DSLRUsers.com

I could use some advice re PP my images. This is a shot I took of one of my boys soccer match today.

This is the original, only resized for uploading.



And this is the finished product after a bit of tweaking.



I know the removal of the foot is bad, but will do that bit again.

Could you guys comment on the rest, the colours, the sharpness....anything to help me get my head around what is needed for PP. My husband tells me I am tearing myself up over nothing, but to me these images.....well I could do better.

I don't shoot raw, there is no point because my computer is a dinosaur and cannot process the images. I am trying to convince my man to change this, but as he just bought himself an electric drum kit (so why do you need two drum kits????) this won't happen for some time yet.

I don't mind if you want to play with the original and post your results (but no inverting my boy Mic.......I'm not ready for that yet).

OK, be as harsh as you need......I'm ready (*gulp* I think)

Cheers
Deb

If you're using PS CS2 immediately go for the Image>Adjustments>Shadow/Highlights control which will let you brighten the shadows and tame the highlights simultaneously. That will probably get you home in one simple step.

Cheers, SoCal

remove the orange marker - your eye goes straight to it - next time do the shot from ground level -I know your keen so have another go -you will be pleasantly surprised.

bobrob

Thanks for the input so far.

SoCal, I did actually use the highlights/shadow dodad, but not to the degree you did yours. I thought it lightened it up too much.....I would appreciate others opinions....is mine "too" dark. I know it is subjective, a personal thing...but I would like to know the group's wider preferences.

Bobrob, yep, should remove that or darken it up a little. I have other shots that are at ground level, that's where I started shooting from, but I got tired of ending up with the coaches butt in my shots as he followed the game up and down the field.

Please keep the comments coming, I need to learn.

Cheers
Deb

The original looks underexposed to me, by about -.6EV, but the skin tones look natural.

In the correction, the skin tones look too yellow, to me. I'd adjust the WB to a much cooler temp.

The clone job doesn't look bad to me at all. I doubt that many would even see it, if they hadn't seen the original.

I haven't got too much constructive to say to you Deb, but I can relate to what you're are going through. I have the exact same problems - I have no idea where to start my pp and it never quite turns out how I invisage it! Maybe it is a girl thing
I would love to see a dedicated pp forum on d70 users to help out us poor, pp challenged people!
Good luck!

I was trying to just give you a quick fix the first time around. That shadow/highlight tool is a handy one! I added some color cast correction and then selected Jake with the lasso and brought the levels up on him a little bit. I'm sure that more can be done, but no one else seems to be biting.

Marvin wrote: I have the exact same problems - I have no idea where to start my pp and it never quite turns out how I invisage it! Maybe it is a girl thing
I would love to see a dedicated pp forum on d70 users to help out us poor, pp challenged people!
Good luck!

Thanks, nice to know I am not the only one doing so poorly with PP. Although I refuse to admit it's a girl thing...

I attended the workshop that MattK did for us, and although great I think what I really need is someone to walk through one of my images with me, detailing the problem areas, what can be done to fix it. Right now I am letting all the possibilites overwhelm me, and then I give up because I am so unsure of what I am doing. I rarely print anything because I am never happy with the end jobs.......goodness, someone shoot me now before I get even any more pathetic!

Thanks for commenting.

Cheers
Deb

Hi Steve

SoCal Steve wrote:I was trying to just give you a quick fix the first time around.

A quick fix is a good one, I appreciate the help to date.

That shadow/highlight tool is a handy one!

Yes, it is amazing what even just using the default amounts will do to your image.

I added some color cast correction and then selected Jake with the lasso and brought the levels up on him a little bit. I'm sure that more can be done, but no one else seems to be biting.

Again Steve, I do appreciate you spending the time to help me out......maybe the rest think I am beyond help!

Cheers
Deb

HappyFotographer wrote:Hi Steve -I do appreciate you spending the time to help me out......maybe the rest think I am beyond help!
Cheers
Deb

Thanks Deb.
I doubt that they think that. This is a busy weekend for us guys. Doing nothing on Father's day takes lots of time.
Cheers, SoCal

Hi Deb...

