Post Process

[Lost Canadian]

Almost as much as I get asked what camera I use, I get asked what I do to my photos in post. My usual reply is "not much" which usually spurs a whole list of other questions as to what "not much" means. We don't have a lot of discussions on the post process here so I figure we could use this as a jumping off point. I'll start by describing my normal work-flow and perhaps others could follow.

Before I get into this image let me just state that every image is different and some receive more attention, others less, but typically this is the process for me. Anyone familiar with ACR/Lightroom will instantly recognize these actions, but this isn't exclusive to ACR/Lightroom. Capture One, Aperture etc, all have similar functions and features.

So first thing I do once I bring the imported image into the develop panel is flatten it. A lot of people don't realize that most RAW converts automatically apply a tone curve and color calibration to images before they even start. I like to start fresh so I eliminate all that. Below is how the image looks when it is brought fresh into the converter. If you look closely you'll notice that the default settings already have a curve, and there are applied adjustments already made to the image. This is not to be confused with auto tone, this is a fresh image, these are just Adobe's standard starting point settings for all images. Other converters do the same. Needless to say I don't usually like the standard starting point as they hide a lot of information at the extremes of an exposure. For instance, Adobe's default of +50 for brightness always blows the heck out of delicate highlights and +5 for blacks can crush some subtle detail in the shadows. If you didn't realize that these default setting effect your RAW you may assume you've lost data.

I have created a preset that I use to reduce these next steps to just one, but essentially what I've done is I've gone through all Adobe's preset numbers and zero them out which gives me this below, a nice flat image to start with. You'll also notice that I changed the default color profile from Adobe's interpretation "Adobe Standard" to one of Nikon's, called "Camera Neutral". "Adobe Standard" interprets the RAW Nikon files info with sharper contrast and shifts oranges too much towards red. I like "Camera Neutral" because it gives me the most natural colors and is the flattest of Nikon's profiles, a vivid profile for instance is quite extreme and is very contrasty even with all other settings zeroed out. If you were to plug in a Canon RAW file you'd have the choice to change it to one of Canon's color profiles; faithful, standard, neutral, ect.

With a nice flat image, I start to build it up the way I want it to look. The first step is getting the white balance right. For me this image was a touch warm, I want to add some coolness in those shadows to contrast with the warmth of the sun light passing through the leaf. To do this I just pushed the white balance temperature down a bit from the "as shot" 3500K to a slightly cooler 3023K.

Next comes the curves. This is where I build in the right amount of contrast. I like using curves as opposed to the sliders in the "basic adjustments" panel because I have more control. You may like using sliders, both do the same thing though. I also usually like to keep things natural and not overdo it, but everyone's approach is different. My general philosophy is to capture the the world as it is, and to display its magic without a lot of interference. Tastes vary however.

This is the curve I eventually settled on for this image.

After curves come the local adjustments. This is typically some light dodging or burning to add focus to certain areas. With this image, I just wanted to give just a little more pop to the leaf so I brushed in a touch of clarity, which is really just some edge contrast. When doing this I zoom to 100% to watch that I don't overdo it and start getting artifacts.

After the local adjustments I may crop. Now I don't normally like cropping too much as it reduces resolution, but sometimes it's necessary to get the best overall structure for the image. This image didn't require any cropping. Cropping also includes straightening horizons if they are off a little and fixing any lens distortion, which is easy with ACR/Lightroom's lens correction presets. Other converters may require a plugin to do this.

Next comes clean up. This is just little things like getting rid of dust spots, cleaning up any chromatic aberrations and sharpening. How I sharpen depends largely on my output, but the process is largely the same. I zoom to 200% and watch very closely. If I push the overall sharpening too much I'll start to get some really ugly pixel binding, artifacts and blobs.

And that's it. The end product. Now this image didn't turn out all that dissimilar to where it had started with the "Adobe Standard" profile and the Adobe default settings, but my final version does have more detail in the shadows and highlights, and is generally more to my taste. It's not always this subtle though, in fact it rarely is, but you get the point.

