RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photo Processing Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Double Processing a RAW file. (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8889)

TheRoadForeman 01-10-2009 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Sure, you can show it, but so what? Does it matter whether it can be done without software? Is that a more "pure" version of photography? It sounds like an uninteresting debate, to me.

Ok, point taken! Give me what you would consider an "Interesting" debate then... The more that you manipulate a photo in post, it CAN degrade the image. I was not trying to say that one was better than the other per-say. I just like to do less in post for myself and wanted to see others feelings on the filter idea that has been in use for many years. So, lets talk about something more interesting than photography then.... Cause that is what I was talking about. I was just expressing the fact that it can be done other ways than HDR of double processing an image.
-- Kevin

JRMDC 01-10-2009 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman
Ok, point taken! Give me what you would consider an "Interesting" debate then... The more that you manipulate a photo in post, it CAN degrade the image. I was not trying to say that one was better than the other per-say. I just like to do less in post for myself and wanted to see others feelings on the filter idea that has been in use for many years. So, lets talk about something more interesting than photography then.... Cause that is what I was talking about.
-- Kevin

Well, apparently the point is not taken. :) Or at least disagreed with, with irritation. Sorry! BTW, of course "interesting" is specific to individuals and I was just giving my view, not policing the forum.

You like to do less in post, fine, others (like me) don't care one way or another, fine, some like to do more in post, fine. That is my feeling, that it doesn't much matter. Talking about photography includes B saying that a distinction that A is drawing doesn't much matter.

Although I do believe Jim's point that in-software is more robust because it can handle non-linear situations. I think of a V-shaped valley in a photo technique book I have, a linear NG will leave something off. I haven't touched my Cokin stuff since digital.

TheRoadForeman 01-10-2009 01:48 AM

I will give you that. Throwing in words like "linear"... Crazyness!! We both have valid points and you are right, it is up to the photographer to decide which best works for THEIR wants and situational needs for the image.

-- Kevin

travsirocz 01-10-2009 02:01 AM

2 Attachment(s)
These are the two raw files I used. Only thing different in the more exposed one is adjusted exposure up (this probably could not be done this greatly without using a raw file) some more contrast, and brought the blacks up a hair. All other settings the same between both raw files. Once blended together (sky only) some global adjustments were made.

JRMDC 01-10-2009 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman
Throwing in words like "linear"... Crazyness!!

Linear is crazy? :) Hmm, what word would be needed for V-shaped? Quadratic? Leontief? Hmm :) That's crazy! It's the end of the week and I am tired. But I will upload this weekend.

And I am now inspired to pseudo-HDR a shot from some time ago that I've been thinking about, that got rejected way back. It has always been the shot that I would eventually get around to doing pseudo-HDR on, maybe soon.

travsirocz 01-10-2009 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Linear is crazy? :) Hmm, what word would be needed for V-shaped? Quadratic? Leontief? Hmm :) That's crazy! It's the end of the week and I am tired. But I will upload this weekend.

And I am now inspired to pseudo-HDR a shot from some time ago that I've been thinking about, that got rejected way back. It has always been the shot that I would eventually get around to doing pseudo-HDR on, maybe soon.

I can't wait!

JimThias 01-10-2009 02:36 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
All other settings the same between both raw files. Once blended together (sky only) some global adjustments were made.

Some? That's an understatement. :lol:

I'm guessing that day looked a little bit more like this...and this is lightened a LOT:

travsirocz 01-10-2009 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Some? That's an understatement. :lol:

I'm guessing that day looked a little bit more like this...and this is lightened a LOT:

Your missing the bright part of the sky detail.

JimThias 01-10-2009 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
Your missing the bright part of the sky detail.

I just bumped up the levels and then blended the darker sky...that's it. No nuclear saturation was involved. :razz:

travsirocz 01-10-2009 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
I just bumped up the levels and then blended the darker sky...that's it. No nuclear saturation was involved. :razz:

I told you this was in Nebraska and the air is just different there.

quiksmith10 01-10-2009 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Some? That's an understatement. :lol:

I'm guessing that day looked a little bit more like this...and this is lightened a LOT:

Your version has a grey, flat look to it. Not realistic in my eyes. You need to bump up the contrast/play with the levels for the ground. As far as the sky, that is becoming too bright, to the point where you are loosing detail. I'm pretty sure that sky is not what Travis actually saw that day.

trainboysd40 01-10-2009 04:42 PM

Jim, that sky is not a western sky. It must suck to live so far east and get such boring, unsaturated skies =)

travsirocz 01-10-2009 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trainboysd40
Jim, that sky is not a western sky. It must suck to live so far east and get such boring, unsaturated skies =)

I do think the western skies are different. Much more dramatic and detailed. At least it was for 4 days I was there. I think the higher elevation and mountains make a big difference. Then I come back to the crappy skies in Wisconsin and every 3 months the skies will look cool.

JimThias 01-10-2009 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quiksmith10
Your version has a grey, flat look to it. Not realistic in my eyes.

