Opinions requested

[Harv]

Hi, Gang. I'd really like some input from you guys and gals out there. I have had the sense lately that I may be 'over-processing' my images. I try to keep my PP treatment on the light side, but when I end up looking at some of the images once posted, I sometimes think I might be going a bit overboard.

I'm posting 2 versions each of 2 images from my last post in the bird forum. The first of each image is what I originally posted on the thread and the second of each image is a re-do that I feel is scaled back. Please let me know which you think looks more natural or which you prefer.

Original

http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/134631502-O.jpg

Re-do

http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/134765925-O.jpg

Original

http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/134631511-O.jpg

Re-do

http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/134765928-O.jpg

Thanks for looking and I look forward to your comments.

[Joe F.N.]

The biggest improvement is in the Scoter re-do. The second version is considerably lighter.The head now shows definition. The iris in the eye has a colour that was not noticeable before. The colour on the beak is a little paler in the re-do and I suspect closer to natural. This tells me that saturation was slightly overdone in both cases. At least that's what I see.

[Bobby]

I agree with Joe on this one, the second shot is probably close to the actual colour of the water and the scoter. Although the first one is "punchy" I believe the second one works way better. The image is very sharp as is and no amount of oversharpening can save a soft image. Your redo of the mallard is much more subtle but I do like it over the original as well. For what its worth I'm more guilty of this than anyone.

[Lisa]

Harvey:

I prefer the re-do on both shots. I can see the detail much better.

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Harv, in the first image it does look like the contrast and/or saturation boost may have been just a bit much compared to the Redo.
In the second image, as Bobby mentioned the difference is more subtle. The only difference I can see, on my monitor anyway, is the Redo seems just a little lighter.

[MiriamJ]

In the first two, it just seems like it was lightened, which gives more detail, so I prefer the 2nd one. In the next two, I don't know what you did different, but it does seem as though there is much detail visable, so I prefer the 2nd one there, too.

[TheDuck]

Hey, Harvey,

I think the first picture wants a bit more fill but without washing it out.

I think if you fake some fill light, screen it a bit and add a dash of high-pass sharpening you'll be amazed at what's in that picture.

I don't know the rules with pictures on this site so assuming it's like others I will ask your permission first before altering the image. The I'll be happy to post it with some comments about what I did to the picture. There's some great image data in that picture. Really great shot!

Thanks,

-Duck

[paul weston]

I think the first shot is definitely over saturated but i also think you have backed off the saturation a little to much in the second shot,somewere in between might be just right.be nice if you masked off the bird and increased the saturation in the water.

I like both of the in flight shots,theres not as much difference between them as there is in the first two shots.

Paul.

[Igor]

What other say Harv, roll back to re-do's :)

[David Cramer]

I agree with the crowd.

[Harv]

Thanks, guys. Appreciate all the input.

Mr. Duck.... have at it. I have much to learn about post processing and look forward to any help. Thanks.

[Rudi]

As much as I hate to be a part of the crowd, I much prefer the re-do's in both cases, Harv! :)

[TheDuck]

...Mr. Duck.... have at it...Thanks.
No, thank you!

So here is what I did. I deduced (amazing how you can make "took a wild guess" sound so impressive) that you wanted to bring out the details and wished you had a fill flash handy after-the-fact. I'll give everybody a moment to fire up their favourite image editor to follow along. No rush, I have a coffee here. I think just about any image editor or even things like Bibble Labs or Adobe Lightroom will do these for you.


First we want to make sure the colours are correct as possible given the cues from the image. So we set the light and dark point. There are a few tricks you can do to make this even more effective but let's keep it straightforward for now. Please follow the tutorial here (http://photoshopcontest.com/tutorials/19/photograph-color-correction.html) until Step 8 (your image doesn't need the rest). Already looking a bit better but there's more detail looking for its time in the spotlight.
Next, we'll lighten it up a bit. We don't want to just increase the brightness because this has the added "benefit" of washing it out. It brightens everything. We just want some of those shadows to give up their terrific detail. From the menu choose Image > Adjustments > Shadow/Highlight. It defaults to a 50% jump and I think that's about right. You can move it to get the effect you're looking for. (Some other time we'll talk about Screen layer modes and playing with the oft-forgotten middle slider in the Levels dialog).
This picture is pretty awesome already but, just because we can, let's sharpen it a bit to really make those feathers show off. We don't want to use unsharp mask because there's a ton of random-direction detail and it would be shame to halo it to death. So we'll use the high-pass filter.
Duplicate the layer (Ctrl-J if you just can't wait to see this)
From the menu choose Filter > Other > High Pass... -- a value of 10 is fine here so click Ok.
Change the layer mode to "Hard Light" and change the Opacity to around 30 before your monitor melts. You could go a bit lower for a softer feel or as high as 50 but after that it gets a bit too, like, totally surreal, man.
You can, of course, adjust to taste. You have the benefit of having actually been there. Also, once you are done go away for an hour and come back. It's funny how you can look at it and think, "Ugh, what is that?!"

