SPPC (Weekly Post-Processing Challenge) - October 26, 2014

<p>Good morning (at least in my time zone)!</p>

<p>I promised this week's fodder for the postprocessing challenge, so here it is:</p>

<p>Background behind the selection: I was contacted about a year ago by a frantic photographer who had shot a wedding (for pay) and was in need of PP help. She had taken a large number of group portraits in the full, noon-day sun, resulting in harsh shadows across everyone's faces. I told her there was only so much I could do without making heroic (labor intensive and therefore expensive) efforts on the more important ones. She sent me a sample photo, and I did some meatball corrections on it to demonstrate for her what I could do for a minimal investment. I never heard back from her. I think I did share with her a few words of advice, like next time shooting in open shade or using a fill flash. I felt sorry for her, as she had put herself in a very bad spot.</p>

<p>Of course I can't share that photographer's photo with you for obvious reasons. So I went back through my archived photos to see if I could find anything similar. I did -- not quite as extreme as hers, but still bad. The photos are from a few years ago, when the US government was shut down because of gridlock in Congress. I came upon a group of protesters outside of a local Representative's office and took a few minutes to photograph them. Unfortunately it was a sunny day, the only shade was a tiny little tree (not large enough to stand under), and I had no fill flash. In hindsight, I might have been able to use one of their white signs as a fill reflector, but I didn't think of that. Besides, I feel very strongly about not directing my subjects when doing documentary work. I photograph what's in front of me. I would have felt odd enlisting their help to hold a fill reflector/sign for me.</p>

<p>I'm submitting two photos this week, and I invite people to work on either or both of them. The first is a group shot with harsh facial shadows. The second is both a stronger image and an attempt of mine to find open shade for one of the subject's faces. Her sign provided the shade. I got a usable shot from that one, but it wasn't a great one. I've uploaded a couple of 1200 px long-dimension photos to my portfolio <a href="/photo/17891205">here</a> and <a href="/photo/17891204">here</a>. (Please note that they are mislabeled as "Bailout Protesters," which isn't accurate, but I can't find where to change the title.) I'll also upload smaller versions for display at the bottom of this posting. These photos were shot in RAW and converted with Canon's "neutral" setting with daylight WB. I resharpened very slightly (minimally) after the 1200 px resizing and did not re-sharpen after the 700 px resizing below. Otherwise no PP work was done -- straight out of the camera.</p>

<p>In editing these photos, try to imagine the group photo as a wedding party and me as the frantic photographer who screwed up. What would you have done for me?</p>

<p>Have fun! :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the second</p><div></div>

<p>Sarah, the first thing that crossed my mind was that these shots qualify as photojournalism, which makes PP kind of troublesome. But, oh, well, what the hell...</p>

<p>In any case, I didn't see much that needed to be done, which makes me think about the other thread running about "getting it right in the camera" vs. post-processing in general. Actually, I think you pretty much nailed it when you clicked the shutter. The only thing I did on "A" was darken the "not doing their jobs" sign and boost the contrast; and, on "B" lighten her face a bit.</p><div></div>

<p>Second shot.</p><div></div>

<p>Sarah:</p>

<p>Challenge, indeed . . . My first observation was that the bearded fellow is the only subject whose sign is shaded by the tree. Intuitively I felt that B&W was the way to go with the first. Basic adjustments were made in PSE 11 - noise reduction & levels. The B&W conversion was done in Silver EFEX Pro 2, which also assisted me in addressing brightness, contrast, and structure.</p><div></div>

<p>2nd image - After initially attempting to use NIK's Define 2 to reduce noise in the sky, I proceeded in PSE11 with slight levels adjustments and with adjusting colors based on the subject's skin tones. Then, I finished in Color Efex Pro 4.</p><div></div>

<p>My approach was to emphasize the reason for the image by using Field Blur to diminish the background; lighten the face; convert all but the sign to black and white; and apply a slight saturation boost to the sign.<br>

Allyn</p><div></div>

<p>Creative approach, Saroyan.</p>

<p>Since you asked that we process this as we would were it be a wedding... I have never photographed one, don't do portrait except for street candids and have never used a flash. My first priority was the bride (I assumed this to be the younger lady). So, I got rid of the harsh spots on her face using skin textured brushes. I also adjusted the shadows in Viveza. Converted to BW in Silver Efex. Finally I could not let the father of the bride stand there without his left shoe...So, I added it.</p><div></div>

