processing raw

<p>Hi Carol -</p>

<p>To be honest, I'm not sure I can explain in precise terms exactly how I approach a PS fix like this. I typically just study the image for a while, maybe check for a few obvious issues (eg, blurring, blown highlights, too much noise, weird histogram, etc.), maybe try a few gross changes in the general direction I want to go, and then once I have a clear concept of what I want to do to the image, I just work my way through the tabs and sliders in ACR, one by one. Usually, I'll have to go back and iterate a bit, but certainly not endlessly.</p>

<p>One thing in your last message caught my eye: You mentioned that often the changes that you make to an image cause the image to look worse, not better. I don't understand this at all. Most adjustments in ACR are sliders which have two directions. If one direction doesn't improve the image, try moving the slider in the other direction. Unless the image is already perfectly optimized, the other direction is almost guaranteed to improve the image. Work in the same way as when you are being examined for new glasses: You are given an endless series of questions of the form, "Is this better or is THIS better?". Do exactly the same thing in PS.</p>

<p>The one thing that I would say is that I never, ever, make a change in any parameter that doesn't improve the image. Put differently, I never need to make a change which looks like it will temporarily degrade the image for that step in order to achieve a final goal. I'm always improving the image at every step. </p>

<p>Let me think about this some more and try to pen a more coherent response, but as William and others have pointed out, the best way to learn PS is through hands-on experience. I won't try to minimize the effort involved -- there is a steep learning curve -- but every image that you work on will improve your skills.</p>

<p>More later,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>I worked on two balloon images on my own... AFTER studying the adjustments Tom made. Seeing the settings he used made a big difference... in fact I didn't even know some of those adjustment areas existed.. (duh me lol) </p>

<p>Anyway.. I think I did ok.. I know I at least did better then my first image posted in this thread.</p>

<p>So what are your suggestions for these two images... what did I do wrong (or right) ?</p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/whispering_rain/052.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/whispering_rain/009small.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>btw<br>

I have no idea how to read/use histogram... o_0<br>

Tom I think your response was more then coherent. And I thank you :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<strong>never, ever, make a change in any parameter that doesn't improve the image</strong>. Put differently, I never need to make a change which looks like it will temporarily degrade the image for that step in order to achieve a final goal. I'm always <strong>improving the image at every step.</strong> . . <strong>the best way to learn PS is through hands-on experience.</strong> I won't try to minimize the effort involved -- there is a steep learning curve -- but every image that you work on will improve your skills."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>SAGE.</p>

<p>It is all about going the training regularly - but each time you sit down: do purposeful training, and then review it - and know how you got there.</p>

<p>Carol the two images you just posted are much better than the first. the two most obvious differences are: the sky; and the range of CONTRAST, which can be seen by how much definition there is in the shadow side of the balloons (that's the mid tone contrast you were asking about)<br>

The top image is more SATURATED, that is the colours have more depth and pop - like the "paint is richer". But with the saturation it could be you have lost a little definition between the BLUES?<br>

If they were pictures - I would be aiming for something between the two.</p>

<p>But – you are truck loads better than a few days ago, hey!</p>

<p> WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you William! I'll try again and aim for the something between the two images.<br>

I am so happy and so grateful for the advice and input I've gotten here.</p>

<p>You all are awesome!! :)</p>

<p>I'll post here again after I try again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ditto what William said. These two images are enormously better than what you were producing just a few days ago.</p>

<p>To add to William's comments, another way to compare your two most recent images is that the first is so intensely saturated that it's starting to look flat, almost like a paint-by-numbers exercise or a logo. Such an approach is great when you want an extremely graphic, intense set of colors (say, for a brochure to be printed inexpensively), and don't want subtlety. It's a lot like the intensely saturated tweak I did on your earlier image. It's an in-your-face, don't-dilute-the-paints approach. :-)</p>

<p>In contrast, your 2nd image is much more subtle, very, very nice, and would be acceptable for a much wider range of uses. For example, most "blue" skies are actually somewhat cyan, not pure primary blue. Your 2nd image catches this distinction nicely.</p>

<p>Gotta run.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>Ok.. I think my eyes are bleeding from working on these brightly colored shots so long.. lol</p>

<p>However, I do have another comparison that I THINK might be better..</p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/whispering_rain/009small2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Then again it might be worse.. <br>

BTW both of you are just so incredibly helpful. I can't say thank you enough...<br>

The way you explain things is just right.</p>