how to process digital pics/ best website for photographers

[miller1899]

Morning

Two things. Firstly, does anyone have any recommendations for sites that will show me how to process photographs. I have been a photographer for a long time and have had plenty of stuff published. However, with digital I have almost felt as if I am starting at the beginning again and some of my pics look nothing like as good as they would have looked on Velvia.

Once that is sorted out, I am going to set up a website. I have always intended to use clikpics but before I take the plunge does anyone have any better suggestions.

Thanks all

Miller

[Simpo Two]

As for processing, shooting RAW and processing in Capture One seems to be the top option.

Presume you've already reached histogram/levels/curves?

[LongQ]

Phase One / Capture One have a series of videos and a regular blog section on their web site that shows and examples of image enhancement. Often they provide video to enhance the insights.

Often this falls to Peter Eastway who is a man of some talents and has a strong history in the photographic world. Mostly covers landscapes and the like these days.

Interestingly he also pops up from time to time in other places and has a recent item on the Luminous Landscape site that, he tells us, started off with a Capture One conversion from the original Phase One medium back digital file but is mainly processed using Photoshop.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/the...

Luminous Landscape itself also offers many insights and video based (paid for) tutorial downloads. I have not used them specifically but the samples offered as tempters from time to time have always been interesting.

If you have a specific genre or slection of genres in mind I would link a web search would quickly identify several sites for each of them for further investigation.

[MartinP]

Another excellent piece of software for processing RAW files and cataloging images is Adobe Lightroom (I don't want to derail this thread into a Lightroom vs Capture One debate though). Lots of video tutorials on the web for that too.

For a website ClikPic are pretty cheap for what you get but takes quite a lot of work (and web knowledge) to make it into something that doesn't look like every other ClikPic site out there. If you're not fussed by it looking like a template site then its very quick to get up and running. Probably lots of others to pick from at the same price point but if you want to spend a bit more I'd look at www.photobiz.com. With a huge choice of templates, they look so much more like a bespoke site. Really depends what you want to use the site for and your budget.

[coxyuk]

Have a search on YouTube. Both C1 and LR are excellent tools and for LR (and photoshop) You can get a plugin called Alien Skin exposure that allow you to recreate a Velvia look along with a variety of other films.

[coxyuk]

Also, Smugmug is worth checking out as an alternative to Clikpic

[IrateNinja]

Simpo Two said:

As for processing, shooting RAW and processing in Capture One seems to be the top option.

I haven't come across this before, I've had got Lightroom but struggle to really get along with it. I'll give it a try once my laptops back in action!

[coxyuk]

IrateNinja said:

I haven't come across this before, I've had got Lightroom but struggle to really get along with it. I'll give it a try once my laptops back in action!

I've used C1 for many years, it's a great RAW processor but, to be honest, if I were starting out now I'd focus my efforts on LR4. They key advantage of C1 use to be really good built in Camera profiles, LR now has these too and the ability to use plugins is a good bonus as is the lower price. That said you can get a trial download to see if you like it.

[LongQ]

coxyuk said:

IrateNinja said:

I haven't come across this before, I've had got Lightroom but struggle to really get along with it. I'll give it a try once my laptops back in action!

I've used C1 for many years, it's a great RAW processor but, to be honest, if I were starting out now I'd focus my efforts on LR4. They key advantage of C1 use to be really good built in Camera profiles, LR now has these too and the ability to use plugins is a good bonus as is the lower price. That said you can get a trial download to see if you like it.

I bought LR1. Liked it for what it was at the time but found I prefered LightZone overall.

LightZone is now somewhat defunct and LightRoom and Capture One both caught up with some (but not yet all) its features that I especially liked. Each of them have a few additional things that LZ didn;t have ... but then had LZ made it to version 4 this year who knows what it might have offered - it was 3 years ahead of the others in many ways when version 3 was released.

I looked at LR3 but was not overjoyed with the local processing option comapred to LightZone. Nor the overall flexibility.

Capture One is in many ways quite similar to LZ (Limited DAM, no Library to maintain all the time and so on) and at V6 introduced local adjustments and a number of other features that I like to work with. Plus, I came to realise, could somehow 'intuitively' produce great results from relatively simple tools (mostly simple and intuitive especially for the regular activities) without working up a sweat. Skin tones are a particular strength it seems to me, but by no means the only one. Of course I am mainly thinking RAW converter here. It works well with jpgs but then many programs could claim that. The real pleasure comes from working with RAW files.

