"Before and After" Forum.

<p>I would like to see a forum where both the raw image, and the final image are displayed. With maybe a bit of detail of the post processing involved.<br>

I would find it useful (and I assume others would as well) to get some idea on what is possible in camera and what sort of post processing work is required for the final image. I think there are alot of people who view images on this site, see a great photo and think that's because it was taken with a more expensive camera lens combination than they own themselves and have no concept of the sometimes hours of post processing work that has gone in it.</p>

 

<p>Some folks already do that. Many will post the originals if you ask. Earlier this year I wondered in a critique whether a certain tonemapped photo might look better in the original version. Nope. I was wrong. The guy was on the right track with his preferred approach.</p>

<p>Might be an interesting addition to the existing Digital Darkroom Forum. I'm fascinated by b&w photographer <a href="http://www.f45.com/">Rolfe Horn</a> 's "technique" section on his website, that shows before and after versions, all done with traditional wet darkroom magic. Not many fine art photographers would risk showing their original, unaltered work, warts and all. I admire him for doing so and illustrating why manipulation is an inherent part of the craft and not something to apologize for. He influenced me to use similar notes and diagrams on my work prints to track the steps I use, since I'm too lazy to keep written log books.</p>

<p>How would one post a RAW file?</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>Jay, use a RAW converter program and convert it directly to a JPEG without adjusting any of the parameters like exposure, color balance, contrast, etc.</p>

>>> How would one post a RAW file?

 

Semantics. Export a JPEG from Lightroom of the initial imported RAW as seen before any *user* adjustments (past the

initial defaults) are made.

<p>I just wanted to point that out. The target audience mentioned by the OP would likely not know that.</p>

<p>:~))</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>If you have access to a simple presentation program like Keynote or Powerpoint, it would probably be very easy to place two pictures on a slide, and then simply export that slide as a JPG. I have done this a few times. Exceptionally convenient, and I think it's looks better than a trail of photos. I used that method in this thread, http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00T2EE while discussing a different topic.</p>

<p>I kind of do this in the way that there is often a brief discription of what I used with some details as to how I used it in the information section of the photo I post. But since I work from the standpoint of non-manipulation, what I saw is what you see so there is really no point in me doing any before and after type of comparison. <br>

But from purely an entertainment standpoint, it would be funny to see the raw / actual photograph as taken compared to the computer graphic that is born of the change. Maybe those who see what they think is a great photo and believe it's because it was taken with a more expensive camera lens combination than they own themselves would think somewhat less of it if they knew all the hours of post-photographic computer aid that went into it.<br>

So I say bring it on..:-)</p>

<p><a href="http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2009/01/what-does-an-unprocessed-image-look-like.html">There is no such thing as an unprocessed raw image.</a></p>

<p>Okay, there isn't; but, there's still enough "before and after" activity to get what Sean's talking about.</p>

>>> There is no such thing as an unprocessed raw image.

 

See my response, above...

<p>why people need to take every word so *anally*?</p>

<p>Of course you CANT post a raw image..and of course technicaly theres no such thing as a unprocessed raw...</p>

<p>But you can as other mention simply open your raw file and developed it without any setting and post it as jpeg.</p>

<p>I will be glad to be the first to post my personal before and after image ; )</p>

<p>But what if I change the defaults in my raw processor (whether that's in-camera or on-computer) to be something more to my liking? Now is it still "before"? I just don't understand the value of a "before" image, because there's no standard definition of it.</p>

<p>Oh, come on! This is a good idea. </p>

<p>I still say the "before" isn't interesting. There might be some interest in your final image as compared with my final image from the same raw file, or other variations on final images. One such "final" image might be the uncropped camera-generated JPEG using default settings.</p>

<p>That's arguably a reasonable definition for "before", and one that everyone can accommodate by setting their camera to the default and extracting the embedded JPEG from the raw file.</p>

<p>But to me, that's not really a "before" image. That's another variation of "final".</p>

<p>Seems like RAW was the wrong word to use.<br>

I not talking about images that have just been sharpened with a bit of colour and contrast adjustment. More like looking at an Ansel Adams print before and after the dark room. To me that sort of comparison is extremely interesting and educational. Post processing was (in the days of the dark room) and remains (in the digital world) a real art and contrary to what many would like to believe, access to photoshop does not automatically mean you can start producing great images.<br>

If there are others out there willing to share just a little of this art I for one would be extremely greatful.</p>

 

<p>Here's Mine ... I'm pretty good at photoshop!</p><div></div>

<p>That one just kills me, Thomas!</p>

<p>John;</p>

<p>A few adjustment layers, a mask or 2, color correction ... and <strong>voila</strong>!</p>

<p>as stated, i think many people here would be happy to show you the original/description of what they did to arrive at the image they have posted .</p>

