PP My Image #2

Tutorials, questions, demos, questionable images ,,,

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

PP My Image #2

Postby stubbsy on Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:57 pm

Following on from my previous PP My Image post I present a second instalment.

This problematic image of Mt Cook And Mt Tasman was taken in NZ in February. The mountains are a fair distance from the viewer so haze was an issue and the D2x bias towards blue is a little noticeable. Plus the shot is underexposed and there is a dust bunny or two :wink:

So my challenge to you is to use your post processing skills to make something of this image. Click the small image below for a larger version (approx 950K) to download and work on. When done, post your results back in this thread. Have fun.

Image
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby Cre8tivepixels on Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:16 pm

here is mine........

Image

dan
User avatar
Cre8tivepixels
Senior Member
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:21 pm
Location: Malabar - Sydney

Postby rflower on Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:31 pm

Image
Russell
Nikon D700 // 50 1.4 // 70-200 2.8 VRII // 24-120 f4// Tamron 90 // SB-800 // 70-300G
I'm on Redbubble too ... http://www.redbubble.com/people/rflower
If you can make one of my photos look better and you have the inclination ... please do so.
User avatar
rflower
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:01 am
Location: Hoppers Crossing, Melbourne

Postby phillipb on Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:44 pm

Image
__________
Phillip


**Nikon D7000**
User avatar
phillipb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:56 am
Location: Milperra (Sydney) **Nikon D7000**

Postby Reschsmooth on Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:50 pm

Here is my quick attempt. I was thinking of dropping in a different sky, but didn't.

Image
Regards, Patrick

Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Postby Underload on Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:54 pm

Thought I'd have a bit of fun with a border as well :)

Image
D200 + stuff
User avatar
Underload
Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:32 am
Location: Brisbane Northside

Postby sheepie on Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:25 pm

OK, I'll play :) (although I should really spend my time PP'ing MY pics from the same NZ trip ;))

Straightened and cropped, played with curves and levels a little in LAB...

Image

Done on an uncallibrated laptop screen, so levels may not be 100% right :) (that's my excuse anyway ;) )
*** When getting there is half the fun! ***
User avatar
sheepie
Key Member
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:56 am
Location: Picnic Point, Sydney Australia *** Nikon D200/D70 ***

Postby frink on Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:52 pm

Image
Stephen
User avatar
frink
Newbie
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 2:47 pm
Location: Adelaide, paradise

Postby Killakoala on Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:34 pm

I did all sorts of things to the image. Click it for a larger view. I missed a dust bunny.

Image
Steve.
|D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 |
Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.com
Leeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
User avatar
Killakoala
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5398
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: Southland NZ

Postby Pa on Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:45 pm

black & white pano.


cheers pa


Image
cheers pa

http://pa.smugmug.com

Work it's part of your life.....So make it an enjoyable part of it.
User avatar
Pa
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: old bar, NSW 2430

Postby Yi-P on Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:41 pm

Here's my try:

Image
User avatar
Yi-P
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3579
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:12 am
Location: Sydney -- Ashfield

Postby sirhc55 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:05 pm

Image

Dust bunnies left in :wink:
Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12929
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Postby ozimax on Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:00 pm

Chris, at first glance it looks like a huge Martian stalactite... :)
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Panasonic G9, Panasonic 12-60 F3.5, Olympus 45 F1.8, Olympus 40-150 F2.8
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
User avatar
ozimax
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5039
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:58 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW

Postby ozimax on Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:11 pm

Image
:)
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Panasonic G9, Panasonic 12-60 F3.5, Olympus 45 F1.8, Olympus 40-150 F2.8
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
User avatar
ozimax
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5039
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:58 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW

Postby Steffen on Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:48 am

Here's another B/W version:

Image

PP'ing a JPEG file is pretty hard, there just isn't enough tonal rage in the original to work with, and posterisation kicks in early. Three cheers to RAW!

Cheers
Steffen.
lust for comfort suffocates the soul
User avatar
Steffen
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:52 pm
Location: Toongabbie, NSW

Postby robert on Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:07 am

Steffen wrote:PP'ing a JPEG file is pretty hard, there just isn't enough tonal rage in the original to work with, and posterisation kicks in early. Three cheers to RAW!