<p>I know it's a bit gimmicky, but I thought the isolated color on b and w worked well in this case. I actually thought the first image wasn't bad as is, so decided to tackle the 2nd. Did typical adjustments to shadow/highlights, contrast, levels, brightening etc., then applied a b&w layer and erased the portion over the sign. Is there an easier way to use that particular technique than using the eraser tool? Applied a minor bit of sharpening to the flattened image.</p><div></div>

<p>And just for the record, I always do my edits prior to reading through the thread, so the similarity to Allyn's is totally coincidental!</p>

<p>Bill, you should create a layer mask on the top layer it is a lot easier as you can hide and show using the paint brush - Black to show the layer under, white to hide it. It is a lot more forgiving than the eraser, if you make a mistake you can just change the color of the brush and paint over it....</p>

<p>Thanks Line. I'll give that a try.</p>

<p>I like your wedding party, Line! That's about as dream-like as can be, given the realities of the harsh lighting. And thanks for adding Dad's foot! He was missing it.</p>

<p>William, I think your editing in the PJ style is very clean and natural. Nicely done.</p>

<p>Michael, your B&W version has a very surreal quality about it. I think it might have worked better if Dad didn't have a smile on his face. But that's the reality of protests: Some people are there because it's fun for them, not because they're genuinely pissed off about things.</p>

<p>Bill, your mixed color/mono version puts the spotlight on the message, which is a useful approach in certain contexts. Having the color on the sign distracts from the deficiencies of the lighting.</p>

<p>My own approach to harsh lighting is to go monochrome, where I have greater flexibility. My only real trick in this sort of situation is to rely greatly on the red channel, de-emphasizing green and blue -- i.e. with the channel mixer tool. Why? It's because human flesh is rather transparent to red light and much more opaque to green and blue. Because of this, light penetrates the flesh from the lighted sides and lights up immediately adjacent shaded areas. You'll notice in the group shot that this works best on the more fair-skinned subjects. (Line, I amputated Dad's other foot to even him up a bit.) I also applied a curve with a broad shoulder, so as to decrease contrast in the upper end. With more time, I might have masked the signs and worked on them to improve the contrast. Here's the group shot, which is still not quite to my liking:</p><div></div>

<p>My attempt.</p><div></div>

<p>For the other photo, I simply masked and lightened the face a bit, and then I went monochrome so as to darken the sky and foliage -- same "red filter" treatment as above, except less extreme. I tweaked the "STOP" at the top of the sign just a bit, as the word otherwise had disappeared. I probably should have cloned out the tree branch. Then I tightened the crop a bit. Result is below.</p>

<p>I have to say I don't often edit jpegs. What a messy process! The noise just piles up! Thank goodness we're viewing it as a small image! ;-)</p><div></div>

<p>Brighter faces for artificial moonlight look.</p><div></div>

<p>Great info Sarah! I've never played around with color channels, but will be experimenting with them in the future.</p>

<p>Sarah: Your lesson on color channels is quite valuable, especially dealing with the red channel and skin tones. Many thanks.</p>

<p>The original images certainly needed color corrections. The later version are what I would have worked towards. I find working with color channels an absolute need for photo restoration.</p>

<p>The Red channel is where people will have to work to fix the magenta look of Adobe RAW infrared conversions. Highlight the red channel, click into the levels control, and shift the black level about 11 points in. As a general rule this will restore the missing blue and cyan values that should be present. Be aware though, that each IR photo will have different false color values. Sometimes blue has to be tweeked a little. Still, it is a quick fix for an annoying Adobe RAW issue.</p>

<p>Thank you Mathew for the additional information.</p>

<p><img src="http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss151/dorus/Clipboard01_zps17d19267.jpg" alt="" width="533" height="800" /><br>

in haste on a low res copy, but I'm sure you get the idea :)</p>

<p>Interesting dorus. Any hints as to how it was done (and 'in haste' no less)?</p>

<p>Is anyone interested in posting a 'challenge' photo for next week or beyond? Keep in mind that the challenge photo does not have to have any specific problem - it can simply be a photo you haven't done any processing on yet, or have processed but would like to see what others would do with the original. After a photo shoot, I put the ones I think have some potential in an 'Awaiting Processing' folder and process them when I have the time or inclination. I'm sure others do something similar. Any such photos are perfect for the challenge, though those with specific 'issues' you'd like addressed, as with Sarah's this week, are fine as well.</p>

<p>All comers are welcome regardless of skill level or length of time here on photo.net, and you don't have to be a member either, so come one come all whether you've been participating or just lurking. Get on the schedule and watch your photo come to life at the hands of some skilled processors as well as hacks like myself. It'll be fun with perhaps a bit of learning tossed in!</p>

<p>Bill,<br>

I will find something to post for the next challenge this weekend</p>