Usually I go to where I think it looks good than I drop down a touch below that. Works for me. Also if you have CS3 then the brightness/contrast is not a dirty word. They changed the algorithims so it works more like a levels function. CS2 and previous versions I would NEVER use it. Always used a levels adjustment layer. Whatever adjustments you want to make try and do it with an adjustment layer. At least then you can go back and readjust/change it easily.

[emalvick]

Your second example again is a bit too punchy. That is usually the flaw with the auto-functions in any application. They tend to overdo it. Ideally, you want something to be in between what you had originally.

This also becomes a case where utilizing a second layer and blending the two can be useful. This is the one thing I am slowly learning as I find I have greater control and can keep aspects of the original image in the photo better.

One other thing I noticed is that it appears you have a dust spot on your sensor. It is the darker spot in the upper right quadrant of the Alcatraz image. I think it is also on the other image but less visible in the clouds. That is a good spot to practice with the spot-healing brush tool in Photoshop.

[JavaJoe]

Hmm, this is very insightful. I recall a few film processing houses that did more than adjust my prints - they "manipulated" them, lol.

but seriously - i have another example from the same group of test shots; this speaks directly to your comment.

Okay, keep in mind I dont have the best lenses in my bag and I am an amateur photographer at this point. I was testing my Pentax *ist DL with Quantaray 100-300mm zoom at 300mm, f/9.5, 1/180, ISO200, camera handheld and shooting through some very light fog with thick cloud cover. I shot Alcatraz island and went home to look at my capture. I was disappointed to find the RAW image from the camera was muted and low in contrast.

I was just about to delete the pic tonight but decided to practice with levels as Arpe suggested. I pretty much just clicked on Auto Levels and astonishingly, all the colors returned to the photo. What is going on here? Was there really that much color information in the capture waiting to be found and adjusted? Did all the glare from the clouds overexpose the shot and kill the contrast and tones? Does my camera/lens just suck? wait, dont tell me that.

[Admittedly, just as before, my resulting PP'd photo is a little too vibrant, but i just want to show how Photoshop corrected with a single click. It actually looks like a sunny day at the prison, eh?
Such a situation does seem to suggest the necessity of a PP tool to get the results you want. hmm?

It is overdone. I played around with a levels adjustment mask and by masking the top part of the picture (from the horizon upward) and applied a gradient to the mask it looked more realistic. IMO

[mithrandir]

Post processing is probably one of the more personal aspects of photography. My philosophy is to achieve with pp what my eyes/mind perceived in viewing the shot in the first place. This is very subjective: (1) I like to get the dynamic range close to what my eyes/mind perceived, (2) I like to negate the elements that my mind ignored in the composition. Item (1) is hard because the eye/mind combination treats light and darkness (contrast) differently than the camera/processor. (2) Is difficult because the mind sees what it wants to see and the sensor sees what is there (within its narrow range of sensitivity). Even non pp shots have elements of (2) in them because of the way we compose the shot, the angle we use for the shot, and the lens we choose for the shot.

[mikeSF]

again, Thanks tremendously for the active discussion and suggestions - i will incorporate all.

actually, of the second (Alcatraz) example, i may not have been clear. I was not asking if the PP was too much (i said it was), i was asking why the camera image as captured appeared to be so muted and low in contrast but then with one click of the level algorithm in Photoshop, a whole spectrum of bright colors suddenly appeared. I do wonder if this is normal for the RAW image to come in this way or if i should get my camera checked out. Any thoughts?

I have not noticed any contrast issues with sunny day shots, so maybe i was metering to the bright glare and underexposed the shot. hmm?

Again, my big take away is less is more and I appreciate the lessons!

mikeSF

[mikeSF]

I think both of your PP shots above are very good. I would also agree with the other's who posted to say they are every so slightly overdone, but not dramatically overdone. I like them both very much.

For myself, I find this to be the most challenging aspect - enhance the pic, but don't over do it.

You don't have to know a lot about PS to do a good/great job. If you have photoshop you also have ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), which is almost all I use.

Here's a typical photo in my current style of processing (K10D shot in raw).
ACR
- boost exposure slightly (+0.2, or +0.4)
- boost black levels (+12 to 18) - this adds contrast to the photo without blowing out colours
- boost brightness from 50 (standard) to 60
- boost contrast from 25 (standard) to 35
** now the picture is bright and bold and on the verge of being overdone, but not quite.

Photoshop CS2
- touch up any noticable blemishes (never touching freckles, birth marks, dimples, etc., as these are part of the person), but zits, blotchy spots, etc. = gone
- if it's a close up person picture it's time for "portraiture" filter. I have mine set at 20.
- once "portraiture" is done - magic wand the person's eyes and use the "sharpen" filter.
- you're done
- resize for web, and add border and business logo (optional).

Here's the final product:


Hope this info was helpful.

c[_]

Wow, what an amazing phtograph! Thanks for the insight and yes, most helpful.

