How much treatment on your pictures?

steve

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2013
Messages
2,140
I have taken a few basic photography classes, but I'm no pro. That being said, my images look NOTHING like the ones you guys are cranking out.

Are you doing much touch-up in photoshop? I see a lot of HDR stuff here. How much recoloring/filtering, etc are you guys doing? Are any of these amazing pictures untouched? (aka, uploaded directly from your camera?)
 
You mean like this?

riding-unicorn-jpg.8187


But seriously, it just kind of depends. For people shooting in RAW format on a DSLR or similar, you'll find pretty much everyone touches things up at least a little. I don't see much HDR nowadays though. Seems like that was fun for a while and then most people gave it up. I usually just go through and do minor adjustments to my shots. Definition, shadows/highlights, vibrancy, etc. Sometimes I'll use the Nik Efex software and apply more unusual filters but not to most.

Check out this thread where we shared out of the camera shots next to processed shots. It's pretty interesting.

http://backcountrypost.com/forum/threads/photo-processing-comparisons.1179/
 
Cool, that thread helps a lot. Now I don't feel like such an idiot. For some reason I assumed most people didn't tough up their images (since I don't). I'll need to learn how to do that better.
 
I shoot in RAW, which means everything has to be post-processed just like Nick said. I try adjust the images so that they look just like I saw the scene, but after I posted the last batch I think they are getting too colorful and saturated. I read that there's sort of a color-syndrome where your eyes get dulled to bright colors if you look at them all the time and it can show up in post-processing. Post-processing is an art in itself and takes time and practice to learn, so don't beat yourself up if you don't know how to do it all at once. My stuff is processed in Lightroom, I don't have Photoshop or use HDR. I frequently use filters on my camera but don't apply them in post.

Here's the straight out of the camera version: the light was really difficult and contrasty (a GND filter would have helped), the camera was skewed, and the colors are naturally muted because it's a RAW file:
Original PI Dawn.jpg

Here it is after I post-processed it and brought out the colors, corrected the underexposed foreground, straightened the horizon, and cropped it:

Point Imperial Dawn 2.jpg

This is what it looked like if you were standing there witnessing it, with one exception-that ledge in the foreground is white and really distracting but there was no place I could stand where it wasn't in view, so I darkened it.
 
For people shooting in RAW format on a DSLR or similar, you'll find pretty much everyone touches things up at least a little.

You pretty much have to if you are shooting in RAW....otherwise you'll have boring flat images.

I shoot in RAW, so all of my photos are 'developed' in Photoshop. I do not use an automatic HDR program, but I do push and pull the highlights and shadows in Adobe Camera Raw for better dynamic range.
 
I read that there's sort of a color-syndrome where your eyes get dulled to bright colors if you look at them all the time and it can show up in post-processing.

I've always wondered if people see colors the same way....I'm betting we don't.

That said, I do like vibrant colors...but I try not to go too far.
 
I'd be curious to see some more before and afters. (Thanks for the one above Laura).
 
Manipulation of the RAW image is nearly always required. But a RAW file is very convenient. You can manipulate and control individual parts of the file, while still keeping your master RAW file intact, at least in Aperture which is what I use. I use Photoshop for printing and for troublesome image files, but I prefer Aperture day to day due to it's simplicity, much more in tune with the way I work these day's, and how I used to work using film.
Although I do love playing with the curves in Photoshop. But be careful! It is intoxicating.
 
I do far less retouching since moving to Lightroom. Push the highlights and shadows a bit, sharpening and lens correction then vibrance/saturation to taste. Moving to full frame has also reduced the likelihood for me to merge multiple exposures as well.
 
I consider myself a good photographer... but I pale in comparison to the awesomeness that resonates in this forum!

But, for what it's worth... my manipulation list:

-- I tweak the levels/curves of most of my pictures just because my camera adds too much gray.
-- I shoot RAW in some cases, but gave it up as the default just because I'm lazy and hated the extra files/storage needed.
-- I will bracket my shots if I see there is a wide range of lighting in the shot.
-- I'll use a circular polarizer every now and then.
-- I try to avoid the unicorn filter at all costs.

I had a cinematographer teacher who once said... "it takes a lot of work to photograph a scene to look natural."

- Jamal
 
I'd be curious to see some more before and afters. (Thanks for the one above Laura).

Lightroom's develop module makes this very easy (when you're talking raw file processing).

Screen Shot 2013-12-19 at 9.57.33 PM.png

Not an ideal job processing (my blacks are just starting to clip and I could have handled some of the contrast adjustment more easily with the tone curve than the tone sliders) but you get the idea. Of course, if you're shooting jpg your camera can do some of this for you, but I prefer the hands-on approach.
 
I saw a something on Facebook recently where people would offer up a photo they took in the finished form as well as the, untouched raw file and let the group play with it and post their edits using their workflows and techniques. I thought it looked fun and I've been wondering if there would be enough people okay with that kind of thing here on BCP to do such a thing. Whaddya think, photogs? I'm in.
 
I like most pics untouched.....I think most 'manipulate' photos too much that they look unreal, colors, sharpness, etc are not natural.
 
I like most pics untouched.....I think most 'manipulate' photos too much that they look unreal, colors, sharpness, etc are not natural.

What is untouched though, really?

If you are using a point and shoot, it auto manipulates it.

I agree that many change the photo too much so that it doesn't look natural. You can change it to look more natural, and that is part of the process, just as snapping the photo sometimes.
 
Yep. Just shooting a camera in JPEG mode is basically the same as shooting in raw and doing minor touchups, the big difference is that you get to choose what they are and have way more control. Untouched RAW files look terrible. Untouched JPEGs look pretty dang good.
 
I saw a something on Facebook recently where people would offer up a photo they took in the finished form as well as the, untouched raw file and let the group play with it and post their edits using their workflows and techniques. I thought it looked fun and I've been wondering if there would be enough people okay with that kind of thing here on BCP to do such a thing. Whaddya think, photogs? I'm in.


Yeah, that sounds really interesting!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top