LR4 is a fairly recent release. Capture One 6 has been around a while so it is likely that the next release is not too far away. It will be interesting to see what appears.

On the other hand if one regularly needs to replace backgrounds, blend images or generally do what I think of as graphics design and art work then something like Photoshop or any of the many similar products with appropriate features (and usually plug-ins of specifically targeted tools) will be required either as well as or instead of the base RAW convertor. If only shooting jpgs (and not considering video at all here) then liklihood is that Skipping LR, Capture One and similar programs altogether would not be detrimental to one's work.

[Dogsey]

coxyuk said:

Have a search on YouTube. Both C1 and LR are excellent tools and for LR (and photoshop) You can get a plugin called Alien Skin exposure that allow you to recreate a Velvia look along with a variety of other films.

I use Photoshop CS5 and Exposure 4 and I love how easy it is to apply different styles to photographs as well as adding sharpening, vignettes (either to add or correct) etc. with Exposure. Photoshop is now only used as a means to run Exposure and to crop, clean up dust marks, close out unwanted items etc.

[coxyuk]

Dogsey said:

I use Photoshop CS5 and Exposure 4 and I love how easy it is to apply different styles to photographs as well as adding sharpening, vignettes (either to add or correct) etc. with Exposure. Photoshop is now only used as a means to run Exposure and to crop, clean up dust marks, close out unwanted items etc.

I was finding the same so given a choice between an expensive RAW converter plus the expense of photoshop and then the plugin, LR and Exposure is a bargain IMHO

Edited by coxyuk on Saturday 9th June 17:38

[miller1899]

Very helpful indeed. I vaguely know what curves are - very vaguely - but any pointers would be very helpful. I like the Luminous Landscape site and have also read a couple of Alain Briot's books. I am always interested in the way that he avoids saturating things to death although sometimes I wonder if he goes too far in desaturating.

I suppose what I am after is a 'workflow'. I have got Adobe Elements 6 and I normally just fiddle around with contrast, saturation and hue etc and that is about it. Somewhere, the sharpness seems to have disappeared. I also struggle with the fact that wide-angles for digital always seem to be zooms. In the old days I used to put my 24mm Nikon on, whack the focusing round so it was hopefully hyperfocal, and blast away. The shots were soooo sharp and now they just don't seem to be as good.

My technical knowledge of digital is pretty slight. I always shoot in RAW and a few years back happened to mention to a friend that I had spent an entire weekend saving down JPEGS from RAW, so I could look at them quickly on screen, and he said 'er, you do know you can make the camera take RAW and JPEG at the same time, don't you?' D'oh

[markmullen]

If it would help at all my workflow is something like this;

• Import shots into Capture One from memory card, on import standard metadata (contact details, copyright etc) is embedded.

• Geotag photos through HoudahGeo

• Sort through shots in Capture One, rate as 5* ones to work on.

• Refine 5* shots, deselecting shots which on reflection don't make the cut

• Adjust white balance

• Adjust exposure

• Adjust contrast

• Adjust saturation

• Adjust highlights / shadows

• Apply lens corrections, remove CA, vignetting, distortion etc

• Local adjustments (usually a bit of clarity on the foreground etc)

• Level horizon if required, or keystone correction, or converging verticals

• Crop as required

• Export as 16 bit TIFF in AdobeRGB into PS.

• Clone as required, bits of rubbish out, sheep poo etc.

• Final curves adjustment

• Noise reduction

• Sharpening

• Save as PSD with layers for future use

• Save as 16 Bit Tiff in Adobe RGB

• Back into Capture One for keywording, metadata

• Add to Media Pro catalogue

• Export as required, full size jpeg, low res jpeg, whatever.

• Upload as required, my own site and flickr.

[coxyuk]

Broadly, curves are a way of changing the emphasis of tones in an image, levels are more destructive but can achieve similar ends. For example if you want greater contrast make the tone curve in to an S. To emphasise the mid tones make it bulge in the middle. It's a very simple but effective tool to tweak images. Generally speaking a tone curve can increase saturation when used in C1 et al (you can reduce this effect by the reducing the saturation slider) whereas in photoshop you can place a tone curve on a luminance layer and make adjustments without affecting the saturation. Have an experiment and see how you get on. Most programs included a selection of tone curve presets for you to start off with as well as supporting the ability for you to save them yourself

[tim-b]

IrateNinja said:

I've had got Lightroom but struggle to really get along with it. I'll give it a try once my laptops back in action!

