Too much editing?

C

Chumpalot

Suspended / Banned
Messages
669
Edit My Images
Yes
I was out taking some pictures of my girlfriend's car yesterday and everything went well. I got home, loaded up the pictures and had a quick browse through them to weed out the non-starters.

When editing them, I noticed that nearly all of them benefited from me bumping up the temperature and saturation sliders in PS.

Is this related to white balance in any way? The difference in the pictures when I'd finished with them was rather pleasing. Greens were greener, the gravel had more colour etc...

I'm wondering whether I have a setting on my camera which I could change so that I don''t have to edit all the time.

Many thanks for your help

Dave
 
Not familiar with your camera, but did you have WB set on Auto or was it perhaps incorrectly set.

Could your pics have been a bit over exposed perhaps ?

Think I edit a few things in every pic I take.
 
Thanks for the comments.

I have white balance set to custom. I'll try fiddling with this setting and see what happens. There wasn't much light around to be fair and there wasn't much saturation in the pics.

Yes, I shoot in raw.
 
Jayst84 said:
Do you shoot in raw? If so, all raw files need processing.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by processing ? I shoot in RAW but PS converts it to something i can save as a tiff or jpg, should i be processing the image further or is this conversion what you mean by 'needs processing'?
 
Depending on what software you have, you could try making some changes to the picture styles. Lightroom will read these and make the appropriate adjustment.

Custom WB means you've got it set to something not on the list. Maybe you've set this using some custom WB tool. To be honest I shoot RAW and tend to leave it on "Sunny". The only time I change it is when I'm shooting Tungsten.

If you are only applying small tweaks I wouldn't get to worried. Probably whatever you set the camera to would probably mean some small adjustments anyway. Most RAW editors allow you to do a batch adjustment anyway so it's not a real problem to add a group setting to the images, I do it all the time. Then you can make individual changes if need be
 
Chappers said:
Depending on what software you have, you could try making some changes to the picture styles. Lightroom will read these and make the appropriate adjustment.

Custom WB means you've got it set to something not on the list. Maybe you've set this using some custom WB tool. To be honest I shoot RAW and tend to leave it on "Sunny". The only time I change it is when I'm shooting Tungsten.

If you are only applying small tweaks I wouldn't get to worried. Probably whatever you set the camera to would probably mean some small adjustments anyway. Most RAW editors allow you to do a batch adjustment anyway so it's not a real problem to add a group setting to the images, I do it all the time. Then you can make individual changes if need be
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll take a look at the WB setting I'm using and try sunny instead. :thumbs:
 
Here are some pics, full size images on my flickr

Before:
3628976834_ccc0339986.jpg


After:
3628979368_ec4f92e9a1.jpg


As you can see from even the thumbnails, colours are more vibrant and I think the picture has benefited from the editing.

Thoughts welcome.
 
I think its easy to over-process and for me its not something I like to see. I do hold my hands up though as being guilty of it sometimes.

What you have done looks subtle and nicely enhances whats already in the picture. I like the improved version.
 
Quaker said:
I think its easy to over-process and for me its not something I like to see. I do hold my hands up though as being guilty of it sometimes.

What you have done looks subtle and nicely enhances whats already in the picture. I like the improved version.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I want to steer clear from. I don't want my pictures to look overprocessed and fake.
 
Is it the standard 3.0 or the TT?

I so want one of these but my only issue is the petrol costs, may get a TT as a weekend car :D
 
this custom wb? What is it set to? That is probably your issue.

To me the 2nd is slightly oversaturated, I would be looking for something in between (I'm not on a calibrated monitor atm though.)

Whats the circle thing?
 
who? said:
this custom wb? What is it set to? That is probably your issue.

To me the 2nd is slightly oversaturated, I would be looking for something in between (I'm not on a calibrated monitor atm though.)

Whats the circle thing?
Click to expand...

Glare from the sun. I picked this picture at random just to show my editing.

I'll have to check the setting on the camera when I get in from work.
 
Do you change the white balance for different light conditions? The white balance should be set depending on the colour temperature of the light on the subject, so you can't use one setting for different light conditions.

It is easier to correct white balance on a RAW image.

Take a look at the following link for more info: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm
 
Morganc said:
Do you change the white balance for different light conditions? The white balance should be set depending on the colour temperature of the light on the subject, so you can't use one setting for different light conditions.

It is easier to correct white balance on a RAW image.

Take a look at the following link for more info: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm
Click to expand...

No, I use the same custom WB for most occasions.

I think it's obvious that I need to do some experimentation in this area. Thank you for the link, I'll have a read when I get home and see if I can't sort this out.
 
Right, having played around outside for a little bit I've decided to keep it on the 'Cloudy' white balance preset. This to my eyes gives a more natural colour as opposed to the washed out colours I was getting using my custom settings.
 
Huujuu said:
What do you mean by processing ? I shoot in RAW but PS converts it to something i can save as a tiff or jpg, should i be processing the image further or is this conversion what you mean by 'needs processing'?
Click to expand...

Raw files have heaps of data in them, so generally look a bit flat and washed out. You generally need to add a bit of contrast and sharpening, saturation, etc. in order to get the file looking 'right.'

As opposed to shooting JPEGs when the camera would process the file and do that for you.

To the OP: For my eye, your edit is slightly warm and a touch over saturated. Somewhere in-between the two would work for me. But it looks like you're just dealing with basic raw processing. So no, not too much editing. :thumbs:
 
Jayst84 said:
Raw files have heaps of data in them, so generally look a bit flat and washed out. You generally need to add a bit of contrast and sharpening, saturation, etc. in order to get the file looking 'right.'

As opposed to shooting JPEGs when the camera would process the file and do that for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, it explains one or two things.......(six months down the line of photography) I just presumed 'open with PS' and 'save as' would give the most accurate image. More excuses to fiddle :thumbs:Thanks again.

ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top