Effects of Editing

[tylerwind]

Could one of more of you please do me a HUGE favor? I'd like to see the effects

of digital editing and how it impacts a picture. If anyone has a "before"

and "after" file for a really nice shot, could you either post them or else

email them to me at wind@musc.edu? (I realize you may not want to post a less

pleasing version of a picture) Most of my pictures include sunrise/set, pretty

skies, and the beach so if you have something that includes any or all of those

it would be especially valuable.

 

As someone who has never done a bit of editing what I'm wondering is this--when

I see edited photos on the critique forum that I feel are better than mine, how

much of the difference between those photos and mine is due to photographic

skill vs. different environment/lighting/day vs. editing. I think if I could

see some before and after shots it would help me get a better idea of if my

photos could be improved and how they would turn out (assuming they have some

addition potential).

 

Also, if any of you are a kind soul who knows digital editing well, would you

please take a look at the pictures in my portfolio? They are absolutely

unaltered (and I have a range of exposures from grossly overexposed to very

underexposed for most every shot). Do you think a little "dodging and burning"

would enhance them much or have they pretty much reached their potential? I

know sometimes I like the sky in the underexposed shot but the foreground in a

more exposed view and usually end up picking a mid-level exposure that really

doesn't show the greatness of either one!

 

Thanks so much for all the help--I honestly do appreciate it!

[geoff_foale]

Hello. I've just been putting together some examples of before and after photos for a talk (unpaid) which I will be giving to my local natural history society. Here is a simple example of enhancement using the Clone Tool. The top photo is spoilt by the shadow of a branch against the statue's chest. It just takes a few minutes to create an improvement.

 

See what I mean. Geoff.<div></div>

[neil_hanawalt]

One of the great uses of a program like photoshop is the ability to combine two exposures together to get the best of each. For example, you could combine the best sky exposure with the best foreground exposure to get the best of both (would have to be the same framing with a tripod so they could match-up). This would be using two layers and erasing areas with precision (among other methods). Also, the word editing is commonly describing going through a group of photo's and eliminating the rejects, what you are talking about would be more accurately described as photo manipulation or enhacement.

[steve_bingham]

Sure can. Here is an example - and a simple "how to" of what was mentioned above. http://dustylens.com/luminosity_mask.htm

[AaronFalkenberg]

Well, first of all, the link above isn't that great since the highlights are blown in both images, so recovering them is near impossible.

 

Here is a much better example stemming from the darkroom called Contrast Masking:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-contrast-masking.shtml

 

My own shot employed levels correction and some dodging and burning. The main thing, for me, is not necessarily to get a great looking image straight off the film or card, but rather one that has the most information in the subject brightness range (SBR).

 

I suggest picking up a copy of "Photoshop for Photography: The Art of Pixel Processing" by Tom Ang. It's very informative and very easy to follow. It got me started.

 

cheers,

Aaron<div></div>

[AaronFalkenberg]

For the most part, I wouldn't say there is much to be done on your sunset shots. You are dealing with an inherently contrasty scene, so some "silhouetting" is expected. Go too far, and it starts to look edited. The only thing I would suggest is using the shadow/highlight filter in PS to bring out the detail in the beach of your first shot.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Tyler,

 

You suffer from artist's anxiety where you doubt your own abilities

according to what others create. Your sunset shots in your

portfolio are on par with pro shots I've seen in a number of

photography books and magazines. I used to be in advertising

and the quality of what digicams are producing are very over the

top IMO-adequate tools to express one's own vision in high

fidelity. Photoshop can do the rest.

 

You seem to be too concerned with what other's consider as pro

images when you should be the one to set your own standard by

trying to achieve what inspired you to take the shot in the first

place. If you don't follow your own vision then you're just copying.

Where's the satisfaction in that?

 

The flattened and underexposed foregrounds in your sunsets

imbue an abstract quality to the image which many find

appealing. Some may not. Sometimes seeing everything in a

shot is not what needs to be expressed unless that's the intent.

 

My suggestion is to push the abstraction even further by

colorizing those flat black areas with a cool complimentary but

subtle color like a hint of jade or colors similar to the weird

greenish hue in some of the clouds in your shots. Designers do

this when they pick colors for elements in a layout. Work with the

colors that are in the scene.

 

Now if a wider dynamic range is your bag by correcting for the

foreground here's a page I found useful to fix sunsets like

yours:http://www.naturescapes.net/062004/gd0604.htm

 

Just copy and past the url in your browser.

[tylerwind]

Thanks to everyone for the answers. I believe my questions have been answered pretty well. I have really benefitted from seeing the examples that have been presented and appreciate the advice.

 

Tim--Thanks for your VERY kind words about my pictures! That really means a lot to me. I probably do have "artist anxiety" as you suggest. But, I think part of the problem is that I'm an orthopaedic surgeon who has owned a camera for 3 months and taken about 2000 pictures in my life! The critique forum has really messed with my mind here some as well--it seems like every picture I post gets at least one 7/7 but also at least one 3/3. And, furthermore, the shots that I look at and am like "Wow--I'm going to blow that up into a poster and put it on my wall" get ripped apart in the critique while some of the shots I've posted just to get feedback on have been praised endlessly. So, the truth is that I'm so new to things I'm not sure how things "should" look and I guess the answer to that question is "however it looks best to me!" I appreciate your comment about how some appreciate a certain aspect while others do not--I couldn't agree more! That gives me a lot more confidence to say "well, if you don't like it that's fine but I (and many others) do!" I guess I need to practice and keep shooting so I can learn to develop a sense of what I like. As a beginnner, I was taking the word from people on here as the Gospel truth and to this point have been afraid to think on my own. Furthermore, I want to create pictures that honestly represent the real world and do not cross the line into fictional pictures so I've struggled to walk that line.

 

Thanks again for all the help--if anyone has any further comments I would love to hear them! The tutorials and examples have been spectacular!

[steve_bingham]

Well, here is an example of how FAR you can take it. All done with a single photo of an abandoned hospital (40 years). of course this is an extreme example, but notice all the things that were done.

 

http://upload.pbase.com/image/66830232/original.jpg

http://upload.pbase.com/image/66830242/original.jpg

[steve_bingham]

Shucks, let's try it again.<div></div>