Lets have your post-processing advice

[jimcritchley]

OK, here goes. I have read lots of comments from people regarding others photographs, most are very helpful, some are not worth even reading. What I am trying to start here is for people who are not going to be hurt by helpful criticism as long as it is designed to be constructive. What I would like is people to comment on other peoples photographs with regards to how they would post-process the picture given. The idea behind this thread is to spread some of the vast knowledge out there to everyone. It is up to the individual as to how they want to process the picture. To be honest, I am not sure how this is going to work in reality as some people may be a bit funny about posting print quality pictures. Would it be an option that if someone would like to post-process a picture that has been inserted in the thread, they mail the user to ask for that picture (while the one posted on this thread is your normal low quality jpg) in RAW or TIFF form. The photographer would then decide if that person can be trusted not to use or claim the photograph as their own. This means that if the photographer refuses to send a photo it should not be taken the wrong way. I think most of us know who we could trust just by checking out the profiles and the photographs in their galleries. Sorry this is such a long post but maybe this could be the start of some really helpful dialogue
Anyhoo, here is my picture. It is one of my favourite pictures I have taken. You can see my post-processing effort in my galleries. However for my birthday my fiancé redid the picture and completely improved it. I am therefore looking for other techniques I can use and we can share on this picture. Thanks in advance

[andrys]

. . .
Anyhoo, here is my picture. It is one of my favourite pictures I have taken. You can see my post-processing effort in my galleries. However for my birthday my fiancé redid the picture and completely improved it. I am therefore looking for other techniques I can use and we can share on this picture. Thanks in advance

Jim, I think you're getting no replies because

1. This is one of your favourite pictures, you've pointed out, and people
will not want to mess with that.

2. It is really not clear if this is your post-processing, because in following
your link to your gallery to see your post-processing, it looks the same.
Yet, you say your fiance redid it and completely improved it.

So, are you saying she's improved it, which means you like it BUTyou're
not showing us the result but wanting us to try something also? I think
all it needs is a bit more contrast while keeping shadow detail some.

Few of us are likely to be so venturesome as to try to improve an
already favorite shot.

It might be better to try one that you're not quite happy with.

[steveprice]

I'll try something different Jim. However, the one posted in your gallery is a bit pixelated in the backround and has a lot of jpeg artifacting around the figure to make it worthwhile working on. Do you want to let me have a copy around 2.5mb (about 1200 pixels longest dim.). Then I will process and scale it back down again. I will also post a screen grab of my history palette (CS2) so people can see what I did.

Steve Price

[jimcritchley]

The picture posted in this thread is the original RAW picture with no post-processing. It is very different to the one that I have posted in my gallery. I have not showed the end product of my fiance's photo as I am looking for different interpretations of the picture. While it is one of my favourite pictures, this should not stop anyone from critiquing the photo. As long as the advice is constructive I am up for anything. Showing my favourite picture was hopefully one way of showing that I am up for advice on my photographs. I hope this clears any confusion

[andrys]

The picture posted in this thread is the original RAW picture with no post-processing.

It links to the Inbox at http://www.pbase.com/jimcritchley/image/79696704
and that image has artifacts around the head. Can't be the orig'l RAW
photo...

While it is one of my favourite pictures, this should not stop anyone from critiquing the photo. As long as the advice is constructive I am up for anything. Showing my favourite picture was hopefully one way of showing that I am up for advice on my photographs. I hope this clears any confusion

Well, I wrote to give you a reason for the relative quiet because I felt
bad there was no activity after your effort to get us going. Most of the
rest of us don't want our own favorites to be changed. I still think it'd
be better if you uploaded one you really need ideas on to make it better.

Re this one, I did mention increasing contrast while keeping shadow
highlights. Better to do that with an image without artifacts though ?
It's not a photo I'd be moved to try to improve. I like it except
for the relative lack of contrast, but one can make a case for that look
just the way it is.

[andrys]

Wow. I just saw that you uploaded a jpg with Adobe RGB workspace rather
than sRGB which is what PBase uses.

As a result, it is flatter and darker than what you yourself see when
you're working with it (and probably different from what you have in
your normal galleries). I've seen only the one in Inbox. You should
see a considerably different image on your computer from the image as
showing on the sRGB workspace of PBase, in Inbox (and as medium
version here) though it's said to be RAW but has odd artifacts from then
saving as a jpg with too much compression.

In fact, when looking at shadows/highlights, as I tried to do,
the shadings are actually now in block form rather than gradual
changes, so this is looks like a rather heavily compressed jpg.

Could you please point us to your actual gallery final photo so we
can get an idea of what that one looks like before we do something
different? Need to know what your own optimum final version was.

As well as get a jpg that's closer to your raw copy.

