ViewFinder Photography Forum

General discussion - our photography living room. Talk about aesthetics, philosophy, share your photos - get inspired by your peers! Moderated by another view and walterick.
ViewFinder Forum Guidelines >>
Introduce Yourself! >>
PhotographREVIEW.com Gatherings and Photo Field Trips >>
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    can't Re-member lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    206

    post processing....

    (this might challenge my writing ability more that my photo ability;))

    I posted some mountain biking images from Moab on mtbr.com and one here in the gallery. PhotoJohn replied and I thought it was worth making a thread to discuss this some more.

    One of the pix.



    PhotoJohn's comment


    Rich-
    All your Moab photos are awesome. They make me want to be there. And I think that's the best compliment I can give an outdoor sports photographer. Plus, you and I have a similar, landscape/sports aesthetic. So your photos always speak to me.


    About the post processing. What are you doing? It looks to me like you either started using some new RAW conversion tools (shadows?) or you discovered adjustment layer masks in Photoshop. The things is, it looks overdone to me. There's a ton of detail and that's cool. But there's no black anymore and they don't look natural. I guess some of my photos don't look natural, either. But try backing off on the shadows a little so that they're really shadows. Opening them up is good - I do it, too. But do it carefully.


    Of course, it may come down to a difference in taste. But take a hard look at the recent batch and someone elses good photos and see what you think. Back it off a little and see if you don't like them better.


    Please let me know how you did the processing, too. I'm curious. There are so many tools available now - so many different ways to get the same thing done. It's interesting to see how other people do it.


    What I did (If I can remember )

    To answer what I did, I think i did the following using photoshop. This kinda shows my thought process. That process will be explained later.



    • I shot in raw format on my D-70 with a fill flash. And in this case the setting on the camera was P with the flash on TTL-BL
    • I brought it in photoshop and made the color temp what the situation was. Sunlight in this case-- Playing a little bit with the exposure perhaps if the image was dark. I also adjusted parameters to maximize the dynamic range of the image using the histogram; such as shadows and contrast. (my science training at work)
    • I reduced the image to the desired image size in pixels.
    • I sharpened the pic. I go back and forth on when to sharpen. I even go back and forth on whether to use sharpen or unsharp mask.
    • I used 'level' to maximize the dynamic range of the image if needed.
    • I used hightlight and shadow to effectively pull the image. When I did chemical photography, I did a lot of pulling (over-expose, under-develop) of film due to the harsh shadows of the desert sun. This follows the philosphy of expose for shadows, develop for highlights. Sure, this is digital, but the shadows are still harsh in the desert.
    • Next I might do a slight saturation. Sure, this is incredible subjective and artificial-- and easily overdone.
    • I also did dodging and burning in my images to smooth and balance out the image. Sometimes its to rid a hotspot that draws the eyes attention-- and is annoying, or to simply balance the tone of the image. Sometimes I like to do it a lot to add a vignetting effect.
    My learning phases or moods

    I look at a lot of photos here, in galleries, in newspapers and my own. I always compare my style with everyone elses and try really hard to understand all the differences. I'm sure we all do this. It's really hard sometimes to figure out what someone else did to get the image they did. I see images in galleries that stun me and make me think, "WTF did they do to achieve that?"

    I go through my phases like everone prolly does. One week I worry about composition, the next, colors, the next shadows. This week, it's tone perhaps.

    I see a lot of landscape photos in galleries that are stunning and the traits I see are:

    • Uniform tone: Most have detail without too harsh or shadows or burned hightlights.
    • Saturation: Unreal rich color that grabs you.
    • Detail: Sharp and detailed
    So right now, I am in a phase of exploring these traits. They might not be natural, but they grab attention.

    Addressing PhotoJohn's comments.

    When I processed these images, I did indeed go overboard. That was my mood based on both my experience in moab and seeing some stuff recently that appealed to me. How many of you have applied a filter or effect to an image, absorbed it, then clicked undo, only to redo it because you liked it better?

    I guess I question the who philosphy of what a good image is. I am a purest in the sense of when I take a photo, I want the most realistic image I can get (whatever that means) and then if I want to mess with it later, I do so. But is that really what matters? The eye looks at the world in a dynamic sense, adjusting focus and intensity as it moves--and really only sees a small bit at a given moment. You cannot capture what the eye sees in a photograph--only some average of it.

    Like I said, I agree completely with you, John about overdoing my pix with the processing. The jury is still out on whether that is wrong. I had a discussion with someone in Fruita and they told me how they hate when people post pix that are overly saturated--telling me that they "wear you out after a while." I took notice.

    Maybe my *current* style of photography is best for news media where the impact should be hard but is short lived--Just like a Britney spears pop song is really catchy, but dissappears from sight after 2 weeks, maybe overdoing photos is the same way. But a solid subtle photo like a good pink floyd song, takes a while to soak in, but will endure and be recalled years later. But maybe my audience wants that high impact at the moment. Seems the mtbr community does!

    Conclusion

    Well there is no real conclusion here. It's an ongoing process, and I will keep going. I, just like everyone, wants to be the perfect photographer, but I don't even know what that is. I guess I have to settle for discovering what my style is and understand why I like it. Meanwhile, I will try to remain open and absorb other peoples comments on my work and keep tweaking our technique to find out what moves me.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    co
    Posts
    18

    Re: post processing....

    Thanks Lidarman...

    I, as a newbie, appreciate your taking the time to run through your methods and thought processes as you process your photos. I totally agree with you that the MTBR crowd goes wild over the overprocessed feel of these pics - and I think that mirrors a lot of what we see in magazines, especially Bike, for instance.

    I am a purest in the sense of when I take a photo, I want the most realistic image I can get (whatever that means) and then if I want to mess with it later, I do so. But is that really what matters? The eye looks at the world in a dynamic sense, adjusting focus and intensity as it moves--and really only sees a small bit at a given moment. You cannot capture what the eye sees in a photograph--only some average of it.
    I think part of what this batch of images does is catch the color and intensity of Moab - not so much as the eye catches it, but as folks remember it - whether that's a "realistic" memory or not.

  3. #3
    Captain of the Ship Photo-John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
    Posts
    15,422

    Bike Mag

    Quote Originally Posted by Debaser
    I totally agree with you that the MTBR crowd goes wild over the overprocessed feel of these pics - and I think that mirrors a lot of what we see in magazines, especially Bike, for instance.
    Actually, Bike mag is an exception. Most of the photos you see there have little or no post-processing. That's because they don't accept any digital images - only slides and prints. So a lot of the stuff that's possible with digital or digitized images, can't be done in Bike mag. What you see there is more a result of using really contrasty and saturated slide film. Rich's photo wouldn't happen on Bike because they'd reject it for being digital. And you couldn't get the quality he has without delivering a digital file or at least a print made from a digital file.
    Photo-John

    Your reviews are the foundation of this site - Write A Review!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •