Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Improving photos. (Was: Re: MFT meet in Brugges, Belgium report

Subject: [OM] Re: Improving photos. (Was: Re: MFT meet in Brugges, Belgium report (longisch))
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:00:34 -0700
Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
> I didn't keep careful track of what I did, although I think I can pretty
> much remember 
>
> < <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wagenaar_Brugges/index.htm>
>
> I'm using PSCS, which has one important tool added since 7 that I used 
> on some of these, ShadowHighlight (SHi)......
> -----
>
> Thanks Moose for taking the time to explain what you have done. Some
> improvements were quite dramatic indeed. 
Glad you liked them. I'm sure they aren't all just to your taste, but 
they may free your imagination to see more possibilities.
> Sorry I responded this late,
> but I only read the digest version and am a little  behind because of
> the family obligations that go with this time of the year. You obviously
> did put in quite some work. 
For some folks here, getting the image right before releasing the 
shutter is paramount. They want to go directly from camera to print. 
Nothing wrong with that, it's just different for me. I'm fascinated with 
the possibilities of the digital darkroom and haven't tired yet of 
exploring them.
> I greatly appreciate the way you teach me in this way. Please let me know if 
> there is anything I can do back. 
You just did.
> I heard a lot of positive things about PSCS from friends from the local
> photoclob and from others. Especially the SHi you mention is everybodies
> favourite new option. 
Not so new anymore, PSCS2 has been out for a while. It has some 
interesting looking additional tools, but nothing as widely useful as 
SHi for photographers, s far as I can tell.
> The improvements that are visible with this tool are indeed much like 
> unveiling waht is underneath. I think I need to take a look at the option of 
> upgrading. 
I think you may be able to go directly to PSCS2.
> LCE is new to me. I will look up how it works. It seems to me that quite some 
> of my photo's need
> improvement in the (mostly white) skies. Would LCE be the tool for that?
>   
I assumed the white skies were from a gray, overcast day. Nothing much 
to be done about that in taking the picture. If you are getting them 
with blue skies, it's probably over exposure. If you are shooting JPEGs, 
it will sometimes be hard to both catch the sky and shadow detail. RAW 
and care with the histogram should cure that.

LCE can often perk up cloud detail/definition, but will have no effect 
on a detailless sky.

You can add sky after the fact. The statue shows simple addition of sky 
from another of your images. The building is simply fill of a blue shade 
into the blank sky. 767 is more complex, as it's hard to drop in a sky 
through trees, especially at such a small size. Also, to open up more 
possibilities, I did a quick and dirty change of the rest of the image 
to tonal balance closer to a sunny day. It's a little over the top, but 
only a demo 
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wagenaar_Brugges_Sky/>.
> Last year I followed a course in PS, but that was not realle meant for
> photographers. The course leader insisted that there is no neccesity
> ever to shoot in RAW and you could (read should) use JPG at all times.
>   
So much depends on what one is doing. For many kinds of pro photography, 
like portraits, product shots, event photography, etc., lighting is 
controlled and exposure pretested and there is no need for the greater 
dynamic range of RAW. For outdoor shots, I find it invaluable.
> Since I followed the discussions here and at other places I am convinced
> RAW adds to the possibilities to improve your photos. 
Yup. It can also save the occasional wrong exposure. :-)
> For now I still use JPG for the relative ease of workflow. 
If you are going to do work like I've done on your shots, be sure to 
convert to 16 bit first. You can convert back before saving, if you 
want. The problem with tools like curves, Levels and SHi are that they 
compress and expand various parts of the brightness range. That means 
interpolating values when expanding and dropping values when 
compressing. With only 256 possible brightness values in 8 bit, it 
sometimes doesn't take much manipulation before holes and stacks develop 
in the histogram. You can see them there and see the picture starting to 
look 'funny' in odd, hard to describe ways, subtly unnatural. When you 
convert to 16 bit, you don't add any info, but you duplicate each value 
256 times, so the manipulations don't have the same effect, the 
histogram stays smooth and you can do a great deal without this kind of 
problems.

I suspect lots of people have tried playing with their images in image 
editors in 8 bit and concluded that it doesn't work because they soon 
look wrong.
> Can any of you point me to a book or course on PS that mainly goes into 
> improving photos for photographers and not so much in the "other" functions 
> like mosaic and others.
>   
Others have already weighed in on this, and I hope more do. I haven't a 
clue, as I haven't read the only book I have on it. I'm more a dive in 
and see what happens guy.

On the other hand, I can highly recommend a book on printing. Mastering 
Digital Printing, by Harald Johnson, now in its second edition, is the 
only tech book I've read just about cover to cover in years. Dive in and 
try it in printing can cost real money and Harald can help you avoid 
that cost.

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz