hows my editing skills coming on ?
- Thread starter mr snap
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,996
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
First picture is too dark and too saturated. Second picture is too light. Are they before and after or just two versions?
- Messages
- 404
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- No
We need to know what you did assuming you went from the first image to the second, because without understanding what you did, we're just commenting on the image itself.
- Messages
- 2,921
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Need more information before being able to make any constructive comments 
- Messages
- 23,520
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
What software are you using?
As a general guide, set the mid-tones to the correct brightness first using the exposure control, then adjust highlights and shadows using those sliders to compensate as necessary. Finally set the black & white points using those sliders to just before clipping.
After adjusting the tonal range then alter the saturation & vibrance as (if) needed.
As a general guide, set the mid-tones to the correct brightness first using the exposure control, then adjust highlights and shadows using those sliders to compensate as necessary. Finally set the black & white points using those sliders to just before clipping.
After adjusting the tonal range then alter the saturation & vibrance as (if) needed.
- Messages
- 6,370
- Name
- Elliott
- Edit My Images
- No
Then I'm afraid the answer to your question in the thread title is...... Not very well.
The image is underexposed and generally over processed, unless of course that was the look you were after
- Messages
- 488
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, I would do the following:-
Assess the image for:-
Composition - then crop ( for me the subject matter is the wood sculpture which is too small in the frame and has too many distractions around it.)
Exposure: Use levels and gamma correction
Slight curves adj to increase contrast.
Use clone tool to remove Sign and wooden fence.
Add a small amount of vibrance
Sharpen slightly.
You would finish with something like this:- (Hope you don't mind me re-posting your image).
Assess the image for:-
Composition - then crop ( for me the subject matter is the wood sculpture which is too small in the frame and has too many distractions around it.)
Exposure: Use levels and gamma correction
Slight curves adj to increase contrast.
Use clone tool to remove Sign and wooden fence.
Add a small amount of vibrance
Sharpen slightly.
You would finish with something like this:- (Hope you don't mind me re-posting your image).
- Messages
- 4,182
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Roger's is definitely an improvement to my eyes. It looks oversharpened, but that may just be processing a jpeg rather than the raw and recompressing etc.
Back to your image, you're suffering (I think) from some things that I - and many others - did in the first year of photography.
1. We want "wow" shots. This means we push up the saturation and start watching Serge Ramelli videos and think that's what makes people go "wow" at photos. (It's not - it's what makes them go "wow, my eyes hurt"). SR is talented for sure, but his style is quite marmite - with most photographers hating it yet some people think it's pretty.
2. Partly as a side effect of #1, new photographers seem to underexpose their images quite a bit. In some cases this is because they are looking at the images against a black background (which makes the eyes adjust and the image itself appear brighter). In other cases it's because darker images tend to show more saturation (I'm not sure why this is, but it does always feel that way).
There are two tools at your disposal to deal with #2 as well as a tip. First the tip because it's easy: set your Lightroom background to white, not black. This is only really needed if you tend to underexpose "by eye" as it will help compensate for your natural desire to underexpose. I have to do this BTW. The tools are simple: the "Auto" button in develop mode and the histogram. The auto button is far from perfect, but it often does an ok stab at setting the exposure (it's just the other sliders it does less of a good job with). Once you've done this, have a look at the histogram - notice where the "bump" tends to be. Note there isn't a right answer here because some shots are deliberately low key (aka dark) and some are high key (aka bright). A photo of a child against a white background will almost always be high key with the histogram thrown all the way to the right (of centre). Conversely, a moody image of a singer in a jazz club with a single, dim spotlight will be the opposite. You wouldn't want to shift the first down to have the histogram "bump" in the middle because the white background would come out grey and the child's face would be underexposed. Equally, you wouldn't want the second image to look like it's shot in a brightly lit room, because it wasn't.
Having said all of that, the auto function is useful to a degree in checking what its algorithms think is a normal exposure. It's maybe close/good enough half to 2/3 of the time, in my experience - at least as far as exposure is concerned. Learning what the histogram should look like for a particular type of image is part of modern photography and post processing... take a look at the histograms of your two images:
You should see the top one is FAR too far to the left. For this sort of scene (a lower key scene, probably), the one at the bottom is probably a bit too far to the right.
Hope that helps.
Back to your image, you're suffering (I think) from some things that I - and many others - did in the first year of photography.
1. We want "wow" shots. This means we push up the saturation and start watching Serge Ramelli videos and think that's what makes people go "wow" at photos. (It's not - it's what makes them go "wow, my eyes hurt"). SR is talented for sure, but his style is quite marmite - with most photographers hating it yet some people think it's pretty.
2. Partly as a side effect of #1, new photographers seem to underexpose their images quite a bit. In some cases this is because they are looking at the images against a black background (which makes the eyes adjust and the image itself appear brighter). In other cases it's because darker images tend to show more saturation (I'm not sure why this is, but it does always feel that way).
There are two tools at your disposal to deal with #2 as well as a tip. First the tip because it's easy: set your Lightroom background to white, not black. This is only really needed if you tend to underexpose "by eye" as it will help compensate for your natural desire to underexpose. I have to do this BTW. The tools are simple: the "Auto" button in develop mode and the histogram. The auto button is far from perfect, but it often does an ok stab at setting the exposure (it's just the other sliders it does less of a good job with). Once you've done this, have a look at the histogram - notice where the "bump" tends to be. Note there isn't a right answer here because some shots are deliberately low key (aka dark) and some are high key (aka bright). A photo of a child against a white background will almost always be high key with the histogram thrown all the way to the right (of centre). Conversely, a moody image of a singer in a jazz club with a single, dim spotlight will be the opposite. You wouldn't want to shift the first down to have the histogram "bump" in the middle because the white background would come out grey and the child's face would be underexposed. Equally, you wouldn't want the second image to look like it's shot in a brightly lit room, because it wasn't.
