What the heck--coming out of the closet

[julie_luther]

<p>I've been lurking since shortly after I bought my K10D (yes, new). I'll admit that the DSLR learning curve felt steep after decades with one fully manual SLR and Kodachrome 64, so I've appreciated the discussions and enjoyed your photos. Therefore, by way of introduction, here's a photo from last August, part of a serendipitous opportunity that presented itself. The boy on the roof was watching us (dog training on the adjacent property) --until his mother showed up in the yard. I just happened to have my camera out. I've posted the sequence on Flicker (search under member name jluther629). Lens was the kit 50-200. Some of the photos are cropped, most have no post-processing (although yes, I should tweak them--give me another 6 months...). <br>

So--thanks again for your discussions. I'm learning from them, and appreciate the friendly vibe. Back to lurk mode. -Julie</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10670853-md.jpg" alt="boy on roof" width="”680”" height="”455”" /></p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>What a great photo! It's Tom Sawyer, right? Please stop by again.</p>

[bob-c]

<p>Nice capture, Julie. Don't be a stranger, would love to see more of your work.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Julie, What a wondeful image and what a pleasure to meet you. Don't be a stranger. We need more ladies here :)</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Julie, you know everyone is going to treat you differently now that you came out of the closet. </p>

[john_behrends]

<p>Welcome aboard, nicely done!!</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Howdy Julie,<br>

That's an awfully sweet shot. And I too would like to see more of your eye.</p>

<p>I couldn't resist punching up the lighting, and sharpness in this shot. Very easy to do.<br>

I'll post it if you'd like, or simply, you can up the brightness by 40%, increase clarity significantly, and increase vibrance a lot too. Those colors and textures come forth nicely.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[jgredline]

<p>By the way Julie, '' coming out of the closet'' in L.A. means something different I think ;-)</p>

[hagar]

<p>Those are really great photos Julie.. Tweaking them a bit like Michael suggested would make them an incredible series of shots.. Welcome to the forum!</p>

[frank_b._baiamonte]

<p>I like that shot Julie. And, welcome. Hope to see more of your shots.</p>

[julie_luther]

<p></p>

<p >Thanks, guys. It *is* all guys. hmmm.... (Javier, the phrase was meant more as coming out of hiding. In my progressive town people don't bother hanging out in closets any more anyway.)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Not Tom Sawyer, but an Amish boy. Didn't want to fall into the cute Amish cliche. But I guess if it walks like a duck, the picture will be of a walking duck.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I realize that a round of Photoshop is in order. I'm still too used to taking photos and what's on the slide is what you get. Ideally, I'd like to be able to use my camera better right from the start. I also don't know how much tweaking is too much (like people who think if a little makeup is good, more must be better). I should start shooting Raw and explore what I can do. Therefore, Michael, yes please, post your tweaked version of my photo so that I can see how far you take it and learn from it. Do you use Photoshop or something else? Please let me know what steps you put my photo through.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks again, guys, for your friendly encouragement. (Not the L.A. definition of encouragement. ;-) )</p>

<p > <br>

-Julie</p>

 

<p> </p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Thank Julie.<br>

I'll describe what I did below, but first I'll address your comments. The "shooting a slide" approach is most similar to shooting a jpeg out of the camera. You can still tweak a jpeg plenty in software, but the camera makes most of the processing judgement calls. It's faster and more convenient than dealing with RAW files.</p>

<p>That said, for personal work I mostly shoot RAW. It is closer in spirit to a pure darkroom approach (without the toxic chemicals). The flexibility over jpeg is near exponential.</p>

<p>What works for you is subjective and experience based. The final image is what counts. The degree of post-processing or even in-camera processing is also subjective. That's the artistic judgement you bring to the shot and to your perception of the audience. We all have personal and fabled rules of thumb--view all guidance as well-intentioned, but don't feel bound to follow anything.</p>

<p>If you are shooting jpegs, I would experiment a lot and learn the impacts of the Pentax settings. Since I convert to RAW, I stay in natural, have saturation at -3, hue in the middle 0, contrast +1, and fine sharpness +1. This translates to my calibrated monitor rather nicely.</p>

<p>For the image below I used Lightroom. Realize that it is from the low-resolution screen grab, so it's fuzzy and small but you'll get the idea. For single image processing I prefer Lightroom over Photoshop these days (I've used Photoshop for 20 years) for most things. I dip into Photoshop for noise fixup and some cloning and blurring about 7% of the time. Lightroom (or Aperture) is just easier and faster and actually smarter in ways. Camera RAW in Photoshop is very similar, but I take advantage of Lightroom's image management capabilities big time. If you have a choice, I would strongly recommend Lightroom or Aperture 3.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/786726563_FJ32U-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Rationale:<br>

1. White balance tweak. Your original was too blue/green cast.<br>

2. Upped the brightness +28<br>

3. Cropped away most of the trees. To me at least, the focal point of this image is the young person and secondarily the very cool textures of the building and colors of everthing.<br>

4. Increased clarity +58, which is a type of midtone contrast adjustment which adds sharpness. On your original file I don't think I'd need such a high adjustment<br>

5. Upped the vibrance +13. Vibrance is a gentler form of saturation, great for skin BTW<br>

6. Upped the light tones (in curves) +15 to increase contrast in roof and building<br>

7. Upped the highlight tones (+13) again to target the roof lightness<br>

8. Upped the dark tones (+8) to bring out depth and color of red barn.<br>

9. Sharpened overall image +48, Detail is +25. I do this for small web shots; for printing from RAW I'd up sharpening some more most likely.</p>

