Got the Picture - Whats next
 

Those that have followed some of my previous postings will know that my knowledge of digital image processing could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

I know there are lots of different imaging programs out there but at a fairly basic level there must be similar functions.

So now I have my image on the PC what should I be looking at doing, and is there a preferred order.

I am attaching a 200kb file to allow the wizards some scope with the responses.

Don

Don there wasn't an awful lot to do the historgram was nice and even.
All I have done is the following.

1. Duplicated the layer then did a little burning and dodging of the highlights and midtones. Softened and burnt the forground in a bit.
2. An adjustment layer and added +22 saturation.
3 A little Unsharp mask.

Saved

Christine,

I may now sound a bit thick but never mind. Two questions to start with.

1) Why do you create another layer and not work on the background ? I have this up and have managed to create another layer to which I can apply your suggested corrections.

May have just answered my own question as I type this .... is that so you can toggle between corrected and original ? Makes sense.

2) Once you have a correct layer do you use merge layers before the save or manage somehow to get rid of original background.

One post and I've learnt something new, as I have only worked on the background.

Don

Don. the reason I have started using separate layers is, if I make a mistake I can delete the layer and start again, also you can switch the layers on and off so you can see the difference the alterations have made, if you don't like it you can delete the layer without harming the original. I have also been told that if you want to go back to the image at a later time, save it as a psd file and it will keep the layers separate. I have found that if you just do a save into jpg it automatically flattens the layers so you can't go back when you re-open and edit.

Hope I have explained this right.

Thanks Christine,

Very logical.:)

Going out with Stevie now and will have a play on my return.

Don

Don, your image does look somewhat flatter onscreen than Christines, however she has had to add saturation etc. When I put the shot into Photoshop it instantly looked better. On further inspection it appears the picture has an Adobe RGB 1998 embedded profile. This profile will look much flatter on a web browser as it only supports sRGB. Photoshop recognises the embedded profile and shows the image as you had it. However it is always a good thing to convert the profile/colour space to sRGB before posting on the web, this will preserve the colours better.

I have attached your pic converted to sRGB before posting, it has had no other adjustment made. Can you see any difference?

However I would say that to get the file below 200kb I had to apply more compression than I would normally want to do. Ialso do not believe it was in need of any further sharpening, a technique which IMHO is overused

Stephen that's odd when I first downloaded it, it showed in the profile as no colour management for this document and when I clicked on srgb the photo never changed it still looked flat.

Mmmm, all I can say is that my default colour space in PS CS2 is set at Adobe RGB 1998, and it was telling me that this was the embedded profile in Dons image when I pasted it into PS. The difference between Dons and my copy with an sRGB profile embedded is marked. Do you agree?

Generally if you Save for Web on an Adobe RGB file the image becomes flat, however if you convert the profile to sRGB the colours remain relatively punchy and Save for Web has no effect on this.

As a matter of interest how did you find saving Dons adjusted file, did you have to use much compression?

Yes, this is the advantage of saving as PSDs rather than TIFFs - I routinely save mine as PSDs even though I don't often use layers! It's a habit I got into 'just in case.' The only disadvantage being that some other programs don't always support PSDs so you have to convert them to make a copy for other use.

I've done a bit of burning-in with the 'burn' tool (set at 25% opacity) to the foreground grass to balance it out a bit better as the pale foreground was tending to catch the eye a bit

My default in CS is srgb the same as in camera, I only ever check the profile when I have downloaded someone else's photo's. I have found that if I don't check any editing I do seems to get stripped off when its converted to srgb for the web, so I check first then edit.

I don't know what CS does to the file but in the directory where I downloaded it it was 200k when I came to CS save it was showing over 400k so had to reduce, That I can't fathom.

Same here Christine, I've just spent 1/2 hour in PS CS2 trying to work out Stephens statement. As you say selecting srgb made no difference for me either.

What I did notice is that the red on the left is much more vibrant in Stephens variation, something I cannot match exactly.

I do think though that we are all in agreement that the original looks a little flat.

Will upload my variation shortly.

Harry

I think there's a lot of people on here with not a lot of work to do :)

Wolfie he may have gone over it with the burn tool as I did.

Thanks for that Christine.

I notice that there are only very slight differences in all the varations, which suggests Don got it all spot on.

On my attempt I increased the gamma slightly, but then added the "High Pass" filter @ 12 pixels, then used the "Soft light" blend and adjusted the opacity to 70%.

On saving, to produce a similar file size as Don, I had to save at quality 3.

Harry

Has anyone got a bad image that we can work on and post the results with how we did it. I havn't got one trashed them all.

Never take any :) but there may be about 40GBs worth on my dedicated photo hard drive

Harry

As I said in my original comment, I did absolutely nothing to Dons original except alter the colour space from AdobeRGB to sRGB before Saving for Web.

This is now getting confusing.

In that case in must be down to monitor calibration.

I use Quick Gamma http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

and Monitor Calibration Wizard

http://www.hex2bit.com/products/product_mcw.asp

I use a Colorvision Spyder2Pro on my monitor so am confident I am seeing things correctly.

