The Magic of Post

Thank goodness I'll never be buying another house... or car. Done with all that.

My biggest concern is finding a decent wine at a reasonable price.

All the best,
Mike
 
Yokosuka_Mike said:
So, where is the magic?

All the best,
Mike
Click to expand...

That’s a fair point.

I’m still happy to have post processing available to me if shooting digital, though. The rare magic I get comes mostly from film, which might be why I generally grab a film camera, more often than not one of my least competent ones, when going out the door.
 
Much respect for Vince's "magic" (effort/determination/skill) in making the stop sign, electrical wires, and their shadows disappear :)

Also, nice work on tidying up the red curbstone and removal of the curb sewer grate, and vent pipes on the lawn and roof.

I didn't notice those details before.

Nicely done!
 
I was at my desk one day and noticed weird weather outside: the sky was orange, and while it was raining and dark outside my house, over the town the sun was out and there was no rain.

I saw a woman walking up the steps, and rushed to get my camera. I deliberately underexposed as I was shooting into the sun, and hoped to lift the shadows in post-production. Unfortunately, in my haste I forgot my camera was set to JPG only, not raw! Aaargh!

Here are the before and after images. Took me hours to fix the shadows: lifting the shadows by a billion EV, I discovered the noise was unbelievable with huge multihued blobs, objects were breaking up, and everything in this dark area had a dirty green colour cast! I literally reconstructed parts of the image by redrawing and repainting in Photoshop! The final image is as true to what I recall seeing as possible. (Note: the two images are slightly different sizes as the final image was cropped a bit.)

I don't usually do post-production to this extent. My comfort zone is dodging/burning and colour balance (or removal for b&W) - I could, though, as part of my job is creating illustrations with Photoshop; for me, changing too much takes the picture from belong a photograph to digital art, and defeats the point of photography for me (that's just me - I'm not judging what others do). I avoid cloning except rarely for minor "temporary" things like errant litter I failed to spot and physically pick up; I never remove "permanent" objects like telegraph poles or cars - I just don't take the picture.

31984809827_1d02154d71_c.jpg


524622019_2840c33783_c.jpg
 
RichC said:
I was at my desk one day and noticed weird weather outside: the sky was orange, and while it was raining and dark outside my house, over the town the sun was out and there was no rain.

I saw a woman walking up the steps, and rushed to get my camera. I deliberately underexposed as I was shooting into the sun, and hoped to lift the shadows in post-production. Unfortunately, in my haste I forgot my camera was set to JPG only, not raw! Aaargh!

Here are the before and after images. Took me hours to fix the shadows: lifting the shadows by a billion EV, I discovered the noise was unbelievable with huge multihued blobs, objects were breaking up, and everything in this dark area had a dirty green colour cast! I literally reconstructed parts of the image by redrawing and repainting in Photoshop! The final image is as true to what I recall seeing as possible. (Note: the two images are slightly different sizes as the final image was cropped a bit.)

I don't usually do post-production to this extent. My comfort zone is dodging/burning and colour balance (or removal for b&W). I avoid cloning except rarely for minor "temporary" things like errant litter I failed to spot and physically pick up; I never remove "permanent" objects like telegraph poles or cars - I just don't take the picture.
Click to expand...

I can see this would have been a tough one to fix. But your results speak for themselves. I am impressed with the outcome. You should be very happy as I know how resistant JPGs are to this kind of repair.
 
We've all had these. This is an exposure goof up of mine and it was slide film. The subject was in deep coastal overcast and the camera was set for open sun later in the day on the 4th of July. I put it in my scanner without any attempts to correct the deep under exposure. This is what came out:

ColorPerfect rescue by John Carter, on Flickr

Afterwords, I decided to use ColorPerfect just to see what it could do, I made zero further adjustments:

ColorPerfect rescue by John Carter, on Flickr
 
raydm6 said:
Much respect for Vince's "magic" (effort/determination/skill) in making the stop sign, electrical wires, and their shadows disappear :)

Also, nice work on tidying up the red curbstone and removal of the curb sewer grate, and vent pipes on the lawn and roof.

I didn't notice those details before.

Nicely done!
Click to expand...

