The Magic of Post

Timmyjoe

Timmyjoe

Veteran
Local time
2:41 PM
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,985
I love shooting, processing, and printing film. It's what I grew up with and what has inspired me for over 50 years. But I gotta say, there is something so sweet about what you can do in post processing with digital.

A friend of my wife's is selling her condo and asked me to shoot images for the sale. Her whole sales pitch is the the beautiful lake views. On a bright sunny day, there must have been about ten stops difference between the light on the lake and the light in the condo. Thank God for Post.

PostMagic.jpg

Nikon Df w/Nikkor-UD non-AI lens, RAW

How about a thread where we show "Out of Camera" vs Final Image in difficult lighting situations.

Best,
-Tim
 
I encounter many 'challenges' shooting for homebuilders and other architecture-related projects. I actually did a blog post about this very subject a while back:

http://www.directiononeinc.com/image-problem-solver/

This is one I did a few years ago - the client wanted this view of the building, but of course look at what's in front and around it:


Cornerstone4 Uncorrrected by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

I think it was almost 3 hours of solid work to get it to this:


Cornerstone4a by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

As far as interior lighting goes, I give it just enough lighting to make it look 'not lit' - so in other words, the light that you see in the photo (the window light, the ambient light in the room) is what's lighting the scene, and not my light that I'm adding in.
 
Hey Vince, you have my sympathy. I hate spotting out stuff from an image. Find it very tedious.

The condo pics I shot were all natural light, no light added, just lots of manipulation in post.

Best,
-Tim
 
I love film, shoot mostly film, but, to me, this is absolutely the most significant area where digital is “better” than film. It’s not the ISO ability, it’s not the resolution, it’s this, the ability to coax things out of a rich file, that could never be coaxed out of a negative, no matter how good you are in the darkroom. It’s why shooting only jpgs. seems like such an exercise in selling yourself short, a waste of time, for me at least. If you are going to shoot digital, don’t leave your best tools in the toolbox, untouched.
Learning curve, sure, but more than worth the effort.

P.S. Ray, lovely cemetery image.
 
Hey John,

I do the same thing when I'm shooting film, use fill flash for difficult lighting situations like you've shown.

What I find so amazing about digital, is that if I work it carefully, I can get the image I want, even in difficult lighting situations, even without fill flash.

Best,
-Tim
 
Larry, I totally agree, doing this is one of the biggest advantage of digital for me.

Nice cemetery shot Ray.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
I love shooting, processing, and printing film. It's what I grew up with and what has inspired me for over 50 years. But I gotta say, there is something so sweet about what you can do in post processing with digital.

A friend of my wife's is selling her condo and asked me to shoot images for the sale. Her whole sales pitch is the the beautiful lake views. On a bright sunny day, there must have been about ten stops difference between the light on the lake and the light in the condo. Thank God for Post.

PostMagic.jpg

Nikon Df w/Nikkor-UD non-AI lens, RAW

How about a thread where we show "Out of Camera" vs Final Image in difficult lighting situations.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Seems too moody for a real estate sales image because it under represents the actual interior space being offered. Maybe merging two optimized exposures would have been more pleasant for the client? (one slightly under exposed lake shot merged with a lighter interior exposure).
That kind of flexibility is one area that makes digital post unique.
 
Saul, I'm not really any kind of real estate photographer. This was one of 27 images submitted, many of the other images show the whole interior from other angles. This was simply to show the view of the lake from the dining room.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
Hey John,

I do the same thing when I'm shooting film, use fill flash for difficult lighting situations like you've shown.

What I find so amazing about digital, is that if I work it carefully, I can get the image I want, even in difficult lighting situations, even without fill flash.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Film is different, but still there is a transfer of techniques. I am mostly film but even with film I'm a hybrid: scan (my way), and then use all the improvements that digital offers.

So this thread is very important to offer new ideas to what digital offers, so we at RFF can improve are technique.

This forum has been a GOD send for me, I can't tell you in how many ways.

During the shut down and still in my house. I've been almost been a complete digital photographer; so here is one that I did similar to the OPs initial images, but with flash.