Some thing you may have noticed. I didn't push the saturation, and rarely ever do. Typically the more contrast you add to the image the more saturated it will become. I've applied a healthy curve to this image so adding saturation would just push it into the realm of unbelievable for me. Again though, everyone is different, so bake to taste.

So what's everyone's process, or tips and tricks?

 

[ywen]

I hardly ever get that detailed in my post processing..

I do use Alien Skins Exposure quite a bit for real authentic film look.

 

[Michael Slade]

Interesting post and a good question...I gave a scanning demonstration today in class using the Epson V750 and gave some ideas regarding pre-scanning set-up and post-production for film scans.

You and I are in a very similar philosophical place regarding post-production. One thing I do like to do however is try to back off the saturation a bit...maybe 5-10% sometimes. Generally speaking I feel that digital cameras record colors with too much saturation, so I like to back it off a tad to make it feel more 'real'.

My other post-production techniques involve non-silver-based printing techniques that are the subject of weeks-long courses requiring a thorough understanding of chemistry and photographic history.

Thanks for sharing that Lightroom stuff though. It's a great place for us all to start.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I hardly ever get that detailed in my post processing..

I do use Alien Skins Exposure quite a bit for real authentic film look.

Really it's not that much. The zeroed settings and color profile is actually handled on import with a preset I created. The rest is a simple curves adjustment, a dodge or burn here and there, some cleanup and the output sharpening. That's about as simple as it gets unless one prefers to just hit auto and let the computer make the creative choices for them. I simply detailed all the steps, including the removal of the adobe inputs, to outline what's actually been done to the image.

 

[Lost Canadian]

You and I are in a very similar philosophical place regarding post-production. One thing I do like to do however is try to back off the saturation a bit...maybe 5-10% sometimes. Generally speaking I feel that digital cameras record colors with too much saturation, so I like to back it off a tad to make it feel more 'real'.

That's a good point, and tip. I've recently begun doing this after I came across Tristan Cambells wonderful images. I didn't think getting a film like quality of color and tone was possible with digital but he mixes film with digital images, and you'd be hard pressed to tell which is which. It's a quality I really like and is something I'd like to incorporate into my own images.

My other post-production techniques involve non-silver-based printing techniques that are the subject of weeks-long courses requiring a thorough understanding of chemistry and photographic history.

Now that would be interesting.

 

[matt s]

Trevor I like it. Nice post.

Myself I tend to leave the presets alone, but also freely tone things back towards zero when I feel that the preset was overdone. Knowing the preset exists and what it's doing is key to knowing when to change it. Similar to what you do, just a different way to get there, you start at zero and move away from there, I start farther out and move towards zero.

General workflow is very similar to yours. WB, Curves, local adjustment if needed, clarity, and I do use the vibrance slider (low settings like 5). I never use the saturation as it's like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail.

Black point depends on the image and the histogram I am starting with. I often bring it up to where it's just touching the right edge of the data. If it was clipping to start with I of course back it off. Some of this has to do with the time I spent/spend working with black and white where I am of the camp that believes there should be some pure black and pure white in every image. It doesn't always translate to color images but often I find that the black in particular is the difference between something "popping" or being ho hum.

Regardless fun topic and so far great discussion.

 

[matt s]

That's a good point, and tip. I've recently begun doing this after I came across Tristan Cambells wonderful images. I didn't think getting a film like quality of color and tone was possible with digital but he mixes film with digital images, and you'd be hard pressed to tell which is which. It's a quality I really like and is something I'd like to incorporate into my own images.

Perhaps this should be a whole other thread but it brings up a point of whether or not film should be used as the standard for "correct" images.

First don't shoot the messenger, I am mostly just playing devils advocate for the sake of discussion.

I have always found it interesting that some photographer try so hard to make their images look like film. While I love many things about film and the way certain films rendered images I never thought they were "accurate". In fact they really are not, each has biases (kinda like presets really) and photographers have used those biases to their advantage. That happens to be something I like about film. There is something to knowing how a film will treat a scene and choosing just the right one to get what you want. However I think it could be argued that digital "can" be used to create a more accurate photo than film. Simply due to it's flexibility.

All that said, I cannot say that accuracy is or was ever my goal. For me I don't try to make my images look like anything other than my images. In other words I am after a look that resides in my head and do what I can to achieve it with the tools I am working with.