<p>Hope this provides some understanding. This is a really good shot and I enjoy bringing more of that out.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[julie_luther]

<p>Thank you, Michael! I very much appreciate your step by step changes--along with the rationale for each. Also your commentary on overall philosophy and approach. I've tweaked a couple of my in-camera settings but I know there's more that I could do. When trying out Photoshop, I'll sometimes hit Auto Levels just to see what Photoshop would do, and then make each change to my own guesstimate of what might be appropriate. But I've grappled with not only the technical learning curve, but somehow thinking one shouldn't do much of this (yeah, I might've been raised by nuns). So--I'll check out Lightroom, Aperture, etc. as well as keep playing with the tools I already own. </p>

<p>Thanks again. You guys made me glad I crawled out from hiding. </p>

<p>-Julie</p>

[dugger]

<p>Welcome aboard Julie! You're right about the guys here... quite helpful and encouraging! Love the pic. Keep 'em coming!</p>

[garry_young1]

<p>Welcome Julie. Nice shot. One thing to add to Michael's excellent advice is to know your camera's metering quirks. I find that my cameras (K100D and K20D) both underexpose and benefit from EV boosts a lot of the time. Often it is also related to different lenses, but both my 18-55 and 50-200 kit lenses need +0.7 EV most of the time. I think the amount of brightness that Michael added is indicative of that need.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Julie, I hope you caught I was joking :)</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>That was very instructive, Michael--especially your concise explanations of the adjustments.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>I'll describe what I did below</em></p>

<p>I might describe it as overkill. Its actually harsh to look at even factoring in the screen grab quality. One of the things a new user of Photoshop or other manipulation program often needs to learn, Julie, is to avoid going overboard.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>John, thanks for the totally constructive feedback. So, please post what you would do, or would not do in specifics.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>I might describe it as overkill</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your kidding right?</p>

[julie_luther]

<p>

 

<p>Garry--I totally agree about exposure (Javier--no jokes here!!). I almost always seem to have EV bumped up a bit and am just starting to learn how much more to do here and there.</p>

<p>Javier--absolutely got the joke, and appreciated it too! Debated a dozen zippy comebacks but decided it might totally railroad legitimate discussion. Even got John O's "everyone's going to treat you differently." Honestly, it takes a lot for me to control my wisecrack impulse; I'm showing rare restraint but it won't last.... The world is temptingly full of double entendres.</p>

<p>John H.--Yes, it appears oversharpened on my screen, lacking a degree of subtlety and softness. But Michael also made it clear that there's a lot of personal latitude in making these adjustments. I won't personally look a gift-horse in the mouth, and appreciate seeing the array of adjustments that could be made. I fully understand that I shouldn't use every spice in the cupboard to make stew. I've generally erred in being too conservative with Photoshop. That being said, I completely understand that your comments are an honest caution against accepting someone else's view as my own standard, or using these tools to excess.</p>

<p>BTW, Michael also mentioned that his monitor is calibrated--makes me wonder to what degree these photos end up looking a bit more this-or-that on my screen vs. someone else's. That's what this might come down to. I dunno. </p>

<p>Appreciating the discussion, as always.</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

 

</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>what you would do, or would not do</em></p>

<p>Make the value settings less extreme<em>. <br /> </em></p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>John, I feel like you are hectoring from the cheap seats. Why don't you step up and provide a real example of your post-processing talents here? I'm sure Julie would benefit from the exercise.<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p>ME</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I am sorry Michael that you feel offended about the criticism of your post processing example but I am not going to play your game. Your question has been asked and answered.</p>

[johnmarsden]

 

<p >A posting with a photo – well done Julie</p>

<p >AND a bit of controversy – lovely.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Ever one to bound in foot in mouth first, here's my take on your photo – with appropriate deferencial bowing low and doffing of hat from head.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So to ME, I couldn't afford a seat – I'm heckling whilst standing at the back. Although I think your version is very generous telling Julie what you did. Unfortunately my short attention span means I only kinda remember some of the things I did...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >How done</p>

<p >mostly in lightroom – increase exposure about half a stop I think – ie whip cream for a few moments rather than put out simple dollop.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Minor messing with colour balance to warm up. (kinda like 10 secs in the microwave for piece of apple pie)</p>

<p >Vibrance and clarity both up a bit – (for body ie cinnamon and nutmeg in aforesaid apple pie)</p>

<p >Small amount of sharpenning – (thats the quick blast under the grill to brown the toping)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Cropped (ie keep best bit) rule of thirds used here too. Now we start to get a bit silly...</p>

<p >then made virtual copy – second did more sharpening for the surroundings.</p>

<p >Uploaded both into PS – made a blend to keep the boy less sharp and his clothes softer.</p>

<p >Then did a multiply layer with a ........ Flambe at the table to taste.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Advice</p>

<p >Shoot heaps.</p>

<p >Set your K10d menu – recording menu>image tone - to vibrant the little coloured icon – helps in almost all shots – bit like using kodachrome rather than something less punchy. Got that tip from one of the clever guys on this forum – (who was it posted that tip about 4 years ago, own up now.?)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Learn PS Elements – way cheaper and all you'll need probably for ages.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Oh and don't believe anything you learn on this forum – its all a dream, an amazing dream..., No I won't go back in my closet , no!, No!!, NO!!!....</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Love</p>

<p >John</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

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