C&C Por Favor

[Malone]

I can tell just by looking at the photos. I'm a retired college photo teacher -- still teach 1 or 2 classes now part-time. About 5 years ago I passed the 1/4 million student photo mark. I've looked carefully at a lot of photos.

Joe

Ooh, we have a Mr. Miyagi in our presence.

 

[clanthar]

I can tell just by looking at the photos. I'm a retired college photo teacher -- still teach 1 or 2 classes now part-time. About 5 years ago I passed the 1/4 million student photo mark. I've looked carefully at a lot of photos.

Joe

Ooh, we have a Mr. Miyagi in our presence.

Ha ha -- right, I've just been doing this for 35 years -- had to learn something in that much time.

Joe

 

[Tkot]

The flower photos are not underexposed; they have compressed tonal ranges and need Levels corrections.

Joe

Could you tell that just from looking at the photo or did you look at the Histogram to learn that? If you picked that up just from eyeballing it... nice...

I can tell just by looking at the photos. I'm a retired college photo teacher -- still teach 1 or 2 classes now part-time. About 5 years ago I passed the 1/4 million student photo mark. I've looked carefully at a lot of photos.

Joe

Awesome, and congratulations!

So what I did in that last shot I posted was adjust the levels. Does it look better than the other ones to you? If not, what should I have done?

 

[clanthar]

So what I did in that last shot I posted was adjust the levels. Does it look better than the other ones to you? If not, what should I have done?

You have the right idea -- the photo needs a contrast increase and Levels would be an appropriate way to do that. Traveler first edited the photo and used Curves to increase contrast, which would normally also be appropriate.

However this is a difficult subject and a tricky photo. I assume the original is a camera JPEG from your D3000. The camera's image processor has already damaged the photo by badly clipping the red channel. As a result detail recorded in the rose petals is being lost. Raising contrast with a Levels and/or Curves adjustment to the RGB composite will only exacerbate the damage in the red channel.

Did you edit the photo before sizing and posting it? Pressing the "auto adjust" button in something like iPhoto or Lightroom could have also caused the damage in which case I'm accusing your camera unfairly.

So this photo is actually a repair job -- to the extent possible. Here's a fair effort:

I was able to recover some of the detail in the rose petals and get the contrast up. I used Photoshop: I used Levels but I started by converting the photo to Lab mode so that I could apply Levels to only the Luminosity channel. This permits the contrast boost while not making the red channel terribly worse. While still in Levels I went to the "b" channel and shifted the color balance a little to remove the blue cast. Then I used Hue/Saturation on the reds/magentas to recover some detail in the flower petals. Finally I sharpened it.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[Tkot]

Yeah, it's a jpeg from the D3000. I did edit it before posting, and you hit the nail on the head, I hit the enhance button in iPhoto. Is that a no no? Unfortunately I only have GIMP and I don't know how to use it, so at the moment I'm confined editing via iPhoto.

And nice edit! Thanks for outlining how you did it also!

 

[clanthar]

Yeah, it's a jpeg from the D3000. I did edit it before posting, and you hit the nail on the head, I hit the enhance button in iPhoto. Is that a no no? Unfortunately I only have GIMP and I don't know how to use it, so at the moment I'm confined editing via iPhoto.

And nice edit! Thanks for outlining how you did it also!

Yep, that's a no no. Here's your bottom line: Software can't see. It doesn't matter if it's in the camera or on your computer. Software like iPhoto is created for the consumer market on the working assumption that you're blind and want to stay that way. So there's no "push a button" software solution. If you think about it, how could a computer algorithm determine there was a minor blue color cast in that photo? Odds are iPhoto put it there. At best software could check white values but that assumes something very light in the photo really was white -- can't make that assumption.

These are much the same thing: an in camera JPEG and pressing the "auto" button in some editing program. In either case you're asking software to do a job it really can't do. Both usually do harm as happened with your photo. This then puts you the photographer between that old rock and hard place. You ultimately must decide to live with what you increasingly see as inadequate output from the technology or you roll up your sleeves and learn to do it yourself.

Joe

 

[Tkot]

Yep, that's a no no. Here's your bottom line: Software can't see. It doesn't matter if it's in the camera or on your computer. Software like iPhoto is created for the consumer market on the working assumption that you're blind and want to stay that way. So there's no "push a button" software solution. If you think about it, how could a computer algorithm determine there was a minor blue color cast in that photo? Odds are iPhoto put it there. At best software could check white values but that assumes something very light in the photo really was white -- can't make that assumption.

These are much the same thing: an in camera JPEG and pressing the "auto" button in some editing program. In either case you're asking software to do a job it really can't do. Both usually do harm as happened with your photo. This then puts you the photographer between that old rock and hard place. You ultimately must decide to live with what you increasingly see as inadequate output from the technology or you roll up your sleeves and learn to do it yourself.

Joe

I see... Man, that means I have to learn RAW, and GIMP/Photoshop now..... INFORMATION OVERLOAD!

Any tips on how to start?

 

[clanthar]

Yep, that's a no no. Here's your bottom line: Software can't see. It doesn't matter if it's in the camera or on your computer. Software like iPhoto is created for the consumer market on the working assumption that you're blind and want to stay that way. So there's no "push a button" software solution. If you think about it, how could a computer algorithm determine there was a minor blue color cast in that photo? Odds are iPhoto put it there. At best software could check white values but that assumes something very light in the photo really was white -- can't make that assumption.

These are much the same thing: an in camera JPEG and pressing the "auto" button in some editing program. In either case you're asking software to do a job it really can't do. Both usually do harm as happened with your photo. This then puts you the photographer between that old rock and hard place. You ultimately must decide to live with what you increasingly see as inadequate output from the technology or you roll up your sleeves and learn to do it yourself.

