PP Help & Guidance Please.

Jackal79

Jackal79

Suspended / Banned
Messages
88
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
Carl that’s a nice family set, as the comments in the other thread imply, they are a little dark and slightly over saturated.
I took the liberty of opening them in “Adobe Camera Raw” (ACR) and auto editing them; they all came up underexposed from 0.25 to 0.85 stops. The child on the slide being the 0.85.

If when opened in LR, you hit the auto button in the develop mode, you will see this.

However, I personally find the set pleasing and would be happy with them in the family album.

When I came into digital I did not know what I wanted, I knew what I liked from film and the darkroom. How to achieve what I liked from the dark art of digital was a mystery.
The auto button came to my rescue, not as a cure all but as a starting point.
I considered my camera skills as OK. So when I opened an image in Photoshop, hit auto and the software changed things, I would work between those parameters to get a picture I liked.

I say, “I liked” because I make images that please me, if others like them too, then that is a bonus.

Paid work is the place to please others.

Rhodese.
 
Rhodese said:
Carl that’s a nice family set, as the comments in the other thread imply, they are a little dark and slightly over saturated.
I took the liberty of opening them in “Adobe Camera Raw” (ACR) and auto editing them; they all came up underexposed from 0.25 to 0.85 stops. The child on the slide being the 0.85.

If when opened in LR, you hit the auto button in the develop mode, you will see this.

However, I personally find the set pleasing and would be happy with them in the family album.

When I came into digital I did not know what I wanted, I knew what I liked from film and the darkroom. How to achieve what I liked from the dark art of digital was a mystery.
The auto button came to my rescue, not as a cure all but as a starting point.
I considered my camera skills as OK. So when I opened an image in Photoshop, hit auto and the software changed things, I would work between those parameters to get a picture I liked.

I say, “I liked” because I make images that please me, if others like them too, then that is a bonus.

Paid work is the place to please others.

Rhodese.
Click to expand...

Hi Rhodese was there meant to be anything here :thinking:
 
Hello John, long time no talk :)

No , I mean if the button is clicked the exposure mod will be seen.

Rhodese.
 
Rhodese said:
Hello John, long time no talk :)

No , I mean if the button is clicked the exposure mod will be seen.

Rhodese.
Click to expand...

Right thanks for that (y)

I still look at the PP Game, & read your posts, but after taking part, every round, for a very long time I realised I wasn't enjoying as much as I had so I started (for the first time) looking in a wider part of TP - especially the critique sections which I am enjoying :)
 
Yes you could say they are a bit over saturated but hey do "pop" on he screen. I personally wouldn't get over worried about the saturation. It depends on what they look like on your screen. On calibrated iMac you could think of dialling the saturation back on a couple, however it depends on what effect you are looking at. Overall I wouldn't worry

What correction are you applying. Are you boosting the saturation, or just the vibrancy control. You can also get a bit more "snap" by reducing the darks slider just a tad rather than boosting the saturation/vibrance
 
Rhodese, thank you for the suggestions. If I'm totally honest, I didn't realise there was an auto button.

Rhodese said:
I say, “I liked” because I make images that please me, if others like them too, then that is a bonus.
Click to expand...

I like your thinking here as well.

Chappers, I used both the overall saturation control a touch, +8 if I remember correctly, and then did a few localised vibrancy alterations using the targeted tool. Maybe using both options was pushing it a little far?
 
DayDreamer said:
Right thanks for that (y)

I still look at the PP Game, & read your posts, but after taking part, every round, for a very long time I realised I wasn't enjoying as much as I had so I started (for the first time) looking in a wider part of TP - especially the critique sections which I am enjoying :)
Click to expand...

It's amazing how many sections there are- I ventured up north a couple of times when there was some nutter posting some entertaining stuff for a while- that was enjoyable while it lasted:D

New format in the 'how would you edit thread' for you John;). No pressure:D
 
Definitely oversaturated on my screen - the green of the grass is distracting, as is the blue of the hoodie. I've only recently switched to an ok monitor from a previous (bad) one and I've had to go through all of my photos and adjust - so perhaps my experience can be helpful...

Create a preset called "zero stuff" which clears out the contrast, clarity, vibrance and saturation to zero. You can do this by opening an image in develop mode and setting all of these four to zero, and then creating the preset which just has these four items checked (together with process version).

Then, back in library/grid mode select all of your photos and choose your "zero stuff" present to wipe out those four settings for all photos (you may wish to leave B&W conversions out of this, btw). Then you can start the more laborious process of checking the exposure for each photo individually - I'd suggest using the Auto contrast (and WB) settings liberally, but do remember to reset contrast to 0 after pressing auto exposure. On some you may wish to tweak some of these zeroed settings, but 0 is a better starting point than whatever was previously set.

Bear in mind, you can only do this effectively if your monitor is set up to show colours properly. Ideally this means calibrated, but you may be able cheat your way around that for a while. It's completely pointless if your colour settings are out of whack and your monitor is desaturating your images versus what we're seeing. For reference, I find 95% of my images look best with zero adjustment to contrast, clarity, vibrance and saturation... or, if anything, some negative adjustment dialled in. YMMV though.
 
Dr_O said:
It's amazing how many sections there are- I ventured up north a couple of times when there was some nutter posting some entertaining stuff for a while- that was enjoyable while it lasted:D

New format in the 'how would you edit thread' for you John;). No pressure:D
Click to expand...