Trevor if this is too far off topic let me know, I will take it and start a new thread so as not to dilute the one at hand.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Which presets do you use Matt? And do you leave the adjustments Adobe makes or (insert converter) alone?

As for you last post, yeah talk about whatever you guys want. It's all interesting.

 

[matt s]

Initially I left the adobe presets alone, however overtime there were a few things that were just too far out every time and I brought them down some and saved it. It's been so long ago I don't think I could tell you exactly which ones I tweaked.

As a result of this discussion I do think I will be taking a harder look at my initial settings.

EDIT: Camera calibration was set to "adobe standard". Think I am going to move it to camera neutral like you and try it. I have a batch of non critical photos to process tonight so it's a good time to play with it.

 

[08whitex]

Hope you don't mind I copied this image from your Cuba thread. Could you show us how you did your post on this pic. It is really good and I am never able to get old vehicles to turn out this good.

Also how did you get the color to pop on this vehicle? Awesome.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Hope you don't mind I copied this image from your Cuba thread. Could you show us how you did your post on this pic. It is really good and I am never able to get old vehicles to turn out this good.

Well I've been at home sick the last few days, so yeah, I can probably put something together. Just give me a bit.

 

[Ryanmb21]

Great post, much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Lost Canadian]

OK instead of processing the same pic I've already done I decided to process this shot which I hadn't done yet. It was taken at the same time, same location, just a few seconds apart and with a slightly different perspective. The key thing to remember with post is what you do to the image is irrelevant if you didn't compose it properly or get the exposure right in camera. This shot was taken early in the morning, and in the shade, something I had planned for. The sky was a little outside my cameras dynamic range by this time so I used a two stop soft grad just at the edge to ensure I'd have a good overall exposure to work with. Obviously tripod mounted.

Now for the post. Same thing as I did before, but I'll go back over it.

Here's what you'd start with if you just left everything as is on import. Adobe's default settings, and Adobe Standard profile. Not bad right? It can be better.

So, I flatten the image by zeroing out all Adobe's default adjustments, and change the color profile to Nikon's neutral, just like before. You'll notice that the sky in the top right corner that looked blown out in the first pic with Adobe's standard settings now has color and life. That's why I get rid of those defaults.

Then I start to play with the curves, I like using the pointer and scrolling over certain areas moving specific areas up or down. With this image I also spread the histogram and flattened it down a bit more as I'm going to build in more local contrast with a brush.

Once I felt I had a nice overall look to the shot I applied some localized adjustments. I just brushed in some contrast on the cars and dodged them just a touch to really get them to pop. The added contrast really saturated the cars, which for an energetic shot like this, I felt to be appropriate. Then I burned the road a little to add just a bit more umph to the cars.

Finished up with a little clean up and sharpening.

And voila, the finished image.

 

[Sirocco]

Thanks for this thread Trev. Its really got me thinking about it. I actually love the look of the flat images! Just going to turn my nikon on now and see what stock settings im on.

for processing I generally just play around with the sliders till it looks right. some I convert to B&W, a bit of a crop. not done any detailed stuff like this dodge and burn. I think I will have to get my book out also...

thanks again guys for your tips and the time taken to write this

G

 

[taco2go]

Thank you for sharing this, I need to step back and look at my process as well.
In general, I have a similar workflow, probably since I only use LR as well. Work off of the neutral setting.
I try to post process very soon after I import images, because the images are still fresh in my memory, and sometimes it's all about a feeling you had when the image was taken. I hardly ever mess with the white balance, yet.

I'm finding the curves tool in LR3 is a powerful feature. Currently I work off the linear contrast (vs medium) default. Use the sliders mainly- this is a whole world of exploration and studying in itself - much like EQ in the audio world.
I sometimes make local adjustments including local sharpening (oh horror) when I feel its needed. I LOVE that LR is so good about non-destructuve editing.

I still don't have any presets, and treat each import on its own- mostly because i am not working with huge volumes of files.

Newb Q- How are you getting those LR screen shots into the post? I'd like to be able to do that to show specific examples, and when I am discussing pictures with other friends etc.