This bounce flash with a Pentax K1 and a Vititar 2600d (don't worry I had a Wein Safe) not a great image but a test:

Stay-at-Home bounce flash fill by John Carter, on Flickr
 
I recall a cool article by Ken Lee I think on the LF forum about compensating developers. I think Sandy King had a piece on divided Pyrocat to cover these kinds of extremely wide range lighting situations. Thankfully I don't find myself in such situations often.
 
I love to post process. For me its a way of using images I would have otherwise thrown away due to exposure or other technical faults with the image and also of creating an artistic interpretation that hopefully adds something to the image.

A couple of before and after samples - the second one goes further than the other in terms of how far I have taken it from the original.

Bright highlights are always a struggle to remedy. Here they are not too bad but more balance is called for.

The original
vEvwqng.jpg


A more balanced interpretation
zT08eAS.jpg


In this image I have gone further, not just correcting exposure but rendering the image in black and white and smudging out the figures to the left and right of the main subject simply because I prefer it that way. Not perfect by any means but OK.

3q0BKwL.jpg


rSpgHLK.jpg
 
peterm1 said:
I love to post process. For me its a way of using images I would have otherwise thrown away due to exposure or other technical faults with the image and also of creating an artistic interpretation that hopefully adds something to the image.

A couple of before and after samples - the second one goes further than the other in terms of how far I have taken it from the original.

Bright highlights are always a struggle to remedy. Here they are not too bad but more balance is called for.
[...]

In this image I have gone further, not just correcting exposure but rendering the image in black and white and smudging out the figures to the left and right of the main subject simply because I prefer it that way. Not perfect by any means but OK.

3q0BKwL.jpg


rSpgHLK.jpg
Click to expand...

Peter, the B&W work really well for me. How may I ask do you go about smudging in post?
 
Ricoh said:
Peter, the B&W work really well for me. How may I ask do you go about smudging in post?
Click to expand...

Ricoh thanks for that. There are a few ways of doing it. Most recently I have been experimenting with Nik Analog Efex as a plugin running under Lightroom.

In Nik Analog Efex there are three specific filters you can elect to use alone or "stacked" if you wish. There is a bokeh filter (its name speaks for itself), a motion blur filter(which allows you to move pixels in a single direction) and a zoom and rotate blur filter (which allows you to move pixels in a spiral kind of motion). In this case I think I used a combination of these filters. Plus I used some vignette filter as well (also a part of Analog Efex as well as many other image processing programs).

I also am pretty sure I may have applied another filter from the Nik Analog Pro suite. This is a filter which applies what they call a Photo Plate filter. This is designed to mimic some of the flaws, distortions and artifacts seen in old vintage glass photo plates . In effect how it does this is by applying a texture over the top of the image. This texture can be selectively applied to appear in some parts of the image but not in others so the main subject is not too strongly affected - or affected not at all if that's what you want.

Other software (e.g. Corel Paintshop Pro - which I also use) typically have some kind of smudge filter. And these can be used to move pixels and smudge the image or parts of it selectively. It is rather more "hands on" though and needs more work.

Another way of achieving something of this sort of effect is to use Corel Paintshop Pro or Photoshop or some other image editor that supports layers. Using layers you can import a texture image of some sort, apply that as a layer over top of the main image then by adjusting the transparency of the new layer and using an eraser tool (which is also a part of photoshop etc) rub part of that layer out so you can see the underlaying image where you want it to appear. There are lots of texture files in jpg or png etc available to download for free on the internet. Just Google these words " image texture grunge files" I use this technique when I feel it will produce a more interesting result or something the Nik product etc cannot. It sounds complex but I found once I started experimenting its not very hard to learn if you are willing to fail sometimes - and it's fun.

But as I say in relation to the specific image you asked about, I used the Nik suite. Here is another image where I am pretty sure I did something similar. (Though this one was shot through a bus window so that flare is part of the image too.)

Member of the Anti-social Social Club by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

And here which is really just an experiment in using the above tools creatively. The pixels have more obviously been moved about here and I do not know if I had a specific idea about what I was trying to achieve but I kind of liked the result which is a bit like an image in an old distorted antique mirror, so I kept it. (You need to be open to this kind of serendipitous outcome till you learn the tools - another reason to experiment).

Cafe Colombia - Adelaide Central Market 4 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Oh and finally. Here is another one. In it the background the bokeh was already pretty good but I wanted to enhance it a bit more to make the image a bit more interesting. You can in this one see the effect of one of the Photo Plate filters which makes it look as if the image was shot through a dirty glass window. I experimented, I liked the result (after trying several alternatives) so I kept it.