Many thanks - I shoot a lot for homebuilders, and oftentimes when I go to a new community to photograph the decorated model for their advertising, it's often the only thing that's complete. Everything else is very much a construction site. So I have to get rid of the porta-potties, mounds of dirt, backhoes, other houses under construction, houses that aren’t part of that community etc to make everything look presentable. A lot of planning goes into many of the shots so that when I'm back home in front of the computer, I have all the elements I need (plus I have a repository of photos of trees, lawn, fires in fireplaces, framed artwork etc etc. in case I need them).

Here are two examples of a model I shot in April - before and after:


Danbury St Charles49 Before by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Danbury St Charles49 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Danbury St. Charles9 Before by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Danbury St Charles9 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

On this day, it was supposed to be sunny, but by the time I got there the weather had changed. Ah well.

In the interior shot above, not only was all that construction visible through the windows, but that hanging light fixture on the right with all the globes wasn't working. I shot it in the early morning, so I kept the background with the trees and sky, and just fixed the foreground.

I'd use the word 'magic' only in relation to how clients sometimes react when they see the before and after. For me it's not magic - it's a heck of a lot of work, and sometimes clients don't realize how much is required, both mentally and physically. Sometimes they say 'oh you can just PhotoShop that', as though PhotoShop has a 'remove construction' filter and all I have to do is click on it and presto, all gone. So sometimes you have to educate people - if they're willing to listen.
 
Can someone fix my crappy iPhone photos? The low dynamic range, small pixel sensor, and less-than-ideal autoexposure and interface mean that it’s a real headache to post-process photos for my street panoramas photozine.

The files are very “thin” and not very flexible. Some only look good as if they were slides, but others can work to look like color neg. Ideally it would all look like negative film so you get the right feel for the light and the zine has a consistent style, but the technical limitations make it impossible.
 
aizan said:
Can someone fix my crappy iPhone photos? The low dynamic range, small pixel sensor, and less-than-ideal autoexposure and interface mean that it’s a real headache to post-process photos for my street panoramas photozine.

The files are very “thin” and not very flexible. Some only look good as if they were slides, but others can work to look like color neg. Ideally it would all look like negative film so you get the right feel for the light and the zine has a consistent style, but the technical limitations make it impossible.
Click to expand...

I know my kids and grand-kids are always sending me iphone photos and saying can you fix this.
 
Can someone fix my crappy iPhone photos? The low dynamic range, small pixel sensor, and less-than-ideal autoexposure and interface mean that it’s a real headache to post-process photos for my street panoramas photozine.

The files are very “thin” and not very flexible. Some only look good as if they were slides, but others can work to look like color neg. Ideally it would all look like negative film so you get the right feel for the light and the zine has a consistent style, but the technical limitations make it impossible.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling Gigapixel AI and DeNoise AI from Topaz Labs would allow one to take iPhone photos much farther than we commonly see. There also exist numerous apps that allow RAW capture and manual exposure. I have an app that does both but I never use it. It’s worth noting that iPhone lenses have fixed apertures, so exposure adjustments are limited to shutter speed and ISO. A Tv mode with only one channel.
 
aizan said:
Can someone fix my crappy iPhone photos? The low dynamic range, small pixel sensor, and less-than-ideal autoexposure and interface mean that it’s a real headache to post-process photos for my street panoramas photozine.

The files are very “thin” and not very flexible. Some only look good as if they were slides, but others can work to look like color neg. Ideally it would all look like negative film so you get the right feel for the light and the zine has a consistent style, but the technical limitations make it impossible.
Click to expand...

This is a big "ask". I used to have similar problems with old CCD sensor files. Especially till I learned to always shoot in RAW format. Which is not an option I suppose with iPhone images? Or is it?

The issue I found to most consistently cause problems was the problem of blown highlights. To rectify this I started deliberately under exposing images by one stop. Of course with JPG images this then tends to produce problems with shadows and may not fix the blown highlights in any event, as there is just not the data present to solve the problem in post. It is probably this that more than anything started me shooting in RAW. (Though I always use cameras not phones to do this).

I have not personally researched which phone cameras are presently the best and emphasize finding one that handles RAW files. So to be honest I think if I were you and committed to using my phone to make images I would be doing some serious research into which phones have the best cameras / software to do what you need.

