Silk Purse from a Sow's Ear

[ksmattfish]

I've read/heard it a million times: "...fix it in Photoshop...", "Anyone can take a bad photo and make it worth looking at in Photoshop", "Digital processing is too easy", etc.... You know what I mean.

So let's see them! Post before and after photos of crappy snapshots or just lame photos that you've turned into masterpieces in Photoshop. I want to see your shinola from sh*t. If you post crap, and then turn it into fancy crap I'll call you on it. I want to see the photos that came out of the camera damaged and/or flawed, and were repaired and fixed up in Photoshop, Lightroom, whatever... to the level of being good, quality photographs.

[Ads]

[Chris Stegner]

I'd hate to see this post turn into something ugly... but...

Can I assume that every shot you take is dead on in every aspect?

I shot film quite a while ago and I never processed and printed a photo "straight up". That is to say every film image needs some "tweeking" either in processing or while printing.

The same goes for digital. Yes, I process in Photoshop, and no the finals typically do not look like the originals. If they did I'd shoot JPGs not RAW.

I guess I'm a tad confused with your post in that I wonder if you think EVERY image you shoot is good out of the camera? And your comment about "Anyone can take a bad photo and make it wrth looking at in Photoshop" doesn't make sense either. A bad photo is a bad photo. The exposure, color, and all the technical aspects of a photo are not the only things that make a photo "good". You can't fix composition in Photoshop can you?

Again, I don't want to start people ranting over this post... but I did have to throw out my questions and opinions.

[stsinner]

Here is some photoshop work that I'm particularly proud of.. I'd been struggling with PS for a while, and now I think I've got it!

As shot:




And with a little Photoshop magic:

[stsinner]

I guess I'm a tad confused with your post in that I wonder if you think EVERY image you shoot is good out of the camera?

Not that he can't speak for himself, but I don't think he's suggesting that. He does excellent work and likely processes the pictures a bit, himself..

What I got out of his post is that some people think they can take CRAP pictures and save them with Photoshop, and he's calling them on that-the people that think Photoshop makes everything better.

[ksmattfish]

I guess I'm a tad confused with your post...

I believe processing is vital. I believe there are no photographs at all without processing. But some (many) people talk about "fixing it in Photoshop" as if any goofball can turn a poorly exposed snapshot, or even something technically competent, but boring into an exciting, stimulating photograph using digital processing software. Since it's a common attitude I assume there must be lots of examples; I want to see them.

This challenge is supposed to be tongue in cheek and fun. My point is to prove that "fixing it in Photoshop" is harder than people often credit it. My own experience is that when I try to fancy up a lousy photo, I end up with a fancier, lousier photo. But have fun; I love Stsinner's "Photoshop magic"!!! You should make us a video tutorial.

[ksmattfish]

What I got out of his post is that some people think they can take CRAP pictures and save them with Photoshop, and he's calling them on that-the people that think Photoshop makes everything better.

I don't even think many people believe that they can fix their own mistakes in Photoshop. Everyone I know from newbs to old hats try to get it as right as possible in the camera, and then also try to do their best in processing too, but posts I regularly see (here and elsewhere) infer that many digital photogs are running around shooting willy nilly, and polishing up turds in PS.

So I'm not jabbing at those who try to fix or process or manipulate their photos. I'm jabbing at the folks who don't have a clue about Photoshop or digital processing and think it takes little or no skill.

[stsinner]

I love Stsinner's "Photoshop magic"!!! You should make us a video tutorial.

Glad it didn't piss you off.. I was cracking up as I posted it.. I do love that picture I took of that Seagull, as it was a chance shot, and, yes, I did sharpen it in PS.. I was at 300mm, so it was soft.

P.S. I'm still working my way through your reception shots... sheesh-253 of them, but you sure do some fine work.

[Arch]

So I'm not jabbing at those who try to fix or process or manipulate their photos. I'm jabbing at the folks who don't have a clue about Photoshop or digital processing and think it takes little or no skill.

