots my current markets get are shot in sRGB, so they are accustomed to converting them with Relative Colorimetric. What I'm worried about is if it will cause any confusion or problems if I send aRGB and they don't notice it and just automatically push the coversion button, or whatever it is?
I would presume that programs sophisticated enough for such conversion would automatically read the color and ignore such actions, but I just don't know. What I do know from working in publishing and as an editor, is that if anything can go wrong--it will.
I'm also worried that some of the editor's monitors might not be calibrated and the colors won't look right to them. In most cases, they make the initial decisions before sending images on to the photo editor.
You seem to know more about this than I, so I would appreciate your imput.
It's a whole different world than when I was correcting cromalons.

[Medley]

They should notice it as soon as they try to open the file. Photoshop requires that your workspace be set to a specific profile (sRGB is the default). It also has settings concerning what to do if a file doesn't match the workspace setting when you open it ( called 'profile mismatches'). Normally, it will ask if you want to convert it to the working profile, change the working profile to that of the image, or just ignore things altogether.

Converting the image to the working profile seems the best choice, but the most experienced editors won't do that, because that's the "one button" fix. A better way to do it is to open the image in it's original profile, and then convert it using the Edit> Convert to Profile command. This allows you to control all the options, and get the conversion the way that you want it.

Photoshop has separate commands for alerting you when you paste an image versus opening it. I mention this because it may answer your question in the other thread regarding why it asks about scans, and not digital images. My guess there is that it sees scans as a copy-and-paste operation, which I think kind of makes sense.

I can't speak for Elements, but in Photoshop CS2, all these settings are controlled from the Edit> Color Settings command. If you get to the right screen, you'll see "ask when opening" and "ask when pasting" checkboxes. Check them both, and you're in business.

Hope that helps.

- Joe U.

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks, Medley. That makes sense to me as well. Full versions obviously have more options than Elements. In my "color settings," I have four choices to set as defaults: sRBG, aRGB, no color management and "allow me to chose." However, it says that "allow me to chose assumes sRGB, but will allow you the flexibility to chose aRGB IF a profile is not present. The "if" bothers me, so I think for my needs the "always optomize for printing" option is best. That's going to give me aRGB and ask me to chose when something comes in with a different profile.
Am I understanding this correctly?

[Singletracklovr]

OK, These are probably going to be some really dumb questions...

What is the advantage of shooting in aRGB if you end up in sRGB on your final picture?
Same question with setting the camera to IIa(adobeRGB) vs Ia or IIIa for a higher gamut?
If PS is just going to convert/dumb them down.
Aren't you taking a chance with that conversion? By chance, I mean you have no control over the conversion.

Wouldn't it be better to set the camera to the final output and learn to work within that color space?

I've ordered a Spyders3pro monitor calibrator. I hope I can perform a few experiments to test the PS conversion and my camera setting.

[Ron Kruger]

Bob, the reason is that I shoot for publication, and the commercial print and advertizing media deals with a different color space than those optimized by computer screens and the types of printers the average person buys. Computer screens and most printers are optimized for sRGB, while commercial printers are optimized for aRGB.
I've set my camera to shoot in aRGB and PS to process in aRGB so that I can submit images that haven't been converted, and so that they are more pure and don't even have to undergo any conversion process by the publisher.
I've also calibrated my monitor so that I get true aRGB colors.
The only reason I might convert my aRGB images to sRGB, or "dumb them down," as you put it, is for posting them on the internet or for printing them on my cheap, little printer.
The printing and advertising industry has always operated this way, and instead of using a simple (s: standard) Red/Green/Blue color space, they use a "four-color process." Even back in the days of Kodachrome slides, they had to be converted to this four-color process, producting chromalons that required further color correcting.
Basically, aRGB has a broader gamut, more color gradients and creates a much larger file with more color information.
sRGB is the standard and the right choice for at least 90 percent of photographers. Unless you plan to shoot specifically for publication or for a major stock photo agency, there's no reason to use aRGB and plenty of reasons not to...
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I should even use it. That's what I'm still trying to determine.

[Medley]

OK Ron, I'm here to shake things up again, because I don't think you have it quite right yet. Printers ( at least inkjet printers) deal with only one color profile. It's called CMYK, and is so named after the four colors the printer uses: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black (K). This is the basic setup, and there ARE variations. Some printers use a grey ink, some have the capability to use special inks, but let's stick with basics for now.