If you got this then it worked. Nice pic, Harvey!

http://theduck.smugmug.com/photos/137311765-O-LB.jpg

[Keith]

Well I guess I always have to be different rolleyes; I prefer the originals Harv, nicer tones, you are not overly loosing detail and I like contrast.
I think their is merrit in what you are thinking, If I was to PP these shots I probably for example on the first one had the original, layer masked and painted back in the face so the only part being lightened up is the face to give it a little more detail, thats all it needed......

what would be an interesting exercise is giving us a RAW file to play with and post and see. Im all for less PP, I hate PP so to me less is better and get it right in camera :)

Here is my stab at it, I hope you dont mind
http://www.pbase.com/keithrankin/image/75924372/original.jpg

[Peter]

I agree with most, the redo's look a little better they have more contrast and saturation which gives an image lot of punch. When increasing contrast you end up always losing a little detail in your whites so it a carefull on the amount . I often go to the image adjustments using the highlight and shadow funtion moving the highlight bar a little to bring back the detail you lose. Its a great tool on whites. :)

[Harv]

Mr. Duck, Mr. Keith, Mr. Peter...

Thanks a bunch guys. So much still to learn, so little time. (I turn 65 in a month) I remember reading some of this kind of thing in the past but who can remember all we read. (especially at my age) This is all very helpful and obviously indicates there are different ways to approach things. Much appreciated.

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Harv, there are many different approaches, different procedures, and worst of all everyone sees things just a little different. If you can email me the 1st original before any PP I'll give it a go.

[Harv]

Harv, there are many different approaches, different procedures, and worst of all everyone sees things just a little different. If you can email me the 1st original before any PP I'll give it a go.

Original sent..... thanks, Jeff.

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Here it is Harv.. No Curves or Levels . My original Workflow plus little contrast and a little Shadow/Highlight. Nothing more..

http://jtphoto.ca/webimages/mar07/harvsduck.jpg

Interesting Note: Your Raw converter settings were attached to the RAW file. Once I readjusted those to my standard RAW conversion the workflow turned out sweet.

[TheDuck]

Nice finish, Jeff. Do you have a few pointers for Harvey (ok, and the rest of us) regarding what you found with the RAW file?

[Harv]

This looks great, Jeff. For the record, those were probably the in-camera settings at the time that were attached to the RAW file. I often change those prior to doing any work and converting.

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Mr Duck... When Harv sent me the RAW file the RAW converter settings were attached (This was neat as I didn't realize they would actually be sent with the RAW file automatically). The RAW converter settings had everything in Auto (check boxes) and Sharpening was at 25%. These settings make it almost impossible to run a workflow in PS as every image is going to come out of the converter different.

My suggestion is:
Leave WB "äs Shot"
Exposure check Auto box
Brightness Check Auto box
Put all others to 0 (uncheck Auto Box)

ClicK Details Tab
Sharpen 0
Luminance Smoothing 25
Color Noise Reduction 25

Bottom Left corner of Converter make sure 16 bit is set and set Color Space to ProPhoto or AdobeRGB for best results.

"Save New Camera Default" will save these setting as your Default in the Converter from now on...

Now you are ready to run a standard workflow in PS that will have consistent sharpness and color every time.


After final workflow processing is finished remember to change back to 8bit and sRGB before posting to web..

[Desert Rat]

re-do

[Jeff JTPhoto]

The Workflow in PS CS2 goes as follows:
I created an action for this process so it is fast and easy.
Dark and Light Blend Sharpen

1- open original image and make Duplicate copy to protect the original.
2- On the copy adjust your levels, saturation and contrast, as per your regular workflow.
3- Now make duplicate layer and name "Dark Sharpen"
4- Make another duplicate layer and name "Light Sharpen"
5- Select the Dark Sharpen layer and add USM
Amount – 500
Radius - 0.6
Threshold – 2
6- In the layers palette set the Blend mode to Darken and set the opacity to 20 %
7- Select the Light Sharpen layer and add USM
Amount – 500
Radius - 0.6
Threshold – 2
8- In the layers palette set the Blend mode to Lighten and set the opacity to 5 %
9- Flatten image
10- After final resize a final sharpening step of USM A- 50-100 R- 1.0 T-0 can be added for print or for web posting USM A-500 R- 0.2 T- 0

[TheDuck]

Another method to add to the toolbox. Thanks, Jeff!

[louis champan]

Harv, I like the redos. The originals looked a bit over saturated and a bit over contrasted. Myself I like to lighten up a bit on the contrast and then do just a bit of increased saturation. In my mind, this allows you to bring out more details and then finish it off with a couple of passes of sharpening.

Louie

[Harv]

Harv, I like the redos. The originals looked a bit over saturated and a bit over contrasted. Myself I like to lighten up a bit on the contrast and then do just a bit of increased saturation. In my mind, this allows you to bring out more details and then finish it off with a couple of passes of sharpening.

Louie

Thanks a lot, Louie. Since this original posting, I have toned down both the contrast and saturation in my PP quite a bit. I've also backed off a touch on the USM for a more natural look. This forum has been great for learning. Many sharing people here.