Photo Edit Show n' Tell
Great shot! I never thought of doing that to blur out the background even more, that's definitely going into my toolkit. What a great result with that technique, the background is so smooth.
I've only recently started using masking and select subject (it's just so cool to me that it can even do that). Very handy. I saved a photo of our kiddo when she was a newborn with those tools (and DXO). There was a window behind her and the white balance needed to be one thing behind her and another on her face. It was horrible, either the room was blue and she looked OK or the room looked OK and she was super orange. Masking + select subject to the rescue.
Here's a super, super simple edit of a shot with our Canon G7Xii. I am just stunned at the dynamic range in today's pocket cameras and wanted to share. I think it produces excellent JPEGs usually but this is why I shoot RAW+ anyway.
Mostly what I did was crop and boost the shadows. Yes, that's a horse brush in his mouth. lol
Uploaded files:
Yesterday I had my parents' doggo, Henry, running toward the camera so I could practice z-axis tracking with my K-3 and 18-135. He's a great helper. There were many shots out of focus, hence the need for practice. Most of those had his derriere in focus instead of his face. I was shooting at f/8 most of the time, sometimes 5.6, so the depth of field was deep enough to still have some detail to work with in his face.
Going left-to-right:
- Unaltered image
- Zoomed in, +1 or 2 exposure so you can see how bad of a shot we're working with here. Not great.
- The red is from Lightroom's masking tool, where I've used "select subject" and it's done a pretty good job of it. It got some of the ground as well which can be easily removed but I didn't bother.
- Last frame is the touched up photo. I boosted exposure, shadows, added texture and sharpening.
I included the finished photo as well. If you zoom in, it's crap. If you don't, I feel like it ain't bad. I really wish I nailed focus and I'm irritated with every shot like this. But I'm not a professional, I'm not selling this photo, and I bet this would even come out fine in a print, provided we keep the size reasonable. Maybe I'll try that and see...
What do you guys think? Any pointers on how to do a better job recovering such photos? I thought about running it through DXO first but my trial expired and I'm not ready to pay for it yet. 😅
Uploaded files:
Quote from JBP on January 30, 2022, 5:40 pmOK here's a good example of when I wasn't "faithful" to the scene... at all. Both are heavy crops, but the color photo is SOOC otherwise (you can see the inverted image of the shore in the icicle, cool!).
The first B&W one I went crazy with Lightroom sliders: Texture & Clarity -100, Dehaze +100. Blacks down a bit and whites up a bit. Initially I was just fooling around but all this gave it a nice dreamy look and made the ice seem to glow, which I really liked.
I felt guilty for that, so the 2nd B&W one is getting a similar (albeit not as drastic) of an effect by just dropping the exposure down half a stop, boosting the whites +30 and the blacks down -30, again with Lightroom sliders. That felt like a reasonable edit to me. Still artistic but I didn't alter it so much with sliders that only God truly understands. If I were entering these in a contest or something this is what I would go with because it just sits better with me for some reason.
I showed the first B&W one to my wife in Lightroom and she loved it. It's not often I get such a sentiment from her so that's the one I went with (and I did the same to the other ice photos from the river that day - she loved them all, I was riding high on that all day lmao). I figure it's OK because it looks like what it is: a heavily edited image for artistic effect. Do I still feel guilty about it? Yes. haha But I suppose I should not because photography is an artistic process, and I'm not trying to fool anyone with that image.
#1 love it , tighter crop 2nd stick is distracting actually not the stick the space in between. I did not read the text till after making my pick. I think there is some dead space at the top and to the right I would probably lean towards a 4x5 aspect ratio. But you have to keep into context for the viewer what they are actually looking at . I like that you have a good sense of conveying movement in scene.
Quote from KankRat on February 21, 2022, 1:02 amQuote from JBP on January 30, 2022, 5:40 pmOK here's a good example of when I wasn't "faithful" to the scene... at all. Both are heavy crops, but the color photo is SOOC otherwise (you can see the inverted image of the shore in the icicle, cool!).
The first B&W one I went crazy with Lightroom sliders: Texture & Clarity -100, Dehaze +100. Blacks down a bit and whites up a bit. Initially I was just fooling around but all this gave it a nice dreamy look and made the ice seem to glow, which I really liked.
I felt guilty for that, so the 2nd B&W one is getting a similar (albeit not as drastic) of an effect by just dropping the exposure down half a stop, boosting the whites +30 and the blacks down -30, again with Lightroom sliders. That felt like a reasonable edit to me. Still artistic but I didn't alter it so much with sliders that only God truly understands. If I were entering these in a contest or something this is what I would go with because it just sits better with me for some reason.