Not wanting to hijack a great thread.. but,

Does it really make that much difference- I only shoot JPEG's- do I need to reconsider?? I do like to PP stuff and didnt think other than WB adjust it made a diff to anything else.

Robert
Robert
EOS 5D Mk II, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200f4 IS, 50 f1.8, 100 macro, 300D (IR Mod)
User avatar
robert
Member
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Sutherland, Sydney

Postby Biggzie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:43 pm

Does it really make that much difference- I only shoot JPEG's- do I need to reconsider?? I do like to PP stuff and didnt think other than WB adjust it made a diff to anything else.

I mostly shoot jpg too because it is more conveinient for me.
JPG is a compressed standard with 8 bit colour data. RAW is non compressed with 12 bit data. (at least in my case) basically taken straight from the sensor.
If you are processing a RAW file, and you move a slider to adjust levels etc, the slider is working in a linear way, so if you move it by a value of 5, it adjusts the picture in exectly that. JPG using compressed data will be adjusting a non linear scale, so a value of 5 like in the previous comment about RAW could be quite a large adjustment with JPG because you dont know exactly how it is compressed.
With 12 bit data, as aposed to 8 bit data, the adjustments available are far greater.

JPG is a fine standard for a finished product, but when you process with compressed data the quality will degrade quickly.

Thats a quick basic run down but if you can, RAW is the way to go.
Nunquam requîrere a aptus occãsiõ ad claudere sûrsum
User avatar
Biggzie
Member
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:51 am
Location: Mt Gambier, SA

Postby stubbsy on Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:34 pm

Thanks to those who participated. A very interesting range of options which show nicely that there is more than one finished image in a shot depending on the way it's post processed.

Here's my take.

Image
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby gstark on Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:26 am

robert wrote:
Steffen wrote:PP'ing a JPEG file is pretty hard, there just isn't enough tonal rage in the original to work with, and posterisation kicks in early. Three cheers to RAW!



Not wanting to hijack a great thread.. but,

Does it really make that much difference- I only shoot JPEG's- do I need to reconsider?? I do like to PP stuff and didnt think other than WB adjust it made a diff to anything else.


Robert,

Probably.

Bigzie has pointed out a couple of relevant issues, but he's not really highlighted some of the more important ones.

When you're shooting in raw, you save the basic elements that your sensor has captured, and any settings that you've put into place are stored as parameters that get applied to the image dynamically, as you view the image. When you, in PP, change some of those settings, it's the parameters that get changed and stored; the image doesn't actually change.

And remember that the image is being stored as it was captured.

JPG is a lossy format. From the moment you select jpg, you are committing to lose data. Every time you save a jpg, you lose data. This is an important distinction, in that you're discarding information that you have captured. If you blow the shot, then you have less data to work with in trying to resurrect it.

Add to that the fact that when an image is saved as jpg, your parameters are applied to the image, and then discarded. You can't undo them, and thus it's more difficult to change them when you're shooting jpg.

I shoot in both raw and jpg. That lets me get a quick version out when I need to, but still permits me full flexibility in PP if (when) I don't get it quite right in the camera.

Which, by the way, should be your goal: get it right, in the camera. This will reduce the amount of PP you need to be doing, but shooting raw gives you the ultimate backup position.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22659
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby robert on Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:31 pm

Thanks for your responses, much appreciated.


gstark wrote:I shoot in both raw and jpg. That lets me get a quick version out when I need to, but still permits me full flexibility in PP if (when) I don't get it quite right in the camera.

Which, by the way, should be your goal: get it right, in the camera. This will reduce the amount of PP you need to be doing, but shooting raw gives you the ultimate backup position.


This makes sense- think I'll take the record both option, as well as trying to get it right in the first place!!



Robert
Robert
EOS 5D Mk II, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200f4 IS, 50 f1.8, 100 macro, 300D (IR Mod)
User avatar
robert
Member
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Sutherland, Sydney


Return to Post Processing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest

cron