This following article may give you some ideas on alternate phones /cameras - that can handle RAW. If you can shoot in RAW, I would then think about loading the iphone version of the Lightroom app onto my phone - it is free for Android so I suppose it is too for iphone. This should help (though I have not used it).

https://www.geckoandfly.com/24411/smartphone-raw-camera/

If you are up for it, an alternative is to buy a digital camera that handles panoramic mode if that is what you need. Even early model Sony NEX cameras (for example) do this with great aplomb and in most cases are cheap to buy and will produce excellent results especially when shooting in RAW format. Another option if you use a PC is to use any digital camera that shoots RAW, then use it to take a series of overlapping shots and after you upload it to your computer use something like Microsoft Image Composite Editor (ICE) to create the composite panorama file. I have used this program for a few years on and off and can say that it is both good and its free. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/res...tography-applications/image-composite-editor/

Here is an example image I stitched using ICE of 4 (?) separate shots made with a DSLR (I forget which one). ICE works well to match exposures etc. across the elongated panoramic frame (though some care is advised to not get too much variance between shots) Click the image for a larger version. I have viewed this file at full size (larger than you will see here even if you click on the image) and I cannot see any joins or discontinuities where the individual elements have been stitched.

Vines and sky by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
peterm1 said:
ICE works well to match exposures etc. across the elongated panoramic frame (though some care is advised to not get too much variance between shots) [/url], on Flickr
Click to expand...

I'm with you on ICE, I've used it on some really difficult exposures across the scene. And it seems to be able to figure it out.
 
peterm1 said:
RAW format ... not an option I suppose with iPhone images? Or is it?
Click to expand...
It is. Recent-ish iPhones can create raw DNG files, but not directly from the built-in camera app (ask Apple!), so you have to use a third-party app to get raw. Android (e.g. Samsung Galaxy phones) supports raw without faffing, straight from the camera, if you select the raw option.
 
These images indicate the utility of raw-data signal-to-noise ratio. SNR is indirectly revealed in the term "high ISO" performance.

The term high ISO is unfortunate because shadow region SNR is extremely important for situations where the camera ISO setting is low (native sensor SIO setting) with a high dynamic range scene. In these circumstances important shadow regions can have much less signal than properly exposed highlight regions - yet the noise levels are similar.

I stopped doing photography for real estate in 2015. But I wonder how much easier things would have been if I was using a camera with a dual conversion-gain sensor.

When shadow region detail is important nothing beats raw data SNR.
 
I think the one thing that could've helped Tim immensely in his posted examples was to reduce the range between the inside and outside - in other words, bring the level of the light inside a bit closer to what the level of the light outside is doing. With a scene like that where you're just shooting the dining room, even a handheld flash bounced off the ceiling would have gone a long way to making life easier and would have helped relieve those shadows. Then tweaking it in post gives you more latitude. Of course the other alternative is to do two separate exposures and insert the properly-exposed windows into the properly-exposed interior shot in post.

Somewhat related but a bit of a digression - I remember having a disagreement with a former classmate of mine years ago about shooting interiors (this was pre-digital when we were both shooting 4"x5" transparency at f/16 indoors) and he swore up and down that it was better to light a room with tungsten (hot) lights rather than strobe. I told him that there's no way you'd be able to get the same amount of light out of hot lights as strobes, and what were you going to do about the bright sunny light coming in through a window to prevent the window from blowing out. He said that he'd simply neutral density gel the window. Easy to do when the window is a 18"x24" in size - not so easy when the windows in the family room are floor to cathedral ceiling! Needless to say, he didn't pursue his side of the argument.
 
Vince, in your above disagreement wouldn't tungsten light be too incompatible with ambient 5500K light coming through the windows (especially with color film and for me digital)? Strobe light would be closer but I suppose a strobe gel could be used to truly balance to two light sources. Or am I all wet?
 
charjohncarter said:
Vince, in your above disagreement wouldn't tungsten light be incompatible with ambient 5500K light coming through the windows? Strobe light would be closer but I suppose a strobe gel could be used to truly balance to two light sources. Or am I all wet?
Click to expand...

Yes precisely - so he'd have to gel to convert to daylight (and likely lose 2 stops), then gel the windows, and on and on. I couldn't see how his hot light argument could win the day, even with high-wattage daylight-balanced bulbs. The other advantage to strobe is that you can 'pump' the flash, therefore enabling you to build up your depth of field as well as the light output, which you couldn't do with hot lights.

The unfortunate thing is that he's a much better photographer than I am :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom