Post Shooting...

[gravity0]

I'm a noob and have shot in RAW ever since I bought the 40D. I can see my pictures getting better in the camera, but post shooting, upon placing the pictures in the computer they're not as good. I just found out that RAW photos look dull without some PS help. What would you recomend me do or read to get my pictures looking better. I'm a little familiar with PS but still new at it. I took a class that taught a little about Curves, layers, sharpness but I'm still new to it all. What are the normal procedures of getting "popping" pictures.

Thanks,

Grav

 

[Big Mike]

It sounds like you need to develop you 'workflow'.

Just about everyone has their own, unique workflow....so you just have to find what works for you.

I got a bunch of great info on The Luminous Landscape
you might want to check out this...

In-depth Workflow Example

 

[gravity0]

As always thanks Big Mike. You're right I do but the funny thing is I don't know what I'm doing right now. PS is so huge that I believe it's going to take me years to get right. Not only that but say I start my own work flow, then realize a certain thing PS does later on that could have worked on a previous picture. I guess that's the beauty of a hobby.

 

[Big Mike]

Plenty of people 'evolve' their workflow...then go back to photos they took years before and re-process them with different results.

It's a constant learning process and the best way to learn is to practice. There are also tons and tons of tutorials on the web...just search them out.

Also, consider getting Lightroom. It integrates with Photoshop but it revolutionizes the workflow process.

 

[gravity0]

How is Lr different than Bridge? That's what I'm using at the moment.

 

[KmH]

I'm a noob and have shot in RAW ever since I bought the 40D. I can see my pictures getting better in the camera, but post shooting, upon placing the pictures in the computer they're not as good. I just found out that RAW photos look dull without some PS help. What would you recomend me do or read to get my pictures looking better. I'm a little familiar with PS but still new at it. I took a class that taught a little about Curves, layers, sharpness but I'm still new to it all. What are the normal procedures of getting "popping" pictures.

Thanks,

Grav

There are no normal procedures, it varies from image to image. It seems everyone today is looking for the easy button or want the final result right now without having to work for it. Things that are worth learning usually are not easy and can take literally years to learn.

First you need to really understand Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). You want to optimize your image in ACR before you open it in the Photoshop workspace.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Camera-Digital-Photographers-Only/dp/0470224576/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239838261&sr=1-1"]ACR for Digital Photographers[/ame]


Once the image is open in Photoshop:

• duplicate the image (Image>Duplicate) NEVER EDIT THE ORIGINAL
• do all the adjustments that can be done in 16-bit mode
• convert to 8-bit, complete your adjustments
• crop, if necessary
• sharpen using the appropriate technique for that image.
• save a master file (including all layers .psd or layered .tif) of the now edited duplicate image
• save to the file format of choice for presentation (.jpg or .tif)

You don't mention which version of Photoshop you have. Suffice to say that book learning is still the best learning tool for most people and you have a ready reference if you keep them close to the computer.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Scott+Kelby&x=17&y=22"]Here is a list of Photoshop books [/ame]written by the #1 Photoshop author. Pick the one(s) for your version of Photoshop. Join the National Association of Photoshop Professionals and frequent their forums and browse their tutorials. Join lynda.com.
I also highly recommend [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-CS4-Workflow-Digital-Photographers/dp/0470381280/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239838079&sr=8-1"]this book[/ame] (Photoshop CS4 Workflow) or one like it if you don't have CS4.

Lightroom can do some interesting things but it cannot alter pixels. It is not an image editor. Actually, Lightroom is an image database manager.

If you want to alter pixels you have to do it in an image editor like Photoshop.

 

[gravity0]

There are no normal procedures, it varies from image to image. It seems everyone today is looking for the easy button or want the final result right now without having to work for it. Things that are worth learning usually are not easy and can take literally years to learn.

I understand this quite well, if I had this attitude I wouldn't have a BS degree. I wasn't looking for critisism I was looking for a place to start. I know this hobby isn't going to be easy, h3ll if it was I'd get bored of it, like most hobbies I've tried. So thanks for pointing me on a path, now I can make my own trail. :thumbup:

 

[Big Mike]

Lightroom can do some interesting things but it cannot alter pixels. It is not an image editor. Actually, Lightroom is an image database manager.
If you want to alter pixels you have to do it in an image editor like Photoshop.

That is actually one of Lightroom's best features....it's a non-destructive workflow.

Lightroom is primarily a 'workflow' software. It helps you do basic things to a large number of image in a very efficient manor. It also helps you organize and control your digital photos.

Lightroom has added several tools that do help with image editing and many photographers are finding that they are using Lightroom more and Photoshop less but it will not replace Photoshop as a pure image editing program.

As mentioned, one of the best things about Lightroom is the non-destructive workflow. Basically, when you have images in LR and you make adjustments, those adjustments are saved in a separate file. So you can make hundreds of changes, opening and closing it as much as you want...the integrity of the image remains unsullied. The edits are only applied to the image when you output.

 

[LarryD]

Grav,

I've read all posts...but I'm going to go back to your original post..

. You say that you shoot in RAW, and your in-camera shots look better than your computer downloads...

This is almost always true... Your in-camera look (LCD) is showing you a processed image, not the RAW image. If you shoot in JPEG, then your downloaded image would more closely look like the in-camera look. But, JPEG throws out a lot of data, so you do want to shoot in RAW.

. You say that you found out that your RAW photos need PS help. This is not necessarily true. Your Canon came with Digital Photo Professional software specifically for processing RAW data.. This software allows you to adjust the photo in a number of ways to make it "pop", and then convert and save it to a variety of different formats such as TIF or JPEG that do not require any other processing.

. PS is a powerful tool, but you should have the best product possible before you get there..DPP allows this and can be seen as processing the negative; PS can then be seen as producing the final print

(of course, other RAW software does too)

 

[gravity0]

Mike,

How is LR different than Bridge.

 

[Big Mike]

Here is an excerpt from '[ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Inside-Lightroom-serious-photographers-efficiency/dp/0240811429"]Inside Lightroom 2[/ame]' by Richard Earney

Why choose Lightroom?
Lightroom is not the only application out there that off ers some
of these features, Apple’s Aperture and even Adobe’s Photoshop
off er some or all of the functionality of Lightroom. So, in part, the
choice will be down to you and what you feel comfortable with.
For those users who have Photoshop CS3 and above, Lightroom
may seem to replicate a lot of functionality, and you would be
correct to think that, but Lightroom’s advantage is its packaging
of the photographic functionality of Photoshop, Bridge and
Camera Raw into one application with some added benefi ts.
If you are currently a Photoshop CS3 user, you possess
applications that off er similar features to Lightroom’s modules.
Bridge is, in passing, and equivalent to the Library and Slideshow
modules, the Camera Raw Plug-in is equivalent to the Develop
module and Photoshop off ers Web, Print (although at a slightly
lesser level) and Export functionality compared with the
Slideshow, Web and Print modules.

However, Lightroom’s selling points are that it is an all-inone
package, it is solely aimed at photographers, and it uses
a database to off er metadata, cataloging and searching
capabilities way beyond those of Bridge. All the editing takes
place parametrically, whereas once you have brought an image
into Photoshop, you are editing at the pixel level. (This can
be mitigated by using Adjustment Layers and Smart Filters,
but most image editing in Photoshop will have a measure of
destructiveness.
Photoshop is a massive and wonderful application, but
photographers are a small part of its user base, so there are
many features in Photoshop that will never be needed. Since
Photoshop is a part of the Creative Suite there is an expectation
that it is part of a suite aimed at Illustrators, Designers, and Art
Directors, as well as Photographers.
Over the years the code-base has become enormous and
complex, whereas Lightroom is programmed to be agile and
easily extensible. A good example of this is that Adobe was

relatively easily able to make Lightroom run in 64 bit mode, but
has found the job much harder in Photoshop. The Mac version
of Photoshop won’t be 64 bit until version CS5, whereas the
Windows version will be in CS4.
Bridge is also designed to be more than a photographic
application. Its aim is to be a media cataloging and management
tool for the whole of Adobe’s Creative Suite, so it is capable of
managing PDFs, EPS, InDesign, Flash fi les, Web graphics and
more. It was originally a simple fi le browser and while it has
grown up to be a more useful application than that, it is still
aimed at a diff erent purpose than Lightroom. If you had to
compare it with another application iView Media Pro (or as it now
is Microsoft Expression Media) would be the nearest equivalent.
iView certainly used to be the darling of the Digital Asset
Management world, but the impression is that is has suff ered
under the ownership of Microsoft.
Lightroom’s original goal was to aim for ‘ unreasonable simplicity ’
in its approach. Version 2 has, of course, gone a bit further than
that, but the engineers still use this as their mantra when adding
new features. Sometimes this can lead to puzzling omissions
from the feature set; version 1 came without dual monitor
support which led to some users complaining that the software
was ‘ unusable ’ because it lacked it. But the reasoning was that the
application was perfectly usable without it and because it had
been designed to work with one monitor there was no ‘ absolute
need ’ to include it. So if a feature was deemed a nice-to-have
rather than a ‘ must have ’ , it might not make it into the feature set.
Version 2 has relaxed this strict attitude somewhat but there are
still features that some users consider ‘ essential ’ that are missing.
Partly this is due to the aforementioned unreasonable simplicity
rule and partly because the Lightroom team is relatively small
compared with others in Adobe. This coupled with release date
time constraints tends to lead to some ‘ interesting ’ exchanges
between users on the various forums dedicated to Lightroom!
Lighroom is a stand-alone application, but is also beholden to
simultaneous releases with Adobe Camera Raw, and Lightroom
releases generally can’t get in the way of Photoshop releases.
Lightroom tends to be on a more frequent release schedule than
Photoshop, which tends to be updated every 18 months. So there are
extra pressures on the Lightroom team to release in a timely fashion.