Right, because all I did is boost the levels and nothing else.

By the way, why do you guys keeping mentioning the sky? We get skies that look like that here all the time. Nothing unusual about it. It's the foreground that looks bizarre.

travsirocz 01-10-2009 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
By the way, why do you guys keeping mentioning the sky? We get skies that look like that here all the time. Nothing unusual about it. .

They miss Wisconsin most of the time.

travsirocz 01-10-2009 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
By the way, why do you guys keeping mentioning the sky? We get skies that look like that here all the time. Nothing unusual about it. .

They miss Wisconsin most of the time.
The clouds I've seen West are much lower and very detailed and textured.

JimThias 01-10-2009 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
They miss Wisconsin most of the time.
The clouds I've seen West are much lower and very detailed and textured.

Wisconsin??? WTF? :lol:

Yeah, because clouds in Michigan are NEVER much lower and very detailed in texture....

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...louds-3039.jpg


So anyway...what do the low hanging, detailed clouds have to do with your nuclear-glowing ground?? :lol:

travsirocz 01-10-2009 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Wisconsin??? WTF? :lol:

Yeah, because clouds in Michigan are NEVER much lower and very detailed in texture....

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...louds-3039.jpg


So anyway...what do the low hanging, detailed clouds have to do with your nuclear-glowing ground?? :lol:

Great shot! We don't get them as often as western US.
I keep telling you the nuclear look is in the air not clouds.

JimThias 01-10-2009 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
Great shot! We don't get them as often as western US.
I keep telling you the nuclear look is in the air not clouds.

Looks like it's on the ground to me. And when brightening up the original exposure, it doesn't turn that color, as seen in my edit earlier in this thread.

So...you must have saturated the hell out of it. Can I get a copy of that nuclear fallout plug-in for Photoshop?? :lol:

travsirocz 01-10-2009 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Looks like it's on the ground to me. And when brightening up the original exposure, it doesn't turn that color, as seen in my edit earlier in this thread.

So...you must have saturated the hell out of it. Can I get a copy of that nuclear fallout plug-in for Photoshop?? :lol:

google CS3 Nebraska air plug-in :)

JimThias 01-10-2009 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
google CS3 Nebraska air plug-in :)

Damn it, not available in my region. http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/24.gif

travsirocz 01-10-2009 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Damn it, not available in my region. http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/24.gif

I got it when I was out there. I can't get it here in WI either.

Cinderpath 01-12-2009 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Muller
Thats pretty impressive that you were able to salvage that much color from the original. You did an awesome job balancing the photo, but I don't think I could conciously call that photo not-manipulated, but to each their own as we all have different tastes. Perhaps I should try doing that before casting my opinion.

I disagree with this. What is manipulated? He did not create data, rather took data that, the camera captured, and used it in the final presentation, no different than what we did in the B&W days. Nobody then printed exactly from the neg without burning and dodging, and they didn't refer to it as manipulation. If the camera did not create it, then we might crossing over into the realm of manipulation.

Ween 01-12-2009 02:36 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinderpath
I disagree with this. What is manipulated? He did not create data, rather took data that, the camera captured, and used it in the final presentation, no different than what we did in the B&W days. Nobody then printed exactly from the neg without burning and dodging, and they didn't refer to it as manipulation. If the camera did not create it, then we might crossing over into the realm of manipulation.

I think the difference between old school burning and dodging and this example of post-processing is that the burned and dodged B&W probably still looked authentic. With Travis' photo, I don't know how anyone could say, "Yep, that looks real." Not to be mean, but it just doesn't look natural and looking at the original shows why.

The argument that it's not manipulation if you didn't create data and only used what the camera captured can't really be a stand alone definition. Here's why:

Take a look at the attachment below of a photo I Inverted. Is it manipulated? I didn't create any data; I used what the camera captured.

So, using the "no creation of data = no manipulation" theory has some holes. Unfortunately, manipulation is subjective and it's up to individual tastes. For me, I'm a less is more kinda guy, but others get great enjoyment out of a heavily processed image.

travsirocz 01-12-2009 05:13 PM

To me, manipulation is changing the photo into something you didn't see. My photo is close to what I saw but obviously needs work. I need to get much more processing skills and expeirence to process these types of photos. I don't think my photo is out of the ball park but needs work on color cast, saturation, horizon line, and a color depth issue that gives a fake look. All of these issues are hard to process (for me) out of poor lit shots while making them look impressive. Many great lit shots are just boring to me. They are nice, look good, but just don't have the wow! factor to me. Also, I encourage many of you to work at processing a nicely composed but poorly lit shot. Much more work goes into it then the run of the mill great lit shot. A lot of great lit shots almost leave the camera ready to go.

I have also noticed that most of the people in the forums here pretty much only like the great sunny day, very real looking photos where the rest of the rpnet audience go to the unique looking shots. Trust me, I too only want to see the realistic looking shots and my processing skills will get me there eventually.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.