[mikeSF]

...One other thing I noticed is that it appears you have a dust spot on your sensor. It is the darker spot in the upper right quadrant of the Alcatraz image. I think it is also on the other image but less visible in the clouds. That is a good spot to practice with the spot-healing brush tool in Photoshop.

what do you know, i think you are right. i will look at the subsequent images and see what i'm dealing with - hopefully it is on the lens and not on the sensor - i am not ready for that yet...

[Arpe]

- if it's a close up person picture it's time for "portraiture" filter. I have mine set at 20.
- once "portraiture" is done - magic wand the person's eyes and use the "sharpen" filter.

Please - what is this filter that you speak of?

[kurt]

Please - what is this filter that you speak of?

I think it is 'Sharpening' tool in Photoshop. Photoshop calls these as filters.

[attack11]

Imagenomic Portraiture - Photoshop Retouching Plugin

it's a plugin for various apps. the example of it in this thread is the typical "no pores" over processed look. the eyes are sharp and the clothes have a rough surface but the skin is as smooth as a perfect gradient. so fake.

if you have photoshop cs3 or cs4, use smart sharpen with a tiny & heavy radius; it's much better than the other sharpening tools; and this should be the final step in pp.

[emalvick]

again, Thanks tremendously for the active discussion and suggestions - i will incorporate all.

actually, of the second (Alcatraz) example, i may not have been clear. I was not asking if the PP was too much (i said it was), i was asking why the camera image as captured appeared to be so muted and low in contrast but then with one click of the level algorithm in Photoshop, a whole spectrum of bright colors suddenly appeared. I do wonder if this is normal for the RAW image to come in this way or if i should get my camera checked out. Any thoughts?

I have not noticed any contrast issues with sunny day shots, so maybe i was metering to the bright glare and underexposed the shot. hmm?

Again, my big take away is less is more and I appreciate the lessons!

mikeSF

The result you saw on that Alcatraz shot is normally. My in laws live in the East Bay and that is just a result of the constant haze around the bay area there. Essentially what you are seeing has a limited dynamic range because of the haze and its tendency to diffuse the light.

You then take the shot into a post-processor and by using auto-levels, the software tries to extend the contrast so the maximum and minimum levels are essentially black and white (rather than two different shades of gray as you had in the original).

All the color you see in the final picture is in the RAW file it is just being stored over a more limited range than what the final result is showing. This is part of the beauty of working with RAW.

The conclusion: There is probably nothing wrong with your camera. Almost definitely nothing wrong from what you showed in your original Sausalito image. A solution that will partially work is to try using a polarizer filter. These usually help cut some haze and brighten up colors from the beginning. Otherwise, be thankful for RAW files and the ability to recover some colors and detail that you otherwise might have lost without RAW.

As for the possible dust spot... Change the lens (if you have multiple lenses) and take a photo of a blank wall or sky at a small aperture (high f-stop... e.g. f22). If there is dust on the sensor it will show up in the same spot on the image for all lenses and at f22, it will show up as a much more defined spot. If there is dust, get a rocket blower and lock the mirror up in cleaning mode to try and blow the dust out. If that doesn't work, you may need to pay for a sesnsor cleaning, or if the dust is minimal, just get good with the spot healing brush in Photoshop. With a good RAW developer for my PP, the healing brush is about all I use outside of my RAW processor (and if I ever get Lightroom that is even available within it).

[abraham_love]

I really like your first photoshopped example. Before a pretty dull photo of some houses and the sea. Transformed into an engaging view. The boldness and contrast are great. You made a snap into a picture. It looks 'overcooked' to just the right degree. So my answer to your question is: yes, it does look photoshopped, but it's just the right amount :-)

On the other hand, the other poster's picture of the smooth skinned sparkly eyed baby is just way too much for my liking. I can certainly understand how some people would like it and pay money for shots like that. I'm not all about looking natural, but that baby pic is too much for me. Babies and chldren especially should be allowed to look at least a little natural.
EDIT! That said, ll_coffee_lP...I just had a look at your site (mephotography.net) and really liked all your other shots and processing there :-) I guess it was just the baby pic that didn't appeal.

[bnishanth]

Any opinions and suggestions for simple PP improvements are most welcome here. I take constructive feedback well, lol. I thank you in advance.

Mike

Mike, this is a highly debatable topic & beauty lies in the...blah blah blah..!!

However, if we take your first example, do you notice halo's on the edge ? Thats when it is too much..

Cheers
Nish

[ll_coffee_lP]

Imagenomic Portraiture - Photoshop Retouching Plugin

it's a plugin for various apps. the example of it in this thread is the typical "no pores" over processed look. the eyes are sharp and the clothes have a rough surface but the skin is as smooth as a perfect gradient. so fake.

if you have photoshop cs3 or cs4, use smart sharpen with a tiny & heavy radius; it's much better than the other sharpening tools; and this should be the final step in pp.

You are correct:
Photoshop CS2
Filter tab at top
Imagenomic Portraiture

You are also not correct:
- This image hasn't had portraiture added to the image. This was solely done with the FA77 ltd.

I'll let my daughter know that her near flawless skin looks "fake" to you.

c[_]

[mikeSF]

c'mon guys, be nice.

<---- Say, i just uploaded my mug in my avatar. That's me, yippee.