PP My Image #2

[stubbsy]

Following on from my previous PP My Image post I present a second instalment.

This problematic image of Mt Cook And Mt Tasman was taken in NZ in February. The mountains are a fair distance from the viewer so haze was an issue and the D2x bias towards blue is a little noticeable. Plus the shot is underexposed and there is a dust bunny or two

So my challenge to you is to use your post processing skills to make something of this image. Click the small image below for a larger version (approx 950K) to download and work on. When done, post your results back in this thread. Have fun.

[Cre8tivepixels]

here is mine........



dan

[rflower]

[phillipb]

[Reschsmooth]

Here is my quick attempt. I was thinking of dropping in a different sky, but didn't.

[Underload]

Thought I'd have a bit of fun with a border as well

[sheepie]

OK, I'll play (although I should really spend my time PP'ing MY pics from the same NZ trip )

Straightened and cropped, played with curves and levels a little in LAB...



Done on an uncallibrated laptop screen, so levels may not be 100% right (that's my excuse anyway )

[frink]

[Killakoala]

I did all sorts of things to the image. Click it for a larger view. I missed a dust bunny.

[Pa]

black & white pano.


cheers pa

[Yi-P]

Here's my try:

[sirhc55]

Dust bunnies left in

[ozimax]

Chris, at first glance it looks like a huge Martian stalactite...

[ozimax]

[Steffen]

Here's another B/W version:



PP'ing a JPEG file is pretty hard, there just isn't enough tonal rage in the original to work with, and posterisation kicks in early. Three cheers to RAW!

Cheers
Steffen.

[robert]

PP'ing a JPEG file is pretty hard, there just isn't enough tonal rage in the original to work with, and posterisation kicks in early. Three cheers to RAW!

Not wanting to hijack a great thread.. but,

Does it really make that much difference- I only shoot JPEG's- do I need to reconsider?? I do like to PP stuff and didnt think other than WB adjust it made a diff to anything else.

Robert

[Biggzie]

Does it really make that much difference- I only shoot JPEG's- do I need to reconsider?? I do like to PP stuff and didnt think other than WB adjust it made a diff to anything else.

I mostly shoot jpg too because it is more conveinient for me.
JPG is a compressed standard with 8 bit colour data. RAW is non compressed with 12 bit data. (at least in my case) basically taken straight from the sensor.
If you are processing a RAW file, and you move a slider to adjust levels etc, the slider is working in a linear way, so if you move it by a value of 5, it adjusts the picture in exectly that. JPG using compressed data will be adjusting a non linear scale, so a value of 5 like in the previous comment about RAW could be quite a large adjustment with JPG because you dont know exactly how it is compressed.
With 12 bit data, as aposed to 8 bit data, the adjustments available are far greater.

JPG is a fine standard for a finished product, but when you process with compressed data the quality will degrade quickly.

Thats a quick basic run down but if you can, RAW is the way to go.

[stubbsy]

Thanks to those who participated. A very interesting range of options which show nicely that there is more than one finished image in a shot depending on the way it's post processed.

Here's my take.

[gstark]

PP'ing a JPEG file is pretty hard, there just isn't enough tonal rage in the original to work with, and posterisation kicks in early. Three cheers to RAW!

Not wanting to hijack a great thread.. but,

Does it really make that much difference- I only shoot JPEG's- do I need to reconsider?? I do like to PP stuff and didnt think other than WB adjust it made a diff to anything else.

Robert,

Probably.

Bigzie has pointed out a couple of relevant issues, but he's not really highlighted some of the more important ones.

When you're shooting in raw, you save the basic elements that your sensor has captured, and any settings that you've put into place are stored as parameters that get applied to the image dynamically, as you view the image. When you, in PP, change some of those settings, it's the parameters that get changed and stored; the image doesn't actually change.

And remember that the image is being stored as it was captured.

JPG is a lossy format. From the moment you select jpg, you are committing to lose data. Every time you save a jpg, you lose data. This is an important distinction, in that you're discarding information that you have captured. If you blow the shot, then you have less data to work with in trying to resurrect it.

Add to that the fact that when an image is saved as jpg, your parameters are applied to the image, and then discarded. You can't undo them, and thus it's more difficult to change them when you're shooting jpg.

I shoot in both raw and jpg. That lets me get a quick version out when I need to, but still permits me full flexibility in PP if (when) I don't get it quite right in the camera.

Which, by the way, should be your goal: get it right, in the camera. This will reduce the amount of PP you need to be doing, but shooting raw gives you the ultimate backup position.

[robert]

Thanks for your responses, much appreciated.

I shoot in both raw and jpg. That lets me get a quick version out when I need to, but still permits me full flexibility in PP if (when) I don't get it quite right in the camera.

Which, by the way, should be your goal: get it right, in the camera. This will reduce the amount of PP you need to be doing, but shooting raw gives you the ultimate backup position.

This makes sense- think I'll take the record both option, as well as trying to get it right in the first place!!



Robert