Thoughtful by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
peterm1 said:
Ricoh thanks for that. There are a few ways of doing it. Most recently I have been experimenting with Nik Analog Efex as a plugin running under Lightroom.

In Nik Analog Efex there are three specific filters you can elect to use alone or "stacked" if you wish. There is a bokeh filter (its name speaks for itself), a motion blur filter(which allows you to move pixels in a single direction) and a zoom and rotate blur filter (which allows you to move pixels in a spiral kind of motion). In this case I think I used a combination of these filters. Plus I used some vignette filter as well (also a part of Analog Efex as well as many other image processing programs).

I also am pretty sure I may have applied another filter from the Nik Analog Pro suite. This is a filter which applies what they call a Photo Plate filter. This is designed to mimic some of the flaws, distortions and artifacts seen in old vintage glass photo plates . In effect how it does this is by applying a texture over the top of the image. This texture can be selectively applied to appear in some parts of the image but not in others so the main subject is not too strongly affected - or affected not at all if that's what you want.

Other software (e.g. Corel Paintshop Pro - which I also use) typically have some kind of smudge filter. And these can be used to move pixels and smudge the image or parts of it selectively. It is rather more "hands on" though and needs more work.

Another way of achieving something of this sort of effect is to use Corel Paintshop Pro or Photoshop or some other image editor that supports layers. Using layers you can import a texture image of some sort, apply that as a layer over top of the main image then by adjusting the transparency of the new layer and using an eraser tool (which is also a part of photoshop etc) rub part of that layer out so you can see the underlaying image where you want it to appear. There are lots of texture files in jpg or png etc available to download for free on the internet. Just Google these words " image texture grunge files" I use this technique when I feel it will produce a more interesting result or something the Nik product etc cannot. It sounds complex but I found once I started experimenting its not very hard to learn if you are willing to fail sometimes - and it's fun.

But as I say in relation to the specific image you asked about, I used the Nik suite. Here is another image where I am pretty sure I did something similar. (Though this one was shot through a bus window so that flare is part of the image too.)
Member of the Anti-social Social Club by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

And here which is really just an experiment in using the above tools creatively. The pixels have more obviously been moved about here and I do not know if I had a specific idea about what I was trying to achieve but I kind of liked the result which is a bit like an image in an old distorted antique mirror, so I kept it. (You need to be open to this kind of serendipitous outcome till you learn the tools - another reason to experiment).
Cafe Colombia - Adelaide Central Market 4 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Oh and finally. Here is another one. In it the background the bokeh was already pretty good but I wanted to enhance it a bit more to make the image a bit more interesting. You can in this one see the effect of one of the Photo Plate filters which makes it look as if the image was shot through a dirty glass window. I experimented, I liked the result (after trying several alternatives) so I kept it.
Thoughtful by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Thank you Peter for such a comprehensive reply, I’m really grateful to you!
I have the Nik suite plugin running on LR so I can start there, also a stand-alone copy of PS CC 6.
You definitely have a style in both the type of images you capture and the post processing that immediately stands out. I know more or less it’s one of yours before looking for the name at the side. That’s quite an achievement for any photographer, so bravo.
Thanks again,
Steve
 
Using a real estate listing photo as an example of the benefits of post processing is rather ironic. As a Realtor, when I list a property I do not have time for any significant post processing. The typical client expects that their home will be listed on every real estate website available, with 25+ perfectly exposed images, that make their home look wonderful, within hours of signing a listing agreement.

I need to either rely on a “professional” real estate photographer (typically a recent photo school graduate who has to shoot 8-10 houses in a day) or take them myself. Since, in addition to the photos, I need to do everything from arranging the sign in the front yard, to having booties by the front door, to having a compelling description written and posted, plus three dozen other tasks all within 24 hours, I have to do everything in camera. That means using JPEGs.

Fortunately the HDR setting in my Nikon DSLR will generally nail the indoor/outdoor view image.

The following is a link to one of my recent listings that was under contract within a couple days during the Illinois Covid 19 stay at home order.


https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/407-Taubert-Ave-Batavia-IL-60510/4675045_zpid/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom