Camera RAW -> Post-Processed Image Thread

[Shining]

Thought I would start a thread to post comparisons between RAW negatives and you're final processed image.

Sometimes the shot you get out of camera quite simply sucks, and it's amazing what a bit of PP can do to turn a bad or so so image into something worthy of showing.

To start off, this is a beach shot taken around sunset without the use of any ND filters. There is no warmth to the image, it's both overexposed in the sky and under in the rocks. There is also significant barrel distortion from the 17mm end of my lens.

In ACR I fixed the exposure as best I could bringing back a bit of detail by using the "Fill Light" slider and adding a grad filter for the sky. Also fixed distortion and any visible CA. In Photoshop with the use of a few colour sliders I began to bring a bit of warmth to the image whilst keeping the sea a cool blue. Finally (bit overboard) added a gradual lens blur to retain focus on the shore/rock foreground.

EDIT: sorry this web image is so blurred. Original is pin sharp but you get an idea of it!

 

[Shining]

Here is another one; taken in Hong Kong last year. Major cropping as this was originally taken portrait. Cropped to retain the bottom half of the image then added a gradual lens blur in PS but cutting out the girl so she remained in focus. Then upped the contrast+saturation. Bam!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Paul11]

first image does nothing for me

but LOVE what you have done to the second one....

 

[Shining]

Last one for now...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[D.P.]

first image does nothing for me

but LOVE what you have done to the second one....

I agree, I prefer the RAW on the first image.

And as for the second, that is great PP work.I'm just much more of a person who prefers to get things right in the camera, applying lens blurs to image is not might cup of tea. Horses for courses.

 

[Shining]

Usually I tend to agree, the better the image in camera the less is needed with PP work, and it feels great to have gotten the capture right at the start.

This is more about showing what can be done with software like Photoshop, and i'm amateur at best!

 

[log1K]

I love the work you've done.

I'm very, very interested to know how you PP guys go about a work flow.
Where do you start?

I'm not bad with Photoshop/Lightroom but I have no idea sometimes where to begin..

 

[xaldub]

Thing is, RAW files are always going to look "weak" compared to a processed image - it's just data with no further information regards colour space, sharpening, tonal curves etc.

I agree that Photoshop is a powerful tool, and it's amazing some of the things that can be achieved. My personal stance however, is that too much "photoshopping" strays away from photography and into the realms of digital art ( but that's another topic of discussion ).

For me the first image has too much processing - looks far too "warm" and over-saturated. I like what you've done with the other two shots though - it's added a tasteful amount of punch to the images, and you've brought out a lot more detail/micro-contrast in the statue.

 

[Oynas]

Maybe taking the thread slightly off-topic, but where do people stand in terms of heavily modifying a photograph? I'm not just talking about adjusting the white balance or upping the saturation or sharpening an image, but rather things like, for instance, adding a completely new background like 'Shining' (not picking on you ) has done above?

Just wondering where people draw the line (if there is one).

 

[Liampope]

First one looks way overdone to me, but i love the other two - especially Bruce Lee .

@ Oynas: In this case that's pretty much the 'true' background for that scene. Were it not for the blasted photography-destroying Hong Kong fog you'd see pretty much the result of that composite. So we can let Shining off .

 

[Rojin]

Maybe taking the thread slightly off-topic, but where do people stand in terms of heavily modifying a photograph? I'm not just talking about adjusting the white balance or upping the saturation or sharpening an image, but rather things like, for instance, adding a completely new background like 'Shining' (not picking on you ) has done above?

Just wondering where people draw the line (if there is one).

There is no line, do what you want to get the image that you want. The only thing I personally would not do, is try to pass off a heavily shopped image as a "taken" photograph.

 

[86JR]

FWIW I havent touched photoshop since i got my D300s, instead i have been reading books and listening to people and out of 10 images i take around 7 are usable now, the majority of the three are the first 2 shots to get exposure right (full manual, dont always guess right especially when iso is higher than 50 (low 1.0)). I shoot JPEG+RAW just incase i get that 1million pound shot, but i dont photoshop anything.

And I think if your monitor is uncalibrated it can ruin them anyway.

As for the OP all your pictures seem a bit OTT when processed, is your monitor calibrated ?

 

[D.P.]

FWIW I havent touched photoshop since i got my D300s, instead i have been reading books and listening to people and out of 10 images i take around 7 are usable now, the majority of the three are the first 2 shots to get exposure right (full manual, dont always guess right especially when iso is higher than 50 (low 1.0)). I shoot JPEG+RAW just incase i get that 1million pound shot, but i dont photoshop anything.

And I think if your monitor is uncalibrated it can ruin them anyway.

As for the OP all your pictures seem a bit OTT when processed, is your monitor calibrated ?

Don't shoot in low 1.0, keep to ISO 200.

I don't understand why you would use complete manual exposure with a D300. Use A or S automated modes and concentrate on composition

 

[Fireskull]

As for the OP all your pictures seem a bit OTT when processed, is your monitor calibrated ?

What do you mean by OTT? they look fine on my monitors all calibrated, I guess the first one is supposed to look OTT

I like the work though, specially the street one and Bruce lee

 

[86JR]

Don't shoot in low 1.0, keep to ISO 200.

I don't understand why you would use complete manual exposure with a D300. Use A or S automated modes and concentrate on composition

Because i was told repeatedly on here to use only M, that i was an idiot for using P,S,A mode.

So i use M and then you post that.

Do i need to use Z mode or something to not get criticised ?

 

[86JR]

What do you mean by OTT? they look fine on my monitors all calibrated, I guess the first one is supposed to look OTT

I like the work though, specially the street one and Bruce lee

Too much saturation and too much contrast between light and dark.

 

[Shining]

photos were edited on my macbook, it's not been calibrated so can understand that processing might look a bit "extreme". The dark contrast and saturation are deliberate however.

EDIT: now calibrated

Have to say after all the opinions on the first image, yes it does look rubbish. I only created it for the purpose of this thread i.e. what extremes can be done with pp work.

 

[Derek W]

Too much saturation and too much contrast between light and dark.

its down to personal taste though, the OP feels that his amount of PP is fine for the image, you dont. So its not like anyone can say its either OTT or not, the final image isn't to your taste thats all.

I think the classic example of this is the use of HDR on an image. Do you push the saturation levels up or keep it more realistic.

 

[Vertigo]

Personally don't like the first one - with the possible exception of the corrected distortion on the horizon, I prefer the original.

The second one is very good however and does actually look like it was taken that was with a very shallow DoF - well done!

As for the third, technically good but I'm personally not a fan of composited shots as I like photos to represent what was actually there at the time but that's just me

 

[DB_SamX]

Because i was told repeatedly on here to use only M, that i was an idiot for using P,S,A mode.

So i use M and then you post that.

Do i need to use Z mode or something to not get criticised ?

But most books will tell you that different shooting opportunities require different settings e.g. sport - S, walkabout - A. I would only really use M if the lighting varied between extremes, and/or I wanted a custom lighting result.

Wrt OP, much prefer the 2nd processing, but would personally have tried to achieve the effect when shooting.