TitusvileSurfer
New member
Making the edges dark. A low quality lens will often do this for you. Making this effect in PP in the few occasions you want it is a lot easier than taking it away in the ones you don't!
Am I over processing these pictures?
- Thread starter 90sShooter
- Start date
Absolute Reef
New member
I first view this thread on my phone...and now taking a better look on my calibrated screen.
better toning...it would look a little bit more natural if you increase green hue into the picture. It looks to me like that shot was taken under strong light (too bright) which makes the color of surrounding flowers look so pale...as a matter of fact, they look burned to me.
color of your leaf picture looks nice to me...only that the focus area doesn't express the best out of that picture.
better toning...it would look a little bit more natural if you increase green hue into the picture. It looks to me like that shot was taken under strong light (too bright) which makes the color of surrounding flowers look so pale...as a matter of fact, they look burned to me.
color of your leaf picture looks nice to me...only that the focus area doesn't express the best out of that picture.
90sShooter
Active member
It was taken in very bright light, but I took at like 1/2000th if I remember correctly to compensate. If you look at the original picture, it is not very bright at all. I am not sure what you mean by "burnt" but the colors do look pale. I am totally new to this so can you explain to me how bright light will make colors pale? and what does burnt mean?
IMO the original picture is true to life colors. My final edit is just a brilliant version of it.
IMO the original picture is true to life colors. My final edit is just a brilliant version of it.
LobsterMan
New member
I like the leaf shot alot.
90sShooter
Active member
Thanks LobsterMan! :thumbsup:
Absolute Reef
New member
Were those 2 shots taken in "auto" white balance mode? and are they jpg converted from nef? or just plain jpg? ((( my guess would be all in auto wb )))
I don't know about others, IMO, I think it's quite difficult to determine whether these 2 shots are life-like in colors like you said. No offense, but I believe that your camera, your lenses, your computer screen, and most importantly your camera setting are the main factors that determine the outcome of the images.
Only a few ( i mean a few) dslr currently available in the market can take such great pictures, such life-like pictures, pictures that give absolute toning and outstanding rendering in colors, superb dynamic range,....only a few.
Slightly change in wb setting gives almost different outcomes, and your bee picture is a perfect example. Again, no offense here, I love both of your pictures and you love them too, that's what matters.
PS : burnt and burned, are not they the same? or just English/American spelling ? or I was completely wrong with my sentences? English is not my first language and I try my best not to mess it.
I don't know about others, IMO, I think it's quite difficult to determine whether these 2 shots are life-like in colors like you said. No offense, but I believe that your camera, your lenses, your computer screen, and most importantly your camera setting are the main factors that determine the outcome of the images.
Only a few ( i mean a few) dslr currently available in the market can take such great pictures, such life-like pictures, pictures that give absolute toning and outstanding rendering in colors, superb dynamic range,....only a few.
Slightly change in wb setting gives almost different outcomes, and your bee picture is a perfect example. Again, no offense here, I love both of your pictures and you love them too, that's what matters.
PS : burnt and burned, are not they the same? or just English/American spelling ? or I was completely wrong with my sentences? English is not my first language and I try my best not to mess it.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
He is using a Canon, there is no "nef". If you are trying to be specific, CR2 is the correct term.
I don't understand your point. Though I will say the "computer screen" could change EVERYTHING.
What? Noooo Your not making any sense.
Absolute Reef
New member
again,imo, i dont think that....
different cameras would give the same result,
different lenses would give the same result,
different computer screens would give the same result,
different file formats (raw,tiff, jeg or cr2) would give the same result.
and different wb mode would give the same result.
that's what i mean.
no offense for canon people or anything, i think that picture taken with 5d is way more accurate that 50d, dont you agree?
or even the outstanding 5d mkii is not yet perfect in every way, dont u agree?
making sense or not, just take a look at the first two bee pictures, it's so obvious. which one is real? first or second ? or they are both wrong? or perhaps, right on mac led cinema display that has been calibrated with spyder3 eliet and wrong on normal lcd with software calibrated?
take it easy, this thread is all about opinions. I am all open for your comments too.