I didn't chime in before because I didn't think that it was possible to demonstrate PP on an original that was only 600 pixels wide...
While I am certainly no expert, if you can provide a link to a version that is a little bigger, I'll have a quick go at it for you...

From the look of both shots you included in your post, I think that the WB is a bit off...

I can only echo what others have said about shooting RAW... Even if you don't have the processing power to handle the RAW file at the moment, you probably will in the future... It would therefore be a shame if you didn't have the RAW file to revert to in the future... I resisted RAW for a while coz I thought that it chewed up too much memory / disk, but having made the switch I cannot recommend it enough... The extra clarity / flexibility you gain is more than worth it... e.g. if you had the RAW, you could have corrected the WB...

Try switching to RAW, copying the files to your hard disk and then using the JPG extractor program that was mentioned very recently here... You could also shoot RAW + JPG, but the resulting JPG files are pretty low in quality.

In what areas is your PC lacking??? I (and probably many others) have a few bits and pieces lying around - perhaps we can upgrade it for you???

leek wrote:Hi Deb...

I didn't chime in before because I didn't think that it was possible to demonstrate PP on an original that was only 600 pixels wide...
While I am certainly no expert, if you can provide a link to a version that is a little bigger, I'll have a quick go at it for you...

Not sure what size you would prefer, here is a link to the original...no resizing done http://home.iprimus.com.au/greyhippies/DSC_0833.jpg

Try switching to RAW, copying the files to your hard disk and then using the JPG extractor program that was mentioned very recently here...

OK, will look for that thread......I haven't been keeping uptodate with the posts, the latest addition to the family gets upset if he doesn't monopolise my time

In what areas is your PC lacking??? I (and probably many others) have a few bits and pieces lying around - perhaps we can upgrade it for you???

I truly believe it is beyond upgrading See this thread
http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=1825&highlight= Since posting this my husband has put in more RAM, another 256mb but I faintly recall him mumbling something about that being all, nothing else was going to help it.

Thanks
Deb

Hi there,
I just had a play with your original and came up with this.
I kinda like to keep it natural looking with a little punch but still keeping the blown highlights down to a minimum.
I'm no expert, but I know what I like in a photo. Hope you like it.
Cheers, Jase. PS: I haven't had any trouble editing photos on my P2 450mhz 512mb machine. Raws take about 5sec to load in PSCS2, but from there it all works fine. Will be upgrading soon though, so LOOK OUT!!

Only your urologist can help you with your PP.

Hi Deb
I've had a play around with the image in Pshop and have tried a number of fixes. The good news is you have done a pretty good job yourself because this is one of those images that for some reason is very dificult to enhance. Why?....God knows. The bright background has an awkward colour...the green tops have a distinctive colour and the whites and shadows are harsh. It looks better as a black and white image or you could try desaturating it and give it the old faded colour look. I occasionally get images like this and usually go for the gimmick filters.

Now somebody will prove me wrong and post a ripper of a fix.

Hi Deb,

I had a little bit of a play and using the image that you provided there was (as MattK said) actually not very much to improve on your initial PPing...

I think that the key problem here is not the PPing, but one of composition of the original shot - it happens.
Sometimes you can fix composition problems in PP by judicious cropping. However in this case, this is a bit of a problem as you don't have the full football in shot and there are a couple of part kids on the left and the right while there is not much room to play with at the top and the bottom...

As a result, while this was probably not your initial intent, if I really wanted to make something of this particular shot, I would probably go for a closer crop to exclude the unnecessary detail and focus on the expressions on their faces...

Something like this:


- Cropped to taste...
- Cloned out traffic cone using feathered clone brush
- Applied very slight S-curve
- Resize to 600 wide
- Applied 140,1.4,8 Unsharp Mask
- Apply 5,15,5 Black/White/Black border by changing Canvas size...

p.s. despite the creaking of your PC, and assuming that hard disk room is not a problem, I would still recommend using RAW... You'll find that it is far more forgiving and you will not lose stuff that you may want in the future... I used JPG for the first 3 months of my D70 and I'm cursing myself now that I know better...

p.p.s. despite the creaking of your PC, and assuming that you have a broadband internet connection, try having a look at a few of the free video Photoshop tutorials at http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html. If you can get past his sense of humour, then the tutorials are quite fun & informative... start at the bottom of the list and work your way upwards...