Thanks.

[dang]

The photo to the link has artifacts from sharpening, and become more visible when trying to work with it. I thought a fill layer might work, but even when used slightly, pronounced the sharpening. I couldn't get the colors like I'd want, but did a quick example to show the idea. Sorry I couldn't do better, but when converted to sRGB it's only around 120 kb full size file. You can see the sharpen halo very well with it though. I started to post a medium size, but the artifacts distort way too much. Let me know when you've seen it, so I can delete.

[jimcritchley]

This is my processed version that I uploaded. I think I uploaded it after saving for web, then reducing the size of the image to 40%. Andrys, I have sent you an e-mail regarding this. Dang, thanks for funky change, reminds me of a seventies club flyer

[dang]

Great... that's what I was going for! I was hoping maybe it would get someone that knows what they're doing to join in, and post. Guess we'll see, eh.

[sean_mcr]

There's not a great deal you can do other then keeping the main subject in silhouette as if you try to pull those shadow out your just going to lead to bad Posterization (banding) which i can see in the top right corner of the first shot you posted.

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/post ... zation.htm

It's underexposed (even if the silhouette was your intention) and i'd consider shooting to the right if you shoot raw as you've lost a lot of information looking at the histogram

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor ... ight.shtml


To be honest it's not exposed well, but if you want to send me the raw file i'll see what i can do, there's little point in tinkering with the jpeg. The second edit is over-sharpened as Tom said


Having said that, you're happy with it. It's sometimes hard to be objective about our own work. My opinion is that the subject matter is good you've captured a good moment. The artistic aspects of the shot are better then the technical side and i'll always take the art first, but this shot could have been so much more if you'd have combined the two to best affect.

That edited shot will look very different in print to how it does on your PC. The artifacts and Posterization will be more pronounced in a print, not to mention dust spots, but the dust spots can be easily delt with.

If you send me the raw file i'll have an attempt at it. I do think the subject is cool. It's your photo; If you're happy with it it might be best to let it be

Keep shooting

Sean

[madlights]

I agree with sean...I like the photo and the artistic aspects of it...but not much could be changed meaningfully in a lot of ways...colors, some effects over the top of it maybe...but I think that would confuse the simplicity of it.. which to me is the strength of the shot.

[jimcritchley]

Thanks for all the comments, I really do appreciate them. While I was trying to start this off with a favourite photo to try and show I was up for all types of critique, I should have chosen a more appropriate picture. I have at least learnt that I should upload my pictures in sRGB which I am know going to do. So it may be a while before posting another picture. However, I hope that doesn't stop anyone posting a picture in the meantime if they feel they want some advice.

[dang]

Jim,
In case you didn't see the thread about processing, and using Soft Layers Ben posted for me, check it out. The technique gives amazing results, and it's well worth the read.
http://forum.pbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=31259
Thanks for trying to get something going in the forums, too bad more people don't participate. But I'm glad Andrys caught it not being in sRGB, since that does make a huge difference, you should find it works much better for here. I'd converted to TIFF before playing with it, and didn't catch it. As far as the overall affect of the shot, I personally like it and understand it being among your favorites.
Thanks!

[steveprice]

I quite liked the original but I thought it lacked contrast.

I made it 16 bit. I removed some of the splashes and ripples that I thought were distracting. I converted to b/w and then applied a duotone. I adjusted the black and colour curves for the duotone. Then converted back to RGB and tried to introduce more detail in the body tones by selecting the body and apply curves. Converted back to 8 bit and saved as jpeg level 12.

Jim, I think you lost too much quality when you first jpeged it. There was a lot of jpeg artefacting going on and very little tonal range in the body to work with. I tried to remove some of the artefacting using Photoshops noise reduction option. Pshop CS3 used.

Most enjoyable. Good idea Jim.

Steve

[madlights]

Jim,
In case you didn't see the thread about processing, and using Soft Layers Ben posted for me, check it out. The technique gives amazing results, and it's well worth the read.
http://forum.pbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=31259
Thanks for trying to get something going in the forums, too bad more people don't participate. But I'm glad Andrys caught it not being in sRGB, since that does make a huge difference, you should find it works much better for here. I'd converted to TIFF before playing with it, and didn't catch it. As far as the overall affect of the shot, I personally like it and understand it being among your favorites.
Thanks!

Yep I agree...this is a very good use for the forum... liking this exchange of ideas a lot. And thanks to 'dang' for getting ben to post his processing work flow. Quite right that it does give amazing results. I've been using it on some of my later RAW files...which I now use(RAW) almost always..and I have modified the basic idea behind it to work with some older jpgs. It gives a clarity that was difficult to achieve before...Like Tom says it's amazing. Thanks Ben and to Tom for asking him to post it.