How to improve light intensity and brightness in PS

[laurentlacoste]

<p>Some photographers on this site have especially bright-looking, shiny pictures that look as though they were looked at through a very strongly backlit lcd screen for instance. Is there a way to achieve better brightness and light intensity when post-processing in PS ?</p>

[peano]

<p>It depends on the image. It pretty much always depends on the image. What works for one might make a mess of another.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>this has to do with having a professionally calibrated monitor and 'knowing the RGB numbers'<br>

also knowing about color spaces. i can recommend some books if this sounds like chinese:</p>

<p> </p>

[frans_waterlander]

<p>It depends on the subject and how the brightness was adjusted (or not) when editing the image. For Photoshop overall brightness is best adjusted by making a mid-point adjustment in Curves.</p>

[john_demott]

<p>Of course, many times the appearance of lighting in a photo is due to the actual lighting that was present or used when the photo was shot so you can't always create an effect with post-processing. However, the appearance of "brightness" from post-processing technique often begins with setting a black point and a white point in the image. Then it is a question of determining which areas in the image require emphasis and using selective local changes in brightness and contrast. Contrast, both overall and locally, is often more important than actual brightness. There are many different effects that are possible so it might be helpful to see an example of the type of effect you are interested in.</p>

[laurentlacoste]

<blockquote>

<p>"this has to do with having a professionally calibrated monitor and 'knowing the RGB numbers' also knowing about color spaces. i can recommend some books if this sounds like chinese"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I have a 24"Imac and Sony LCD monitors, calibrated with the Greta McBeth eye display 2. I convert my files from RAW to 16 Bit TIFF before opening them in PS where I use the sRGB working space. Eventually, I resize for the web in sRGB too of course. I use curves and levels in PS but very caustiously to respect the histogram and level indications.<br /> Apart from the fact that uploading to Pnet make me lose color saturation, I often find that my pictures look too dull once posted. I would like my pictures to really pop out of the screen as some pictures I see on the site do.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I convert my files from RAW to 16 Bit TIFF before opening them in PS where I use the sRGB working space. Eventually, I resize for the web in sRGB too of course.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What output space are they in within your Raw converter before opening in Photoshop? When you say you use the sRGB space upon opening them in PS, do you convert or assign to sRGB?</p>

<p>When you save the image if and when you've converted to sRGB before posting to Photo.Net, do you embed/keep the sRGB profile with the image? If you do, then are you viewing your image in a color managed browser like FireFox or Safari? This needs to happen.</p>

<p>Sorry for all the questions but your situation is not normal and you've left out a lot color management policy details you need to mention in your workflow for anyone to help.</p>

[laurentlacoste]

<blockquote>

<p>What output space are they in within your Raw converter before opening in Photoshop? When you say you use the sRGB space upon opening them in PS, do you convert or assign to sRGB?</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>When you save the image if and when you've converted to sRGB before posting to Photo.Net, do you embed/keep the sRGB profile with the image? If you do, then are you viewing your image in a color managed browser like FireFox or Safari? This needs to happen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, thanks for asking. My raw files are in Nikon Adobe RVB output space, converted to 16bit TIFF in Nikon Capture. I then convert them to sRGB in PS as my working space. BTW what difference does it make if one assigns instead of converting in PS? <br /> Finally, I do embed the sRGB profile with the image and use Firefox on both Mac and PC.<br /> I was thinking that maybe there were a few useful tips to really make the lighting intense in a picture when viewed on the web, as I can see here and there. For instance, you can see that when looking at slideshows on newspapers sites such as the New York Times or other Pro photographers sites. I'd like to know how to get the same intensity of light in my images. My pics always seem to look duller, whatever the original light conditions or changes during editing. I'd like to find out where I'm wrong and what I can do to improve.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Since you've confirmed you're working with a correctly color managed workflow, assigning is a moot point. But for FYI if you had assigned sRGB to your Nikon Adobe RVB written image it would look less saturated with a few colors shifting in hue. That's not happening hopefully. I thought you were referring to your images not matching in other apps as they appear in Photoshop which is why I asked about your workflow setup.</p>

<p>You really need to post or link to an image that shows what you consider having intensity of light. That's a very subjective description. You could be seeing dramatic contrast and boosted saturation. Not much else I can tell you.</p>

[laurentlacoste]

<p>Thanks everybody.<br /> I don't know if I'd be allowed to provide a link for those images, but if you take for instance any slideshow on the New York Times website, all the photographs seem to have that special light quality. The only thing that comes to my mind is that they look as though they were backlit or something. Unless as some of you suggested it is only a matter of contrast and saturation.</p>

[frans_waterlander]

<p>Yes, you are allowed to post links. It would make this conversation so much more meaningful.</p>

[john_demott]

<p>Laurent,<br>

The New York Times has photos from some of the best photographers in the world, along with top-notch photo editors. Some of what you are seeing cannot be reduced to simple explanations...it is the result of lots of hard work and experience by very talented people. But there are also some very basic principles at work in those photos that anyone can apply to add impact to their photos. Like other photographic "rules" there are always exceptions, but they are a good starting point:</p>

<ul>

<li>A photo will often be more dramatic if overall contrast is increased...take the darkest shadows down to a true black point and bring the brightest highlights up to true white.</li>