May come back one day but ---------- :)
 
Thanks for your help and pointers Paul, I'll give them a go and see what happens.
 
Carl

Try using just vibrancy rather than saturation. Vibrancy affects the lower saturated colours and boosts those, leaving those that are well saturated alone. It's all a question of what you want, and how you see the images.
 
Chappers said:
Carl

Try using just vibrancy rather than saturation. Vibrancy affects the lower saturated colours and boosts those, leaving those that are well saturated alone. It's all a question of what you want, and how you see the images.
Click to expand...

I'll give it a shot. Thanks.
 
Loads better on my monitor. His clothes looks just like my son's - bright and vibrant but "real". The reflection at the top of the slide now also looks like just that - a reflection rather than the entrance to Chernobyl!

It's a very cute picture - nicely done!
 
pjm1 said:
Loads better on my monitor. His clothes looks just like my son's - bright and vibrant but "real". The reflection at the top of the slide now also looks like just that - a reflection rather than the entrance to Chernobyl!

It's a very cute picture - nicely done!
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Jackal79 said:
I posted a few images in the People & Portraits section a few days ago and the feedback I'm getting is that my images are a little over saturated and a little dark. @DayDreamer suggested I ask for some guidance and workflow suggestions here, so here I am. Any help/pointers would be great. I'm using Lightroom 5 for all my PP at the moment.

This is the original thread - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/out-about-in-the-park.541235/#post-6251427
Click to expand...


Do they look dark and oversaturated on YOUR monitor? If not, then it's a calibration issue.

Why not post up an unedited, straight from camera version of one of the images, and let use process it, and tell you how we did it. If you feel it's an improvement, then you'll have a method you can work with.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Do they look dark and oversaturated on YOUR monitor? If not, then it's a calibration issue.

Why not post up an unedited, straight from camera version of one of the images, and let use process it, and tell you how we did it. If you feel it's an improvement, then you'll have a method you can work with.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great idea. How do I get the original raw file to you?
 
Drop box is great for this. Free to download and install. It's bloody useful for a million other reasons too. You drop the file in your public drop box folder, and it automatically syncs with the cloud... then you can create a link to the file on the drop box website once it's synced... when I click on that link, I can download that file.

Fast, safe, and fee. Dropbox is brilliant: If you've never used it before, you need it in your life :)
 
I'll have a go later when I finish work. I'm sure others will have a go too.
 
I'll have a bash too. I suspect, like David, that it is a calibration issue as much as anything.
 
I've left his mum in for context.

14011647909_2768e37d9d_b.jpg
 
Dean, thank looks great on the monitor I'm on at the minute (work). What PP did you do to it in the end?
 
Hang on, I'l show you...
 
I'm not entirely happy with it and David will probably do a better job.
 
I did hardly anything. I didn't process these for effect or impact, or to alter them, I processed them for accuracy as viewed here on this screen - An Eizo ColorEdge CG303W, hardware calibrated using Eizo Color Navigator and a X-Rite i1-Diplay Pro to D65 - (6500K - Gamma 2.2, and luminance 120cd/m2). I've not even cropped them.

Exposure was pretty much accurate on each one. All I did was some shadow restoration... more so on the sunlit shot. Applied profiles, and some very light curves and sharpening. In other words, practically nothing. I did however make white balance adjustments to the shot with the slide, with had a little blue/cyan bias. The sunlit shot I thought looked pretty neutral, so I made no adjustments to WB on that one.

Shot 1:

IMG_1950.jpg





grass.jpg



Shot2:

IMG_1945.jpg



slide.jpg



Remember.. I've processed these for accuracy and realism so you can compare them on your screen. They are utterly neutral when viewed on my screen here now.


If these look too light on the OP's monitor, then the OP needs to calibrate.
 
Last edited:
David this is much more the job - well by my eye anyway - calmed down the overly done saturation (y)

Carl how about you :thinking:
 
Not much between mine and Dean's really. I think we were both processing for accuracy and realism, which, with shots like this is the way to go TBH. Just good, solid family snaps that you can enjoy for the rest of your life without post processing "trends" making them look kitsch in 20 years.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not much between mine and Dean's really. I think we were both processing for accuracy and realism, which, with shots like this is the way to go TBH. Just good, solid family snaps that you can enjoy for the rest of your life without post processing "trends" making them look kitsch in 20 years.
Click to expand...
Yep, half a stop exposure difference, but that's just a matter of preference really.

I'd have edited the other shot exactly the same as David too.
 
LR5 has a great NR engine.
 
Proud2btaff said:
I'm used to ones that do it for me lmao, is it easy to tweak the stings or are there settings that are recommended?
Click to expand...
Every shot is different. I rarely shoot above 3200 and with a D700 nothing is needed other than a little luminance slide. If you can't see the noise at viewing distance then leave it be. You'll be amazed how noisy an image can be and print absolutely great.
 
The23rdman said:
Every shot is different. I rarely shoot above 3200 and with a D700 nothing is needed other than a little luminance slide. If you can't see the noise at viewing distance then leave it be. You'll be amazed how noisy an image can be and print absolutely great.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dean. Having a play with it now and its not a bad program to use is it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top