Persevere with it, I found it confusing and a bit idiosyncratic at first, but forced myself to use it because the noise control was so much better than photoshop.

Now I couldn't do without it; once you figure out the foibles and UI it's a great tool which saves a lot of time - and hard drive space, as you don't need to save copies or heavy PSD files.

[CommanderJameson]

I'm still trying to choose between LR 4 and C1 Pro.

One thing that's tilting me heavily towards LR 4 is cost; I've already got Elements 10 (which does everything I need) and LR4 would be another £100. C1 Pro would be £270, which is a lot of lolly.

I've no doubt that C1 is better than LR, but I'm struggling to see £170 worth of better.

[markmullen]

Keep an eye on http://www.captureonecomplete.com/uk/ for offers, I got C1 for about £120 IIRC.

[LongQ]

CommanderJameson said:

I'm still trying to choose between LR 4 and C1 Pro.

One thing that's tilting me heavily towards LR 4 is cost; I've already got Elements 10 (which does everything I need) and LR4 would be another £100. C1 Pro would be £270, which is a lot of lolly.

I've no doubt that C1 is better than LR, but I'm struggling to see £170 worth of better.

I think Adobe surprised everyone with the aggressive price for LR4 - about half the price they had asked for recent previous versions.

Phase One responded with a C1 special price for a while and may repeat that I suppose. Other photo editing products seem to be following the same path. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

As Mark has pointed out it is quite possible that special deals will be available from time to time - as true for Adobe products as it is for others. It's all a matter of personal processing preferences and timing.

[tim-b]

LongQ said:

...
Often this falls to Peter Eastway who is a man of some talents and has a strong history in the photographic world. Mostly covers landscapes and the like these days.

Interestingly he also pops up from time to time in other places and has a recent item on the Luminous Landscape site that, he tells us, started off with a Capture One conversion from the original Phase One medium back digital file but is mainly processed using Photoshop.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/the...

....

Did anyone else read this and wonder WTF is he doing?! I'm no genius when it comes to processing, but that is a bizarre workflow, with a seemingly amateur approach and a pretty odd and unnatural result.....using auto-curves, multiple adjustment layers that do the same thing for no apparent reason, and painting 'inverse' masks when he could just duplicate the layer and invert the mask, or use another as a base to work with. And the final image just looks like someone's gone OTT with the dodge and burn tool, patchy fluorescent grass and wobbly vignetting... I hope he doesn't save the PSD's as they'll be 500GB each with so many mask layers!

Maybe I'm missing something here, but really not impressed by this multiple award winning photographer...

[LongQ]

tim-b said:

Did anyone else read this and wonder WTF is he doing?! I'm no genius when it comes to processing, but that is a bizarre workflow, with a seemingly amateur approach and a pretty odd and unnatural result.....using auto-curves, multiple adjustment layers that do the same thing for no apparent reason, and painting 'inverse' masks when he could just duplicate the layer and invert the mask, or use another as a base to work with. And the final image just looks like someone's gone OTT with the dodge and burn tool, patchy fluorescent grass and wobbly vignetting... I hope he doesn't save the PSD's as they'll be 500GB each with so many mask layers!

Maybe I'm missing something here, but really not impressed by this multiple award winning photographer...

Well now, I wondered the same thing myself but having over the years never really got to grips with PS (et al) layers and the way many people use them and the associated tools to enhance images I assume I am ignorant and the deep thinkers have identified ways to do things that mere mortals would never stumble across.

The final image, like or loathe, is probably a matter of personal preference and likely looks better as a large print than on screen. If you like that sort of thing. I presume that many people do, hence why compact digital camera jpgs tend to be brioght and punchy. (Wow, great colours and SOOO sharp ... etc.)

In this instance I suspect that the its use as a tutorial is mainly to do with showing how such processing can be used to make extreme changes to an original image (from a Phase One back ...).

That said in my (non PS) experiences with applications that allow tool stacking the effects of the same tool when stacked and applied is different to what can be achieved with a single instance and whatever adjustment tweaks are available within the tool layer. Likewise there may be a subtlety of edge and opacity blending when mixing normal/inverted masks, especially when different blend modes are applied perhaps?

It would be interesting to study the colour histogram after each step to see what is going on under the hood.