What this means is that sometime between the image leaving the computer, and it appearing on paper, the file is going to get converted- again. Bob, this is where that Spyder3pro becomes very handy. When you download the printer profiles for a printer, what you're downloading is a very specific CMYK profile, tailored to a specific printer, paper type, and ink type. Change any one of the three, and you change the printer profile. That's why Costco (for example) offers TWO profiles for downloading: One for glossy prints, and one for matte prints. Different paper types need different profiles. So I open my image, go to Edit> Convert to Profile, and choose Costco-OR-Hillsboro-Gls: 17July2008 from my drop-down menu, and click OK. Viola! I've just converted the image to the colors that the printer I'll be using is capable of reproducing. But how do I know that I'm seeing those colors accurately? Because I've profiled my monitor with the Spyder, that's how. Now I've got the closest color match possible between my computer and the actual print, because my computer, Photoshop, and the printer are all using the same definitions for each color. Welcome to the wonderful world of color management.

So anyway, if the image is going to get converted to yet another color space before being printed, doesn't it make sense to ALWAYS take your pictures in aRGB, to give the truest colors possible? The only time I wouldn't shoot in aRGB is if I was doing something that I KNEW wasn't going to get printed (product shots for a website, for example). Then sRGB makes sense.

That said, if an editor asks for images in sRGB format, give them to him in sRGB format. Maybe the conversion is easier for him if he uses sRGB images. I have very little experience with half-tone or dye sublimination printers; perhaps it's best to start from sRGB if using those printer types. But for inkjet prints, use aRGB. Every time.

That's my understanding anyway.

- Joe U.

[Singletracklovr]

Hi Ron and Joe,
Thanks for keeping this discussion going. I am learn so much.

I think I am starting to understand the steps required for accurate printing. Joe, your steps for capture and conversion really helped.
I've set my camera back to aRGB as well.

I went to the Costco site looking for the Costco-OR-Hillsboro-Gls: 17July2008 profiles for glossy and matte but could not find them.
The download section offered to give you a profile for your printer. I must be looking in the wrong section.

[Loupey]

Is it the goal in post processing to make the photo as close to the natural conditions as you remember it?
Basicly fixing human errors like wrong camera setting and or equipment limitations.
or
Do you make the photo as pleasing to eye as possible?

These are great questions. My answer would be 'yes' to all the above with particular emphasis to the first part.

A big exception for me may be a bit of a surprise to some - shots taken at sunset. I find that the naturally warm colors cast on wildlife during sunset look too "photoshopped" even before I take the shot. I find that I have to reduce the reds and yellows during post-pocessing in order to make it believeable. An ironic twist in todays' over-saturated, over-sharpened, over-contrast digital age.

[mjs1973]

I think this is a great question. Like Loupey, my answer is yes. I don't see any reason for these two end results to be mutually exclusive. My overall goal is to make the most pleasing to the eye image that I can, but I don't think that means I have to forget about making the image look natural. I think you can have both in your photo.

A big exception for me may be a bit of a surprise to some - shots taken at sunset. I find that the naturally warm colors cast on wildlife during sunset look too "photoshopped" even before I take the shot. I find that I have to reduce the reds and yellows during post-pocessing in order to make it believeable. An ironic twist in todays' over-saturated, over-sharpened, over-contrast digital age.

I couldn't agree more. I have taken some shots with that great afternoon light, that just looked way too warm, without even touching them. I end up having to adjust the white balance to get the image to look "less natural", to make it more believable.

[Ron Kruger]

I don't agree with Loupey and Mike. I go to particular effort to capture those warm, even colors of evening. That's the natural way thing appear in the soft rays of fading light, and without the harsher shadows of daytime, they don't look Photoshoped to me. They look warm and smooth and rich. They look special because of the time of capture, and I've found my editors like them too.

[Singletracklovr]

Is this an example of too much sunset effect?



Color rebalanced to eliminate the time of day. Both shots taken within 30 seconds of each other.


This is a perfect example of my original question. PP for accuracy or eye candy?
Photo 1 is more like what I remember the light looking like, although the camera's white balance I am sure is off for the evening shot.
Photo 2 looks like a midday shot.

[mjs1973]

For me, photo 1 looks very natural and photo 2 appears to have a bit of a green cast to it. What I was referring to was images that come out way too orange. I have only noticed it a handful of times, and t was easily fixed. I will have to look and see if I can find some examples after while. The shots I'm remembering looked like someone over saturated them with orange and yellow. A simple correction brought the color under control, but kept the late afternoon warm light look.

Like Ron, I go out specifically looking for that early morning and late afternoon glow. But there have been a few times where the images just look way over saturated.

[Medley]

I went to the Costco site looking for the Costco-OR-Hillsboro-Gls: 17July2008 profiles for glossy and matte but could not find them.
The download section offered to give you a profile for your printer. I must be looking in the wrong section.