Frankly its my opinion that the tweaks mentioned above are hardly necessary on Dons picture, apart from maybe a slight increase in contrast using Curves. To change the Gamma etc is not needed unless you want to create a more specific effect.

Frankly its my opinion that the tweaks mentioned above are hardly necessary on Dons picture, apart from maybe a slight increase in contrast using Curves. To change the Gamma etc is not needed unless you want to create a more specific effect.[/quote]

Stephen, That's what I said in message 14.

Surely A slight increase in Gamma is much the same as a slight increase in contrast using curves

Harry

Hi Don & all,

Here is my version; let me know your opinion and if it's worth listing changes. As Wolfie says, it is already a good picture but I understood Don wishes to learn how to alter it.

Gerry.

And yet you applied all the rest :)
:eek: :D

:eek: IMO this has destroyed the subtle tones of the original

Gerry the image colours don't look to bad maybe just a little to strong, not much and for some reason there is a slight blur but that could be from the resized upload.

Thanks Guys
 

Wow guys thanks for your efforts.

I really need to download your results as I can have them all on screen at the same time. It will be easier to tie your comments together that way.

Taken me a bit of time to return here after logging on, as I have been in Duncans colour mode thread. Phew !!

Don

Stephen. All the rest?

Well yes it took all of 40 secs to do.

The difference in all the various efforts where so minor that I made the comment

"I notice that there are only very slight differences in all the varations, which suggests Don got it all spot on"

Harry

My intrepretation for what it is worth

Just going to post my observations Rob, just in case you guys thought I'd nodded of. I will hold off and add to what I have written so far.

Thanks for the contribution.

Don

Watching Hustle at the same time so I will go off and come back later

Don

Well I have had a good look and my origonal does appear flat in comparison to all your efforts.

In my opinion there are two pairs with suble differences within each pair. Christine & Stephen - Harry & Adey

Both Christine and Stephens have added a warmth that has lifted the colours - very obvious in the plant on the left side as it has brought colour to it. The left tree trunk appears similar. The touch of saturation in Christines has made a huge difference to the foreground, while appearing more subtle in the fresh foliage. No apparent colour change in the bluebells.

Harry and Adey have very similar tones in the tree trunk as has Gerry despite his greater saturation. Harry and Adeys appear to be very similar in colour even to the plant on the left side by the tree trunk. Top marks to Adey on the foreground. I have just tried this out but lots more practice needed.
I do not know how to reduce saturation to see if before that step there would have been a greater similarity of Gerry's with Harry and Adeys.

Additional with Robs contribution. On my screen Robs appears to be mid point between the 2 pairs in the strength of colour difference.

The real advantage for me was being able to see all versions on the same screen, and how close you all came with the end result.

For info as colour modes seem to have become a bit of a buzz, the camera is set to sRGB.


What have I learnt .......
Be consevative in what you do.
Use of layers
Dodging and burning.
In one day .................................................. ....................... thats loads. Thanks for your efforts.

Don

Cheeky is here again.

Trying to find a non traction engine dead shot that I have not trashed. This is one I did not trash but also have not yet found an answer to.

OK this is a bit more open to what you want to do, crop etc as it is currently full frame.
Classic case of things appearing in the picture that you did not see at the time or intend.

Bit of a snap shot. White a bit blown so probably not a lot that can be done ( stop laughing Stephen !! )

I attatch the image - on its side to give reasonable file size and an upright crop that shows the problem.

The real problem shows up in the crop. The weeds growing up below the water appear like scratches. Is this a bin job or can something be done. The tricky bit as I see it is that the lead swan cannot be blown anymore.

Don

I've cropped it a bit to emphasise the birds and the diagonal of the RH bank cutting out the unnecessary top bit of the river and the bottom with its eye-catching blue reflection (it's also got rid of some of those submerged weeds in the process!)

I also added some saturation to the greens and de-saturated the blues a bit but it doesn't seem to show up much in the final image!

My first effort

1.I duplicated the layer then used clone and healing brush to get rid of grass underwater.
2. An ajustment layer for curves lighten the midtones and hold back highlights + a very small amount of hue/saturation. +2


I tried to burn highlight out but wouldn't do it they are to blown.

Going walk about for a bit
 

A quick thanks for your work so far.

I will probably be missing for a bit as I now have a MORE POWER toy to set up.:D

Don

New computer I bet.

Yes and shed loads of power. Well it will have when I get it up and running. 2 gigs RAM.

In anticipation of learning loads here and the upcomming Nikon NX, I thought I should do something now, may get away with the spend in this financial year.:D

Got in before any change of mind by the management.:rolleyes:

Not allowed to play until tomorrow though.:(

Don

I should have mentioned I will still use the laptop to stay in touch with the problems faced by those with more modest machines.

Don

Aww shucks, can't play. You will definately need new software to go on machine,;) I can always learn and teach at same time;)

Christine,

The reasoning behind still using the laptop and duplicating what goes on here is best illustrated by my stitch in Snowyowls thread. I ran out of RAM very quickly and so the whole thing took about 1/2 hour.

Don