This i agree with.

What I got out of his post is that some people think they can take CRAP pictures and save them with Photoshop, and he's calling them on that-the people that think Photoshop makes everything better.

Crap photos can be made into good images using photoshop.. and photoshop can make everything better. You just have to be good at it... it needs as much dedication (if not more) than the act of taking a photo.

[Battou]

I don't even think many people believe that they can fix their own mistakes in Photoshop. Everyone I know from newbs to old hats try to get it as right as possible in the camera, and then also try to do their best in processing too, but posts I regularly see (here and elsewhere) infer that many digital photogs are running around shooting willy nilly, and polishing up turds in PS.

So I'm not jabbing at those who try to fix or process or manipulate their photos. I'm jabbing at the folks who don't have a clue about Photoshop or digital processing and think it takes little or no skill.

I'm one of those guys who preferrs to get it right in the camera so I can sharpen and go, but ironically I do have a **** up that I put some serious effort into fixing. I'd post it but....photoshop plays so little of a roll in fixing it I dunno if it counts

This one took work in the scanner, photoshop, photomatix and MS photodraw and when I posted it asking if it passed or faild the replies I got to it are indicitive that I ain't done yet.

[ksmattfish]

I'd post it but....photoshop plays so little of a roll in fixing it I dunno if is counts This one took work in the scanner, photoshop, photomatix and MS photodraw and from the replies I got to it I ain't done yet.

The rules are pretty loose here. I say post it. It's not so much about the brand of software, it's just that PS gets mentioned most. Even examples of fixing it in the darkroom are okay, although it's funny how the attitude towards that sort of processing and manipulation is often different.

For me getting it right in the camera is not enough. Creating a photograph must be done with an eye on the entire process from start to finished photograph. Whether I'm shooting film or digital, whether I'm doing the processing and printing, or hiring someone else to do it, I still need to know how what I do in the field will be affected by what will be done in the lab (digital or chemical) and the strengths and limitations of the tools and materials that will be used.

[Ls3D]

I enjoy your enthusiasm! $100 to pick the print or $100 paid if your wrong,.. and now this.

While I agree there is nothing to be done for a sub-par shot, I can't see making a cause out of the under-informed masses, tuning into the dirty part of the signal to noise ratio here and then taking action.

Not to invalidate your thread or postulations, just a concern for one who listens, sees, and is touched.

-Shea

[Battou]

The rules are pretty loose here. I say post it. It's not so much about the brand of software, it's just that PS gets mentioned most. Even examples of fixing it in the darkroom are okay, although it's funny how the attitude towards that sort of processing and manipulation is often different.

Ok, I will have to rescan it at the scanners default setting so yall can get a truer idear of how screwed up it was since I made major adjustments in the scanner it self. But lets put it this way for the time being, When I scanned it with the scanners darkest exposure compensation (roughly two stops) I had a big white rectangle with some faint green spots. It looked much like a proper exposure scanned at the lightest exposure compensation.

I'll rescan them quickley after work and post those as well as the adjusted scans and the results when I come in to work tonight. But for now I'll just link to the Pass or Fail inquery as I am so unprepaired for posting a full out post at the moment.

[ksmattfish]

Here's one of mine.

This is the original raw file as it opened in Adobe Camera raw without any adjustments. Obviously some fill flash, and maybe a polarizer would've been the right way to do it.



Here's what I ended up with. This is several years old so I don't remember exactly what I did, but I know it involved masking together several different versions of the original raw file, converting the image to BW using several different channel mixer recipes, and then masking them together, and probably way too much fiddling with the local contrast using curves and USM.



I do like the tweaked one better than the straight original, but it would've looked nicer (and been much easier to do) with some fill flash in the first place.

[rufus5150]

I'll bite on this one. I realize when shrunk this far though, the 'new' version looks overly sharp (at 6x9 printed, it's not).



And after the photoshop session:

[stsinner]

Great job, Rufus... You did superb with the hue and contrast.. Looks like an HDR..