<li>The eye is drawn to the areas of highest contrast and to areas that are the brightest. So try to have the tone curve steepest in the areas of the most important detail. The corollary is that areas that are not important can often be allowed to be in deep shadow (or in highlight with little detail). Use dodging and burning to reduce distracting areas of high contrast away from the main subject. </li>

<li>Proper sharpening technique is basically the application of contrast on a very local basis--it draws the eye and adds impact where it is needed.</li>

<li>Color contrast is also important in drawing the eye.</li>

</ul>

<p>As an example I looked at the photo of the boy splashing water in your gallery. If you apply a Curves adjustment that strongly reduces the shadows, then there will be more contrast between the main subjects (the face and the splash) and the rest of the photo--the water will be darker and will also appear a deeper blue so there will be more color contrast with the face. All of these techniques take practice...there is no magic bullet...but the basic principles can be used over and over. By the way, I think it is okay to post a link to an external photo as long as it is just a link. What you can't do on Photo.net is embed a photo that isn't your own in a forum posting.</p>

[laurentlacoste]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, you are allowed to post links. It would make this conversation so much more meaningful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frans, here's a link to a nytimes slideshow. It could have been any of them, they all have that same light quality. Hope it works:</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/08/21/automobiles/0823-lemons_index.html</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /> The New York Times has photos from some of the best photographers in the world, along with top-notch photo editors. Some of what you are seeing cannot be reduced to simple explanations...it is the result of lots of hard work and experience by very talented people. But there are also some very basic principles at work in those photos that anyone can apply to add impact to their photos. Like other photographic "rules" there are always exceptions, but they are a good starting point:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, such an amount of talent is impressive. It's a pleasure watching those photographs.<br>

Besides, thanks for the tips. It is true that contrast is emphasized in all of those photos. I'd always been told so far not to burn highlights, but as you mentioned, it is true that the some of the whites are really white in some of the pictures, some even look clipped. Do you think that the choice is made during shooting or later on editing? About sharpness, it is also striking that the pictures on those pro sites never look oversharpened, rather less I'd say.<br>

Eventually, thanks for having a look at my portfolio. I was quite hesitant too, about leaving the Splash picture with such flat contrast. I'll work on it again. Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

[laurentlacoste]

<p>P.S.: to complete my answer above, here's an example of one of my own images from series of documentary shots I did at Le mans and on D-Day Anniversary a couple of months ago. I've just made the whole series visible in my portfolio as an example. For those shots, I relied on the camera Program exposure, no EV compensation, sharpness and contrast on normal. Only slight adjustments in PS afterwards on contrast, sharpness and saturation.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>The N.Y. Times slide show doesn't seem all that special to me.</p>

<p>The contrast may be set a bit high and the color saturation boosted (more than a little), but otherwise pretty ordinary, color wise. </p>

<p>Though I was excited to see a picture of a car exactly like mine!</p>

 

[john_demott]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd always been told so far not to burn highlights, but as you mentioned, it is true that the some of the whites are really white in some of the pictures, some even look clipped. Do you think that the choice is made during shooting or later on editing? About sharpness, it is also striking that the pictures on those pro sites never look oversharpened, rather less I'd say.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My guess (and it is only that) is that most of the time it is a post-shooting decision as to how much detail to lose in the highlights. A news photo is going to be judged by different standards than a fine art photo. A news photo, whether on the web or in a newspaper, has to tell a story very clearly and quickly, often with just a glance, so having detail in the background, for example, is just a distraction. In a fine art photo, you often want the viewer to linger over the photo and explore it...and in that case it can be distracting to find an area of the image where detail is lost because the highlights are blown out.</p>

<p>Proper sharpening doesn't necessarily mean a lot of sharpening and certainly doesn't mean that the same degree or type of sharpening has to be applied to the whole image. For example, in the photo of the Edsel that you linked, it would look artificial for there to be heavy sharpening on the grass...but strong sharpening on the bright metal of the car can be very natural and effective. And for added "pop" you can use unsharp mask to add local contrast...simply apply USM with a radius of 50 and an amount less than 25.</p>

[laurentlacoste]

<p>John, thanks a lot for the tips. Much appreciated.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Laurent,<br>

a selective USM with a big radius (I used 10 pixel), can pop-up your image</p>

<div></div>

[laurentlacoste]

<p>Jacopo, thanks for taking the time. This really makes a difference. The overall brightness looks improved. I also tried different sorts of fusion modes in PS, which gave good results too mixed with appropriate curve settings. I also tried merging pictures. Of course each image has their own specs. Thanks everybody again.<br>

Here's an example:</p><div></div>

[david_henderson]

<p>I don't think there's anything special at all about the linked "cars" photographs. They just look like the sort of minor adjustment easily made in your raw converter of after in your image editor using curves or contrast/saturation.</p>

[laurentlacoste]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think there's anything special at all about the linked "cars" photographs. They just look like the sort of minor adjustment easily made in your raw converter of after in your image editor using curves or contrast/saturation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I chose the car slideshow at random but this could be said of any other slideshows on the NYTimes' website. As I wrote above they all seemed to have that particular quality, a certain intensity in light, as though for instance they were back lit or as though one was looking at backlit slides on a photo table. I noticed that particular thing on other photographers' sites too and was wondering what was the explanation for it. Most of us seem to agree with what you've stated too, that is adjustment on curves and saturation during editing. I also tried a few different settings on my camera and you can get pretty close to that using the built-in camera settings too BTW.</p>