Joe

I see... Man, that means I have to learn RAW, and GIMP/Photoshop now..... INFORMATION OVERLOAD!

Any tips on how to start?

You've already started. You bought a DSLR with high-end features because you wanted to be more serious about photography. In this photo you took the trouble to use the camera's manual WB presets. That means you'd already learned that "auto" WB is a joke. You can try and stave off the RAW file switch by taking the next step in that same direction. Get a white balance card and start using the camera's custom WB feature. Then learn to manually edit those JPEGs for tone response, but you know about RAW capture and you know a lot of Pros work that way for good reason.

I should add that there is an exception here and you'll find the debate at times can be heated in this regard: Photographers who are in business selling for example wedding and portrait photos will often chose to stick with in-camera JPEGs because they shoot so much volume (1,000 exposures at a wedding for example). The fact is their clients aren't sensitive enough to see the difference, (they'd have been happy with your originally posted photo), and so if the customer is happy and time is money and the job expectation is to deliver a DVD with 800 wedding pics on it then the camera stays set to JPEG. It's a legit choice and once made the thing to do is help the camera make as good a JPEG as possible so it can be delivered with little or no editing. The camera engineers put a lot of effort into supporting these folks.

But if you want the best possible photo you and your camera can deliver then you'll eventually make the move to RAW. Your camera came with a RAW converter, Capture NX, which will produce a better JPEG under your guidance than the camera's software produces alone. That's your next step. Lightroom is another option which blends a RAW converter with a database, but in both cases, Capture NX and/or Lightroom you're still missing an image editor.

GIMP is serviceable, but only to tweak those JPEGs. It won't handle the RAW files and it won't handle 16 bit images which is one of the big reasons to shoot RAW in the first place. Eventually Photoshop is the final answer. Check out your local community college bookstore and price the student version of Photoshop -- around $200.00. Become a student. Take a 1 credit PE class and get Photoshop.

Joe

 

[Tkot]

You've already started. You bought a DSLR with high-end features because you wanted to be more serious about photography. In this photo you took the trouble to use the camera's manual WB presets. That means you'd already learned that "auto" WB is a joke. You can try and stave off the RAW file switch by taking the next step in that same direction. Get a white balance card and start using the camera's custom WB feature. Then learn to manually edit those JPEGs for tone response, but you know about RAW capture and you know a lot of Pros work that way for good reason.

I should add that there is an exception here and you'll find the debate at times can be heated in this regard: Photographers who are in business selling for example wedding and portrait photos will often chose to stick with in-camera JPEGs because they shoot so much volume (1,000 exposures at a wedding for example). The fact is their clients aren't sensitive enough to see the difference, (they'd have been happy with your originally posted photo), and so if the customer is happy and time is money and the job expectation is to deliver a DVD with 800 wedding pics on it then the camera stays set to JPEG. It's a legit choice and once made the thing to do is help the camera make as good a JPEG as possible so it can be delivered with little or no editing. The camera engineers put a lot of effort into supporting these folks.

But if you want the best possible photo you and your camera can deliver then you'll eventually make the move to RAW. Your camera came with a RAW converter, Capture NX, which will produce a better JPEG under your guidance than the camera's software produces alone. That's your next step. Lightroom is another option which blends a RAW converter with a database, but in both cases, Capture NX and/or Lightroom you're still missing an image editor.

GIMP is serviceable, but only to tweak those JPEGs. It won't handle the RAW files and it won't handle 16 bit images which is one of the big reasons to shoot RAW in the first place. Eventually Photoshop is the final answer. Check out your local community college bookstore and price the student version of Photoshop -- around $200.00. Become a student. Take a 1 credit PE class and get Photoshop.

Joe

Thanks so much!

Could you explain what a "RAW Converter" like Capture NX does? I'm guessing it converts the RAW files to JPEG, but until you edit the RAW file doesn't that defeat the purpose?

 

[Scoody]

Jeez! I can't believe how much I learned from this one thread!

 

[The_Traveler]

One point that needs to be made for further threads is that this is not a question of 'getting it right in the camera.'

 

[clanthar]

Thanks so much!

Could you explain what a "RAW Converter" like Capture NX does? I'm guessing it converts the RAW files to JPEG, but until you edit the RAW file doesn't that defeat the purpose?

A RAW converter takes the data recorded by the camera and "converts" it to an RGB photo. That RGB photo can be a JPEG but it could also be a TIFF file. What's critical here is that the RAW data hasn't been processed. A number of tasks must be accomplished. A color space must be selected and the RAW data mapped to that color space. The tone response must be normalized and the white balance set. The image processor in your camera does all this to produce an in-camera JPEG. It relies on programed algorithms to get the job done. A RAW converter accomplishes the same task but with you at the controls and your eyes on the display. You can see, software can't. This conversion process IS editing the RAW file except that you never save changes to a RAW file -- think of it as a film negative which has to be printed. A RAW file has to be processed to an RGB photo. The program in your camera (Nikon's EXPEED processor) can do this but it might clip the highlights as it applies it's various algorithms, whereas you at the controls of the RAW converter could prevent that.

Joe

 

[johnh2005]

:hug:: to Clanthar. Wow, you really know your stuff. Very nice explanations here. Thank you so very much for all of the info you put forth here.

 

[clanthar]

:hug:: to Clanthar. Wow, you really know your stuff. Very nice explanations here. Thank you so very much for all of the info you put forth here.

Thanks for the compliment.

Joe

 

[Tkot]

Now I know who to go to on this forum when I can't understand the manual and want it spit back at me in plain English but with the same amount of information there. Thanks so much Clanthar!!!