I showed the first B&W one to my wife in Lightroom and she loved it. It's not often I get such a sentiment from her so that's the one I went with (and I did the same to the other ice photos from the river that day - she loved them all, I was riding high on that all day lmao). I figure it's OK because it looks like what it is: a heavily edited image for artistic effect. Do I still feel guilty about it? Yes. haha But I suppose I should not because photography is an artistic process, and I'm not trying to fool anyone with that image.
#1 love it , tighter crop 2nd stick is distracting actually not the stick the space in between. I did not read the text till after making my pick. I think there is some dead space at the top and to the right I would probably lean towards a 4x5 aspect ratio. But you have to keep into context for the viewer what they are actually looking at . I like that you have a good sense of conveying movement in scene.
Haha, yes, that little stick! I agonized over that little stick. This was in a river and the flowing water was an important part of the scene, so I didn't want to lose that but I couldn't get a good frame without the little stick. So I decided to leave it to try to balance out the right side. I kind of wish I had just reached in the water and snapped it off. 🤣 I've seen professional photographers do that in videos and I'm like "Hey! Isn't that cheating?" but I totally get it.
Thank you for the feedback, I went and gave your advice a shot. Here's another crop with the 4x5 ratio. I quite like it!
Edit: I also used Snappy's trick; used a mask to select the background and use noise reduction on that part only. That was part of the reason I went B&W originally, you could see quite a bit of noise in the smooth surfaces of the water. But I didn't want to lose the sharpness in the icicle with noise reduction. The masking tool in LR is really nice!
Uploaded files:
Edit: I also used Snappy's trick; used a mask to select the background and use noise reduction on that part only. That was part of the reason I went B&W originally, you could see quite a bit of noise in the smooth surfaces of the water. But I didn't want to lose the sharpness in the icicle with noise reduction. The masking tool in LR is really nice!
I think the ice drop shot would benefit from some vignette and maybe some more saturation on the water to cut the glare. It looks fine as is, but I think it might be worth a shot just to see. I try to adjust a vignette to where I think it looks good, then back off a hair.
Killing noise in the soft background where it's noticeable is nothing new. It's just way, way easier now. Could become a bad thing. To me the first shot of the dog looks better than the second. Looks like the first is just underexposed and lighting is not quite as flat. The second shot looks as if the dog was pasted on to a different background all together and can tell it's been worked on. General public probably not, but that's my two cents.
It's so easy and fast that I am finding myself with a tendency to over-do it. Recent example below. Looks processed.
LOL not quite as bad as my HDR phase.
Sadly no matter how hard you work at it it never ever looks as good as great lighting. From what I have seen, while noise in the areas with texture rather than blur is less noticeable you still loose detail and what I call "the OMG Factor" is gone. It will never be as good, no matter what you do, at least I have not been able to get. People talk about pixel peeping but detail at 100% is also visible at 25% . It's part of what makes an image pop.
A while ago Steve Perry (backcountry gallery guy on YT, not singer from Journey) said something to the effect of, "I don't care if see an a great subject," if I remember right he used a bear as an example, ..."I won't even stop if the lighting isn't right" . I was thinking, well if I did that I would end up with next to nothing. But the fact is I accumulated all those photos and later on deleted most of them because they just weren't all that great.
Yeah of course there are exceptions, where you get a really good shot with all kinds of personality or unique-ness and that generally wins hands down over everything else including image quality and arguably, if one only shoots in great lighting , odds are you'll miss some great shots.
Quote from KankRat on February 22, 2022, 1:03 pm
Edit: I also used Snappy's trick; used a mask to select the background and use noise reduction on that part only. That was part of the reason I went B&W originally, you could see quite a bit of noise in the smooth surfaces of the water. But I didn't want to lose the sharpness in the icicle with noise reduction. The masking tool in LR is really nice!
I think the ice drop shot would benefit from some vignette and maybe some more saturation on the water to cut the glare. It looks fine as is, but I think it might be worth a shot just to see. I try to adjust a vignette to where I think it looks good, then back off a hair.
Killing noise in the soft background where it's noticeable is nothing new. It's just way, way easier now. Could become a bad thing. To me the first shot of the dog looks better than the second. Looks like the first is just underexposed and lighting is not quite as flat. The second shot looks as if the dog was pasted on to a different background all together and can tell it's been worked on. General public probably not, but that's my two cents.
It's so easy and fast that I am finding myself with a tendency to over-do it. LOL not quite as bad as my HDR phase.