Yes, with that crop you could imagine the kids kicking anything else but the ball. If you know what I mean...
Leek, you're also right about the bright orange/red cone. It is distracting.

Deb,

Nobody is beyond help and your shots and PP are not that bad, but you need to learn to walk before you can run.

You must understand the different types of shots and the percentages of keepers that you'll get from each type. The more difficult the shot, the lower the percentage of keepers. Soccer shots, like any uncontrolled shots, are much more difficult than shots that allow you to set up the shot properly. It's not like shooting landscapes or still life shots.

To illustrate my point, I'd guess that I've taken approximately 60,000 shots with digital cameras over the past 5 years. I've taken about 40,000 of those shots, since April, 2004, with a d70. The vast majority of those shots were trashed. My keeper rate is less than 10%. That's because I shoot a lot of difficult shots and I shoot most of my shots in burst mode. That means that I get a lot of very similar shots of any given subject. I pick the best of the bunch to do PP.

As you gain skill, your shots from an overall perspective will be improved, but you will also have a higher threshold for what you consider a keeper, so your percentages will likely remain the same.

You need to get first things first. The biggest problem with your PP, at least with this shot, is that the shot is underexposed, by almost a full stop. That makes your job with PP very difficult. PP will not be able to achieve the kind of proper exposure that the camera can achieve.

You need to practice more with the camera, especially in difficult lighting conditions such as this shot, which is very high contrast direct sunlight. If you can get your exposures to within +/- .3EV, PP then becomes a lot more simple. The easiest and fastest way to learn how to judge exposures is to bracket the shots in burst mode.

The reason this shot is underexposed is partly due to the way matrix metering works. There were more bright areas in the shot than dark, so the meter will underexpose the scene by default, to keep from blowing highlights. You also had dialed in a -.3EV, which further underexposed the shot.

If you had dialed in a +.6EV instead of -.3EV, your shot would likely have been very close to a proper exposure, but some of the brightest highlights would likely have been blown. To demonstrate this to yourself, shoot a similar scene in bracket/burst mode with a +.3EV setting to start and with a bracket setting of +/- .3EV.

The WB of the original shot looked good to me, but using the HS tool will introduce the yellow cast, progressively more the higher the setting. To counter that, you have to adjust the overall WB cooler, more blue. Too much of anything will goof the overall colors and tone of the scene. The best PP is done with subtle changes to an image that is very close to what it should be.

The bottom line is that you aren't alone. You aren't hopeless or stupid. You simply need more experience with both the camera and PP. Like all of us, you learn from your mistakes in exposing the shot, by analyzing the shots later. It's confusing and frustrating at first, because this is a very complicated endeavor, but the more experience you gain, the more comfortable you will be.

If you've managed to get this far, without falling asleep or losing your lunch, just remember that all of us have to walk the same road.

Here's a quickie that I did to your original. I could do a little better, if I knew exactly what the colors were, but the bottom line is that you can only do so much in PP before you start destroying important aspects of the photo. You could spend hours, with multiple layers and lots of techniques to make it even better, but the bottom line is that it will never look as good as an original that was properly exposed.

If you really want to learn this stuff quickly. Post your original shots with EXIF data and ask specific questions.

good job leek!!!

now i only wish i had the same ability in photoshop

Hmmm... Now that I look at my crop in the light of day - it does look a little dark... As Kerry said - probably necessary to bump up the exposure a bit.

Sorry not to get back sooner, I didn't realise that so many people had replied....my notices that replies had been made must have gone astray.

I haven't read all the responses in detail yet, but will do. Also Kerry, I just received a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson yesterday (late mums' day present) so hopefully I am on my way to better captures.