different cameras would give the same result,
different lenses would give the same result,
different computer screens would give the same result,
different file formats (raw,tiff, jeg or cr2) would give the same result.
and different wb mode would give the same result.
that's what i mean.
no offense for canon people or anything, i think that picture taken with 5d is way more accurate that 50d, dont you agree?
or even the outstanding 5d mkii is not yet perfect in every way, dont u agree?
making sense or not, just take a look at the first two bee pictures, it's so obvious. which one is real? first or second ? or they are both wrong? or perhaps, right on mac led cinema display that has been calibrated with spyder3 eliet and wrong on normal lcd with software calibrated?
take it easy, this thread is all about opinions. I am all open for your comments too.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Okay I see what your saying now and agree.
Absolute Reef
New member
arh, thank you very much for that. 
It was my fault actually, as I said, English is not my first language...it happens all the time when I wanted to say something but it totally means another thing. I better try to put my sentences and what I want to express in a simpler way then.
There were 2 questions regarding WB-mode and Raw file format, and both of them haven't been answered yet. May be the answer would clear things up about whether which picture is more accurate and more life-like in color, and perhaps, what's the best way to do some post-processing on that picture.
Since we are not quite done yet with the "bee" picture, I don't think I would want to open another topic regarding "shadow detail" on the "leaf" picture. I think its quite interesting to talk about too,... and this would bring up a lot about camera sensors and lenses related topics.
It was my fault actually, as I said, English is not my first language...it happens all the time when I wanted to say something but it totally means another thing. I better try to put my sentences and what I want to express in a simpler way then. There were 2 questions regarding WB-mode and Raw file format, and both of them haven't been answered yet. May be the answer would clear things up about whether which picture is more accurate and more life-like in color, and perhaps, what's the best way to do some post-processing on that picture.
Since we are not quite done yet with the "bee" picture, I don't think I would want to open another topic regarding "shadow detail" on the "leaf" picture. I think its quite interesting to talk about too,... and this would bring up a lot about camera sensors and lenses related topics.
90sShooter
Active member
The pictures were both shot in JPEG with auto WB... Should I be setting a custom white balance for every shot? I have switched my camera to shoot in raw from now on. With this, there should be no need to worry about white balance right? as I will correct it in PP? no?
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Absolute Reef - Where are you from out of curiosity?
I think you should set the camera to RAW and use auto white balance. The camera will fight to get it close, but with RAW mode you can change the white balance after the fact. This way you can get it juuust perfect.
I think you should set the camera to RAW and use auto white balance. The camera will fight to get it close, but with RAW mode you can change the white balance after the fact. This way you can get it juuust perfect.
I think that it's important to understand a few things:
1. Photographs aren't real. The camera just doesn't see the world the same way that our eye does. It can't see nearly the dynamic range that the eye can, so nearly every capture is an aberration. The capture also freezes, compresses and slows time. It's an artistic tool, not a "life recorder."
2. What is acceptable, in regard to image processing, is dependent on the image's use. A journalist or sports photographer has very different processing limits than a photographer in scenic, wedding or some other artistic genre. In those artistic genres it's up to the artist to set the limits that they're comfortable with. When I discuss this type of things with students I use the term "image honesty." I'm trying to make someone who views my image feel the same way that I did when I captured it.
In my own photography I place a high value on image honesty. I may manipulate the heck out of the image in camera like this, but I have no problem disclosing that. It's art. I'm using the tools that I have available to me in the manner that I choose. Is it "real" of course not; it's art.
I shoot exclusively in RAW with WB left to "Auto." All of my images get processed in Lightroom to adjust WB, exposure, black level and capture sharpening. I frequently add some vignetting, or edge burning, to highlight the focus of the image. Before printing, or posting on the web, I bring the image into photoshop. In PS, I frequently do some dodging and burning using blend modes and adjustment layers. I also apply whatever output or effect sharpening is appropriate for the image. Other than dust removal or cropping I don't add or remove pixels.
All of those adjustments are based on tools that were born in the darkroom, not the computer. Many people hold the notion that "film is real and digital is cheating" but both can be manipulated via processing.
Ansel Adams didn't get his images processed at Walgreens and you probably shouldn't either.