Sadly no matter how hard you work at it it never ever looks as good as great lighting. From what I have seen, while noise in the areas with texture rather than blur is less noticeable you still loose detail and what I call "the OMG Factor" is gone. It will never be as good, no matter what you do, at least I have not been able to get. People talk about pixel peeping but detail at 100% is also visible at 25% . It's part of what makes an image pop.
A while ago Steve Perry (backcountry gallery guy on YT, not singer from Journey) said something to the effect of, "I don't care if see an a great subject," if I remember right he used a bear as an example, ..."I won't even stop if the lighting isn't right" . I was thinking, well if I did that I would end up with next to nothing. But the fact is I accumulated all those photos and later on deleted most of them because they just weren't all that great.
Yeah of course there are exceptions, where you get a really good shot with all kinds of personality or unique-ness and that generally wins hands down over everything else including image quality and arguably, if one only shoots in great lighting , odds are you'll miss some great shots.
I often add vignetting when I want attention drawn to the center, usually I do it with portraits. With the new crop with the ice entered, it absolutely helps. Here's another edit where I did that. To try to reduce glare I also got rid of the bit of "dehaze" I had on it and reduced the contrast a bit. I think it looks better still. The whole image "pops" less, but it looks more natural and your eye is more drawn to the subject. I quite liked the sheen on the water before, but it did distract from the icicle a bit, and overall I think this is a better photo. Good advice! It's really interesting that such subtle changes make such a big difference.
For the doggo I thought it was really funny that you said that it looks like he's copy/pasted onto the scene because I was worried that would happen when I used a mask to "select subject" and change the exposure of the dog only. The problem is you're touching it up and you go "Ew, too much" and then you back off a bit and it looks better now so you roll with it. But really we should be comparing our edit to the original to see if we've gone too far. Then I think I would have noticed. And I tend to focus on the subject too much and not the entire scene.
It's funny, when I look at the final edit by itself it still looks fine to me. But when I compare it to the original I really do get the "he was pasted into the scene" feeling. I just need more practice and to keep getting feedback from more experience photographers. This is helping me a ton with that, thank you.
Tell me what you think of the second pass (middle image).
The collage is, from left-to-right:
- SOOC
- To the entire image: +1/4 exposure, highlights down a bit, shadows up a bit, whites up a bit, blacks down a smidge.
- The original edit where I used a mask to select just the dog and increase exposure there
Quote from KankRat on February 22, 2022, 1:03 pm
Edit: I also used Snappy's trick; used a mask to select the background and use noise reduction on that part only. That was part of the reason I went B&W originally, you could see quite a bit of noise in the smooth surfaces of the water. But I didn't want to lose the sharpness in the icicle with noise reduction. The masking tool in LR is really nice!
I think the ice drop shot would benefit from some vignette and maybe some more saturation on the water to cut the glare. It looks fine as is, but I think it might be worth a shot just to see. I try to adjust a vignette to where I think it looks good, then back off a hair.
Killing noise in the soft background where it's noticeable is nothing new. It's just way, way easier now. Could become a bad thing. To me the first shot of the dog looks better than the second. Looks like the first is just underexposed and lighting is not quite as flat. The second shot looks as if the dog was pasted on to a different background all together and can tell it's been worked on. General public probably not, but that's my two cents.
It's so easy and fast that I am finding myself with a tendency to over-do it. Recent example below. Looks processed.
LOL not quite as bad as my HDR phase.
Sadly no matter how hard you work at it it never ever looks as good as great lighting. From what I have seen, while noise in the areas with texture rather than blur is less noticeable you still loose detail and what I call "the OMG Factor" is gone. It will never be as good, no matter what you do, at least I have not been able to get. People talk about pixel peeping but detail at 100% is also visible at 25% . It's part of what makes an image pop.
A while ago Steve Perry (backcountry gallery guy on YT, not singer from Journey) said something to the effect of, "I don't care if see an a great subject," if I remember right he used a bear as an example, ..."I won't even stop if the lighting isn't right" . I was thinking, well if I did that I would end up with next to nothing. But the fact is I accumulated all those photos and later on deleted most of them because they just weren't all that great.
Yeah of course there are exceptions, where you get a really good shot with all kinds of personality or unique-ness and that generally wins hands down over everything else including image quality and arguably, if one only shoots in great lighting , odds are you'll miss some great shots.
I remember when you posted that photo and I was floored by it. The angle of view, the clarity, the pose, all of it is great. I didn't think it looked processed. Rather, I don't think it looks over-processed. I think I have an expectation that if I'm looking at a wildlife photo, particularly birds in flight, it has been processed because usually they are a heavy crop and need a work. But like I said before I'm still learning, maybe I just can't see it yet? When I look at photos I edited from even just a year ago some of them look completely different to me and I wonder how I thought it looked good!