<p><strong>MY METHOD FOR BW CONVERSION</strong></p>

<p>I wont do this all the time, but since i already post this in a past thread, i pout it back here.<br>

Heres a quick how to for bw creation that i use everyday..as a action. I will keep it short and sweet, because i have to go back to work after ; )</p>

<p><strong>STEP 01_</strong> adjustment bw tool to create your bw style, using the different sloder to get the effect you want, you can then save them for future use as preset and save again a lot of time. I have create some for nature, lansdscape, portrait, architecture, all of those can be of course refine later, and of coruse i could use the lansdscape one over a portrait and see whats up with it..the point is i have multiple set alreayd done and ready for the action (by the way if you want them, get my email by clicking my name and i will send you teh link..for <strong>FREE</strong> ) By using the bw tool you could depending of your setting also play with the contrast of a scene.</p>

<p><strong>STEP 02_</strong> adjustment layer curve to get the density / contrast you need to add more pop to the image, a simple curve without setting just click OK, set is blending mode to soft light and voila! nice contrast..then use the opacity slider to get it where you want. Or do it manually like normal and adjust the density / contrast at the same time. You can create a generic S curve and press OK, so if you run it as a action, this generic curve will be applied, and easy to refine.</p>

<p><strong>STEP 03_</strong> add a layer fill with gray 50% set the blending mode to soft light, select a brush with the size you need to paint area of your image for the dodge & burn pro way. Set the opacity of the brush to 40% that will give you the option of multiple pass on the same area to create dimension on your dodge & burn..like in real life. Use the foreground white to dodge, and the foreground black to burn. This is the finition step so take all the time you want to get to where you want. No automatic plugin can do this for you, so even with SilverFX, you should still use this last step as part of your workflow.</p>

<p><strong>EXTRA01_</strong> For the vignette, i will explain 1 way of doing it, simple. I use 2-3 method myself depending of what i want. Create a adjustment layer curve, no setting, press OK, set the blending mode to multiply, fill the white mask with black, use the linear gradient tool and discover the area you want the vignette to appear on. Adjust the layer opacity to suit your need.</p>

<p><strong>EXTRA02_</strong> if you want some<strong> film grain simulation </strong> (i know nothing is like the real deal bla bla bla, but for most user who dont know film and dont want to know film, its the closest way of creating it other than scanning a real film and pasting this frame to there images) Anyway, zoom to 100% add a layer fill with gray 50% set the blending mode to soft light, go to noise enter the number you want for the effect you see on screen you like and use gaussian and monochromatic for the setting, i like 5 to get a ncie effect, but i also like 10-15 for a more drama look, then OK. Go to filter / blur / gaussian blur and add around .5 to the grain, it will give it a more organic look. Drop the opacity of this layer to around 80%. the reason why i put it as my last step is because it can also cover banding if you have gone too far with your bw tool setting (the blue area is really fragile, and sometime you can see banding there)</p>

<p>Et voila! A 3 step bw conversion (+ 2 extra in need) that can be set as a action and run in no time on multiple file taht you have at any kind of sie and resolution. By the time i was writing this for you, my Photoshop was running a action for magazine CMYK preparation, 200 images 12x18 300ppi with a bit of final step sharpening, a bit of black pop to give it a extra edge..all that on the back of my internet window. i save time, i can write tutorial, i still can bill my client...and i still can read the other new PN post without getting late in my day.</p>

 

<p>Heres a visual demonstration. For once, you will see one of my personal image (not a client one, for those who could ask if i cant also take picture not just retouched them) and the 3 step darkroom..OK 4 : )<br>

<br /> heres the color original taken with my Canon G9 in my Panama Family trip last November. Original as i put it in Ligthroom and press export...no i know, there is no unprocessed raw, all the image is process because....for me its a original when I DONT HAVE done anything to it.</p><div></div>

<p>Heres the step 03, the paintaing layer..the Dodge & Burn one. (i skip Step 02 as you will see the final result right after)</p><div></div>

<p>And the final image in BW, using Step 01-02-03 and the Extra Film Grain Simulation. I got this result in 3min approx, with the Dodge & Burn layer that take most of my time : )</p>

<p>So as you can see you dont always to slave around in Ps to get good result when you have experience..like in anything else in life. Fro example, it will take me around 2hre to change my car oil..thats why i pay 30$ to have it done in 30min.</p>

<p>But the fact is, i would have done this image in a tradional bw lab and it would have took me all morning, so for me that know both era, i would say that doing it in Photoshop is way faster for me, and i get probably a better result, since i can see rigth away what is good or not and adjust accordingly.</p><div></div>

<p>And here's the layer window as a proof that my method work..at least for me : )</p><div></div>