image processing

[back alley]

i'm mostly talking about digital here but it would also fit for the 'wet' side of things.

i just finished looking at some pics on flickr where the original colour images were desaturated in varying degrees.
some looked fine others not so but it got me thinking about my post processing.

i now shoot both raw plus jpg mono at the same time. i normally just do a levels adjust and some unsharp mask and then resize so that the long side is at 2700. this is a pretty basic routine but i like the results and i get consistent positive feedback on my 'tonality'.

while i like the looks of some altered images i just do not feel the desire to play around in this way.

how about you?
are you into the altered state or more a basic post processor?

is it because of your philosophy?

joe

 

[chris000]

Joe,

In general, I tend to feel that less is more with post processing (don't get me started on HDR!).

I scan film rather than shoot digital but I normally restrict myself to a bit of contrast adjustment using levels, clean up if I have any blemishes from the scanning and unsharp mask.

I use Photoshop Elements (v6) rather than the full blown software so I don't have access to all of the tools but I think that might be no bad thing.

 

[darker88]

I looked it up and appears that image processing is usually attributed to Digital image processing, though analogue and optical are also used / possible.

I don't know the first thing about interpreting everything I tried to read, but I'm guessing your question may already be answered in that digital image processing is the norm. But yes, there can be a difference
=====================================================
rakeback at Absolute
Casino en ligne

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I do my image processing in FORTRAN.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=757807

As for Philosophy- Image processing is to extract information from the data. It typically involves some sort of algorithm to transform it into a dataset suitable for finding features in the image.

Procesing images to be more true to their original appearance is image correction.

Processing images for the sake of looking different from the original appearance is image manipulation.

 

[Sparrow]

For some reason it feels wrong to use some of the functions that are available, I’m all film and I tend to scan at my print dpi/size and i remove dust manually with clone stamp because I don’t like the machine deciding what data to add or miss-out.

Yet I’m happy to use colour, level and curve functions that have a much greater effect on the “look” of the image.

Not sure why that is

 

[Mcary]

Aside from the healing and cleaning tools I basically don't use Photoshop these day instead I prefer to do the majority if not all my processing in Lightroom/ACR. Love the fact that I can create/have multiple version of an image, be it different crops or different looks while only taking up a few KB of memory per image on my HD(S).

 

[Trius]

[ignore Brian/Fortran on]What's image processing? Vision is analog. Anything other is suspect. 😀

 

[bmattock]

I do very little post-processing, whether it is scanned film or digital image files. Part of that is due to my color-blindness. I can't trust my eyes to judge color correction accurately, so I just don't do it. I may crop, if I see a better frame than the one I created originally. I generally adjust levels. I sometimes add Unsharp Mask. If the source is a scanned negative, I almost always have to remove dust and scratches too.

 

[Nikon Bob]

My pp is digital and I try to do as little as possible. Just lazy I guess. I had been using Elements 2.0 for JPEGs and TIFFs when scanning film and switched to Capture NX2 when I went DSLR to work the RAW files. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what NX has to offer and don't feel the need to go deeper.

Bob

 

[bolohead]

Someone could spend hours in Photoshop and make a beautiful image from a crappy scan or they can make a crappy image from a beautiful RAW file or vice versa. The same goes for the darkroom (sans RAW files); I'm sure that someone put in a lot of effort dodging, burning, toning, etc. and end up with a crappy wet print or make a beautiful piece of art. I think it all has to do with the finished image and the opinion of the person viewing it.

Everything has it's place somewhere, even HDR, selective coloring, and cross-processing. It's just not everyone's cup of tea.

"Everything in moderation -- including moderation." ~ Harvey Steiman

 

[bmattock]

Popular Science, December 1925.

In the linked article, "Trick Photography Makes a Train Shimmy." There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[mgd711]

Procesing images to be more true to their original appearance is image correction.

Processing images for the sake of looking different from the original appearance is image manipulation.

I like your take on it.

I do as little processing as possible, mainly all in Lightroom on my scanned negatives. I only use Photoshop now for printing.

 

[bmattock]

Procesing images to be more true to their original appearance is image correction.

What was their original appearance?

And why would you want that anyway?

Processing images for the sake of looking different from the original appearance is image manipulation.

Why would you presume that manipulation was "for the sake of looking different" and not for the sake of looking more like what the photographer intended it to look like?

Being color-blind, I can guarantee you that what *I* see is not what *you* see when we look upon the same scene. So which one of us is right? And why should I not not 'correct' my image to make it appear as I see it?

 

[Al Kaplan]

Lately I've been scanning images off my old contact sheets to post on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com and contact sheets aren't the finest of prints. I think that the dust spots, the red or black china marker (crayon) crop marks, perforations and film edges, etc. a lot of times add something to the image, make it "more real".

 

[Morca007]

When I scan B/W negs I tend to not do anything other than clone out dust and scratches, and adjust the levels to match what I remember.

However, with colour I just have an itch to tweak. Be it scanned colour film or a digital photo, I feel compelled to adjust the colour until I feel it looks 'right,' which in this context isn't what matches my memory, but what I think looks the most pleasing.
When it comes to scanned c-41, I wonder if my workflow would be different if I got prints made at the same time as getting my negs developed, because I have no baseline for what a given film 'should' look like.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

What was their original appearance?

And why would you want that anyway?



Why would you presume that manipulation was "for the sake of looking different" and not for the sake of looking more like what the photographer intended it to look like?

Being color-blind, I can guarantee you that what *I* see is not what *you* see when we look upon the same scene. So which one of us is right? And why should I not not 'correct' my image to make it appear as I see it?

Well, if you are color blind, and I reproduce a image that is spectrally the same as the original, you will view the image in the same as you would have seen the original scene. So we will both see the image as it would have appeared originally.

Now, correcting for sensor artifacts- well that would be required so that we do see the stored image as it would appear originally.

And photographers are free to manipulate their image any way they want. It will not reproduce the original scene. It's not illegal or immoral "in most cases". It is manipulating an image.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/manipulate

 

[David R Munson]

Some of my images wind up with as many as 20+ layers, umpteen layer masks, fine adjustments all over the place. Others (most of them) wind up with maybe two layer masks for localized curves adjustments and curves layers to match. It all depends on the image and what I need to do to get from what I see in my mind to what the final image is going to be.

I tend to do more with conceptual images or images that are more specifically set up (still life, illustration, conceptual, etc), but there are no hard and fast rules. It's all image-by-image.

I don't generally do composites unless it's a really good reason or for a specific purpose. It's mostly just a matter of "clarifying" the image into something that I am satisfied with. When I make the exposure, I see the final image in my mind. It's a process of doing what I can to get to that final product.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

No Photoshop or FORTRAN here.
Modified the camera by taking the IR blocking filter off and shot through a Kodak Wratten Magenta filter. This filter notches out GREEN. The unusual colors are a combination of green being cut out of the spectrum: Infrared + ( visible- green)

The green of the grass and trees is the infrared component of Chlorophyll.

I like the Yellow Sky.

From the Family "Life on Mars" collection...

 

[Al Kaplan]

I still miss Ektachrome infrared through a #15 filter.

 

[David R Munson]

To illustrate my earlier point, this image file has 18 layers and weighs in at around 1GB in size. I would, of course, prefer it be smaller for the sake of being more manageable, but what it came down to was making the image I saw in my mind when I began the project.