Once again, thanks to all......(except MattK...cheeky bugger). I have so little time to spare towards this hobby of mine right now, so the learning will be slow and painful........but you guys are great. Awwwww, group hug!!!!

Cheers
Deb

HappyFotographer wrote:I haven't read all the responses in detail yet, but will do. Also Kerry, I just received a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson yesterday (late mums' day present) so hopefully I am on my way to better captures.

One thing to keep in mind with respect to the books like you mentioned above, is the fact that they're trying to teach you to do it right, completely. That means passing up a lot of the daily photos that you might find priceless. A "great" photo means something different to those guys than it does to us mere mortals.

Those books are excellent references, but only if you understand that you can't apply those tips to all scenes. If you can get a basic grasp of the way light affects your photography, from those books, that puts you a step above the average.

There might be a book out there for common exposures, but I haven't seen any references that tell you how to make the best of a bad situation with digital. High contrast, aka high dynamic range scenes and low light scenes are the worst you'll encounter and the most difficult to get a "great" exposure.

can i just peep my head in and say
its great doing research on what others think
but do keep your own mind about what 'You' like

take the knowledge..leave another persons personal taste

Schokadelica "The girl must be a witch" sorry, everytime I see your name that song pops into my head.

Yep, good advice below, and photography is a highly subjective medium, this I know. I guess what I was after was a base starting point, because I was letting the possibilites overwhelm me, and I was getting nowhere fast....just need to be grounded......

You know, I never had this problem when I shot with my old Ricoh SLR all those years ago........the possibilities now are actually tying me up rather than freeing me. I was reading through the new book and kept nodding my head, going yes, of course, I knew that...that's what I used to do with the old manual......guess I need to get over the "gadgets" and get back to basics.

shockadelica- wrote:can i just peep my head in and say
its great doing research on what others think
but do keep your own mind about what 'You' like

take the knowledge..leave another persons personal taste

Cheers
Deb

I know alot of people get confused when talking about exposure compensation....do I dial in (+) or (-) ???

I find, for myself, the easiest way to remember is this:

Exposure Compensation means I (the Photog) am telling the camera how I want to meter the scene. The camera will go about it's 18%, middle grey reflectancy, but may be metering for the highlights or shadows (depending on which metering system you're using).

If I see the scene is mainly highlights (or bright), I'd want to tell the camera, "hey, it's bright which means +EV. Depending on how much variance there is from light to dark will determine how far into the (+) I go (ie. +0.3EV OR +3.0EV)....and vice versa for if the scene has lots of dark areas, or mainly in shadow (would use -EV).

Now, pretend you're taking a shot of a subject & looking into the sun....do you want ot expose for the subject or the sky ?? Being the subject will be dark (or silhouetted) and the sky will be much brighter, this would determine which way you swing with the EV....

Does this sound correct to everyone, or have I got it all wrong ???

Deb -
I don't think anybody ever brought it up in this thread, but one of the best ways to deal with a high contrast situation is to use flash fill lighting (if you're close enough to the subjects) to fill the shadows and lower the overall contrast. That will eliminate a lot of post processing problems, before they even get started.

In very sunny SoCal.

OK, downloaded latest RAW plugin from adobe. Took photo in RAW format of daughter. Loaded said photo onto machine and opened in CS. Must say it was WAAAAAYYYYYYYY quicker than the one time I tried in Capture. CS allowed only WB and EV comp, is that right (dear god I am embarrisingly ingnorant)?

Edited to add: Never mind, worked it out.....got all options showing now......gulp, I'm sorry I did that now. I can see another book on the horizon.

Interesting to note the differences the WB can create.....but still need a much faster machine

leek wrote:p.s. despite the creaking of your PC, and assuming that hard disk room is not a problem, I would still recommend using RAW... You'll find that it is far more forgiving and you will not lose stuff that you may want in the future... I used JPG for the first 3 months of my D70 and I'm cursing myself now that I know better...

This will mean a larger CF is now needed.......will the spending never stop?

Cheers
Deb

Thought I would have a little play with this as well.



Cheers
Ray