Nope that was exactly the right place to be Bob. They weren't offering a profile for your printer, they were offering to let you download a profile for THEIR printer. Follow that link, and it will go on to ask you which country, city, and state you live in. It will eventually narrow it down to a specific Costco. Remember, the profile is tailored to a specific printer, so it needs to know where you're getting your prints. Once it nails it down, it will offer two profiles: one for Glossy (Gls), and one for Lustre (Lus).

The example I posted here is for glossy prints from the Hillsboro, Oregon Costco. Incidentally, they had been updated, something I caught while double-checking things today. So thank you, I probably wouldn't have seen that for awhile otherwise.

- Joe U.

[Loupey]

Singletracklovr (and Ron Kruger), I apologize if I didn't make my point very clear. I wasn't implying that I make my sunrise/sunset images try to resemble those shot in mid-day. In other words, I don't re-white balance the images.

But I do take out some of the warm tones to make it believeable. It's one thing to sit there and watch the setting sun turn a green frog into a bright orange frog, but seeing it in a photograph like this looks over-processed no matter what anyone tells me. And I've been shooting N&W for over 2 decades in a variety of conditions.

Ron, as for images in publications, you have to admit that many images (I'm not saying yours) are over-the-top or nearly so - so as to attract attention or compete with other publications. Landscapes often seem like they were shot in a vacuum - there is never any hint of atmospheric haze/pollution.

And how many shots are taken in very dim light but intentionally overexposed and processed so that it appears to have been shot in brighter conditions? The result is not "natural" but definitely more pleasing.

[Ron Kruger]

I'll admit there have been times when I've taken evening or morning shots that didn't turn out right, like the geese Bob posted. It has happened to me both with film and digital, and it could have something to do with an incorrect white-balance reading. I suspect, however, that I was just a little too late, missing the direct, soft rays of a setting sun. Once the rays no longer shine directly on the subject, the light is soft, but it is refracted all over the place, like putting it through a filter. The time for perfect shots in the evening, I think, is only about 15 minutes long. Too early, and it's nice, but not dramatic. Too late, and it's washed.
Early morning, I think, gives you a little more time, but the results aren't as dramatic as that narrow window in the evening.
I'd like to see more discussion about this.

[AgingEyes]

This article may help you guys a bit:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/ind...otojournalism-

[Loupey]

Here are 5 examples - all shot in the late evening light - some just moments before being overtaken by the encroaching shadows.

In all, I pulled out a lot of the warmer hues which were present in the actual scene. I think that it is still evident that they were shot late in the day.

Some natural moments just don't look natural for wildlife. Imagine shooting portraits only in ambient light, outdoor ambient light. Natural light won't always make the subject look natural when captured on "film" as is.

[Singletracklovr]

Nope that was exactly the right place to be Bob. They weren't offering a profile for your printer, they were offering to let you download a profile for THEIR printer. Follow that link, and it will go on to ask you which country, city, and state you live in. It will eventually narrow it down to a specific Costco. Remember, the profile is tailored to a specific printer, so it needs to know where you're getting your prints. Once it nails it down, it will offer two profiles: one for Glossy (Gls), and one for Lustre (Lus).

The example I posted here is for glossy prints from the Hillsboro, Oregon Costco. Incidentally, they had been updated, something I caught while double-checking things today. So thank you, I probably wouldn't have seen that for awhile otherwise.

- Joe U.

Thanks Joe,
There's a Costco down the street from me. I'm not a member yet. Looks like I need to join then get my profile for their printer/paper.
Now if I calibrate my monitor for the costco printer does that mean I need to re-calibrate for general website viewing?

Loupey, after viewing your examples, I see now what you are doing. I'm going to try that on a few of my evening photos.

AE, Good Read, thanks for posting the link.

[Medley]

Now if I calibrate my monitor for the costco printer does that mean I need to re-calibrate for general website viewing?

Nope. The monitor profile is independent of any printer profile. All the Spyder does is display colors of a known value, and read the actual color being emitted by your screen. It then compares those two values to see if they are the same. It actually does about 32 shades of reds, greens, blues, and grays. Then it adjusts your monitor so that it displays the colors correctly. Lastly, it gives you a sample image with a before/after comparison.

The printer profile comes into play when it is attached to a specific image. Doing so tells Photoshop to redefine the entire array of possible colors (in that image only) to match the printer's capabilities. This has nothing to do with the Spyder, or any other colorimeter. But because you've profiled your monitor, you know that the colors are being displayed correctly.

So it's a two step process. You need to know that Photoshop is using colors the printer can duplicate (printer profile) AND you need to know that your monitor is displaying them right (monitor profile).

- Joe U.