But I stand by my initial assessment: that eagle shot is niiiiice!
Quote from JBP on February 22, 2022, 3:10 pmQuote from KankRat on February 22, 2022, 1:03 pm
It's funny, when I look at the final edit by itself it still looks fine to me. But when I compare it to the original I really do get the "he was pasted into the scene" feeling. I just need more practice and to keep getting feedback from more experience photographers. This is helping me a ton with that, thank you.
Tell me what you think of the second pass (middle image).
The collage is, from left-to-right:
- SOOC
- To the entire image: +1/4 exposure, highlights down a bit, shadows up a bit, whites up a bit, blacks down a smidge.
- The original edit where I used a mask to select just the dog and increase exposure there
I'm looking on my work monitor which sucks. The original retouch looks best #3. I don't see the copied and pasted effect as much and on my iphone (which is where most photos are viewed today. I don't see it at all. I think the snow should maybe be "whiter".
Regarding the ice drop:
The whole image "pops" less, but it looks more natural and your eye is more drawn to the subject. I quite liked the sheen on the water before, but it did distract from the icicle a bit, and overall I think this is a better photo.
Looks a weee bit dark to me - could be this crappy monitor . Better on my phone but I think maybe the previous one maybe with a little vignette or less darkening of the water. Either one works for me. Ick-picking at this point. The original looks good too.
What is funny now is if you blur your eyes a bit boy do the stick and the eagle shot look similar. Is it just me?
Quote from JBP on February 22, 2022, 3:18 pmQuote from KankRat on February 22, 2022, 1:03 pm
Edit: I also used Snappy's trick; used a mask to select the background and use noise reduction on that part only. That was part of the reason I went B&W originally, you could see quite a bit of noise in the smooth surfaces of the water. But I didn't want to lose the sharpness in the icicle with noise reduction. The masking tool in LR is really nice!
I think the ice drop shot would benefit from some vignette and maybe some more saturation on the water to cut the glare. It looks fine as is, but I think it might be worth a shot just to see. I try to adjust a vignette to where I think it looks good, then back off a hair.
Killing noise in the soft background where it's noticeable is nothing new. It's just way, way easier now. Could become a bad thing. To me the first shot of the dog looks better than the second. Looks like the first is just underexposed and lighting is not quite as flat. The second shot looks as if the dog was pasted on to a different background all together and can tell it's been worked on. General public probably not, but that's my two cents.
It's so easy and fast that I am finding myself with a tendency to over-do it. Recent example below. Looks processed.
LOL not quite as bad as my HDR phase.
Sadly no matter how hard you work at it it never ever looks as good as great lighting. From what I have seen, while noise in the areas with texture rather than blur is less noticeable you still loose detail and what I call "the OMG Factor" is gone. It will never be as good, no matter what you do, at least I have not been able to get. People talk about pixel peeping but detail at 100% is also visible at 25% . It's part of what makes an image pop.
A while ago Steve Perry (backcountry gallery guy on YT, not singer from Journey) said something to the effect of, "I don't care if see an a great subject," if I remember right he used a bear as an example, ..."I won't even stop if the lighting isn't right" . I was thinking, well if I did that I would end up with next to nothing. But the fact is I accumulated all those photos and later on deleted most of them because they just weren't all that great.
Yeah of course there are exceptions, where you get a really good shot with all kinds of personality or unique-ness and that generally wins hands down over everything else including image quality and arguably, if one only shoots in great lighting , odds are you'll miss some great shots.
I remember when you posted that photo and I was floored by it. The angle of view, the clarity, the pose, all of it is great. I didn't think it looked processed. Rather, I don't think it looks over-processed. I think I have an expectation that if I'm looking at a wildlife photo, particularly birds in flight, it has been processed because usually they are a heavy crop and need a work. But like I said before I'm still learning, maybe I just can't see it yet? When I look at photos I edited from even just a year ago some of them look completely different to me and I wonder how I thought it looked good!
But I stand by my initial assessment: that eagle shot is niiiiice!
I like it too. I just don't think the quality is all that hot. It's ISO 1400 and cropped. The perspective is cool and it's a freaking bald eagle , not exactly a homely bird. I don't have tons of high quality BIF shots.
A lot of shots you see come from enthusiasts who may be more birders than photographers.
This might illustrate it better. To me this looks less processed because it is. Do you see what I mean it just looks more natural. descent amount of light and not too harsh.
It's possible that these were JPEGS not RAW. I'm not sure.
This one came out nice. ISO 1250 with D7000.