Cheers
1. Photographs aren't real. The camera just doesn't see the world the same way that our eye does. It can't see nearly the dynamic range that the eye can, so nearly every capture is an aberration. The capture also freezes, compresses and slows time. It's an artistic tool, not a "life recorder."
2. What is acceptable, in regard to image processing, is dependent on the image's use. A journalist or sports photographer has very different processing limits than a photographer in scenic, wedding or some other artistic genre. In those artistic genres it's up to the artist to set the limits that they're comfortable with. When I discuss this type of things with students I use the term "image honesty." I'm trying to make someone who views my image feel the same way that I did when I captured it.
In my own photography I place a high value on image honesty. I may manipulate the heck out of the image in camera like this, but I have no problem disclosing that. It's art. I'm using the tools that I have available to me in the manner that I choose. Is it "real" of course not; it's art.
I shoot exclusively in RAW with WB left to "Auto." All of my images get processed in Lightroom to adjust WB, exposure, black level and capture sharpening. I frequently add some vignetting, or edge burning, to highlight the focus of the image. Before printing, or posting on the web, I bring the image into photoshop. In PS, I frequently do some dodging and burning using blend modes and adjustment layers. I also apply whatever output or effect sharpening is appropriate for the image. Other than dust removal or cropping I don't add or remove pixels.
All of those adjustments are based on tools that were born in the darkroom, not the computer. Many people hold the notion that "film is real and digital is cheating" but both can be manipulated via processing.
Ansel Adams didn't get his images processed at Walgreens and you probably shouldn't either.
Cheers
Absolute Reef
New member
If you happened to have a large SD/CF card, say 16GB, you might want to go ahead and shoot in RAW(14 bits)+JPEG (L) mode,..if not, just stick with RAW.
I know it takes ages to load all files in to your computer, but hey...it gives more flexibility when it comes to post-processing as well.
I currently shoot with RAW+jpeg with self selected K-WB mode. I used to shoot with "auto-wb" and I was happy with post-processing on Lightroom (sometimes on Aperture and Capture NX). I recently switched to "K" mode which I learnt a lot about color temperature and most importantly I am now more aware of the surrounding around me when I shoot. I find my pictures look more realistic to the actual environment and I have so much fun with it. Thanks to RAW format, I still can change it back after all.
It's not that difficult, really, to understand about color temperature since we talk about this "K" all the time in this reef central board 6500K, 10000K, 12500K, and 20000K ,...This is another great thing of being a reefer !! yay!
I wish my camera (Nikon D300) supports higher than 10000K so that I can take more accurate macro reef shot when I only turn my actinic on, or at least 14000K. I am not sure about other camera, anyone?
PS : TitusvileSurfer, I'm from Bangkok.
I know it takes ages to load all files in to your computer, but hey...it gives more flexibility when it comes to post-processing as well.
I currently shoot with RAW+jpeg with self selected K-WB mode. I used to shoot with "auto-wb" and I was happy with post-processing on Lightroom (sometimes on Aperture and Capture NX). I recently switched to "K" mode which I learnt a lot about color temperature and most importantly I am now more aware of the surrounding around me when I shoot. I find my pictures look more realistic to the actual environment and I have so much fun with it. Thanks to RAW format, I still can change it back after all.
It's not that difficult, really, to understand about color temperature since we talk about this "K" all the time in this reef central board
6500K, 10000K, 12500K, and 20000K ,...This is another great thing of being a reefer !! yay! I wish my camera (Nikon D300) supports higher than 10000K so that I can take more accurate macro reef shot when I only turn my actinic on, or at least 14000K. I am not sure about other camera, anyone?
PS : TitusvileSurfer, I'm from Bangkok.
When you're shooting RAW, the in camera color temperature setting is only written out to the file as a starting point for you adjustment. It doesn't get applied until the RAW file is converted. If your method produces results that you're happy with I'm not going to tell you to do it differently. All that I'm saying is that there isn't anything about your current method that makes it "more accurate."
Just like in many other pursuits there are many methods to get to the same result.
Cheers
Just like in many other pursuits there are many methods to get to the same result.
Cheers