Having said all of that, the auto function is useful to a degree in checking what its algorithms think is a normal exposure. It's maybe close/good enough half to 2/3 of the time, in my experience - at least as far as exposure is concerned. Learning what the histogram should look like for a particular type of image is part of modern photography and post processing... take a look at the histograms of your two images:
You should see the top one is FAR too far to the left. For this sort of scene (a lower key scene, probably), the one at the bottom is probably a bit too far to the right.
Hope that helps.
Not much to add to what has already been said (which i agree with) but a couple of things.
1) It is worth you saying what sort of picture you were trying to achieve. Most of us are probably just seeing a picture of a carving taken in daylight with fairly flat lighting. So we are expecting the processing not to go too far from that. If you want it to look like it is half dark then maybe you are heading in the right direction.
2) Paul gives some very useful advise but I would add one thing. I find the auto tool in lightroom pretty awful to be honest. More often than not it gives me something I didn't expect. Ironically, if I want a quick tweak for a snapshot I tend to use faststone where the auto function is much more reliable.
This is what the faststone auto function did your original (2nd) pic.
It is still fairly flat, but like I said, I suspect that it is not far off what you actually saw.
If it was me I would then put a very slight s-curve on it. something like this.....
If I was selectively editing (so the highlights in the background could be dealt with better) I would possibly accentuate this a bit more but not by much. What Roger did above would definitely be my limit.
But then I was aiming for a record shot. Not something with grit or wow.
1) It is worth you saying what sort of picture you were trying to achieve. Most of us are probably just seeing a picture of a carving taken in daylight with fairly flat lighting. So we are expecting the processing not to go too far from that. If you want it to look like it is half dark then maybe you are heading in the right direction.
2) Paul gives some very useful advise but I would add one thing. I find the auto tool in lightroom pretty awful to be honest. More often than not it gives me something I didn't expect. Ironically, if I want a quick tweak for a snapshot I tend to use faststone where the auto function is much more reliable.
This is what the faststone auto function did your original (2nd) pic.
It is still fairly flat, but like I said, I suspect that it is not far off what you actually saw.
If it was me I would then put a very slight s-curve on it. something like this.....
If I was selectively editing (so the highlights in the background could be dealt with better) I would possibly accentuate this a bit more but not by much. What Roger did above would definitely be my limit.
But then I was aiming for a record shot. Not something with grit or wow.
- Messages
- 2,996
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would add that if the OP thinks his picture is not too dark, it might be able idea to use Adobe Gamma to ensure brightness, contrast and saturation on his monitor are not set too high. I have noticed a lot of people have TVs set to a lurid brightness and saturation and think they are set to be normal. Doing that on a monitor used for processing photos will produce pictures that are fine on that monitor but are not so on everyone else's monitors.
- Messages
- 4,907
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It might also be helpful to know what parameters you changed when you processed the original image and what final 'look' you were after, as it looks as if the brightness has been lowered and the saturation increased and that's it?
For me, the before is over exposed and the after is under exposed.
As a general rule though, I know photography is subjective but be careful disagreeing with advice
For me, the before is over exposed and the after is under exposed.
As a general rule though, I know photography is subjective but be careful disagreeing with advice
- Messages
- 4,907
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
thanks for everyones help means a lot cheers much appreciated but I disagree on somethings but hey everyone is welcome to there own views >>> thanks everyone for taking your time to try and help me and to improve my skills
Which things?
- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Here is a quick and dirty edit:
Toada by petersmart on Talk Photography
I just clicked auto contrast in Photshop 7 then added a small amount of extra contrast and brightness.
.
Toada by petersmart on Talk Photography
I just clicked auto contrast in Photshop 7 then added a small amount of extra contrast and brightness.
.
- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Can't agree with that - as a beginner the OP was asking about his editing skills and showing 2 different pictures.
Since they showed that he needed a lot of guidance just telling him his editing skills (which is what he was asking about) showed have told him to bin it makes no real sense.
And reeling off a catalogue of editing techniques, which he may not yet know how to do, is singularly unhelpful.
We can all look down on the beginners but I believe that anyone who has an honest question should be helped as much as possible since, in many respects, we are still all beginners and always will be.
After all we learn a lot more by trying to turn an indifferent or poor picture into a good one than simply saying "bin it."
Because in the end that approach is likely to turn more beginners away from photography that helps them.
.
- Messages
- 4,907
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
My apologies, I haven't expressed myself particularly well or politely. I was irritated by the OP's statement that he simply disagreed with some of the advice generously given by the other posters in this thread.
I'll start again, hopefully more usefully.
- Check the focus and exposure before releasing the shutter and - where possible - afterwards, and reshoot as required
- When processing an image, it can work really help to identify what needs to be done if you separate the tasks of fixing errors and enhancing. Fix first - exposure, sharpness and white balance.
- Cloning, toning and contrast, especially local contrast / clarity - belongs to enhancment
juggler I have not been on here for a while and tbh I thought you was a nice person and for me just saying one thing that I disagree on a couple of things it got your back up I said thank you but still people can disagree with things .. last post for me have fun on your forums
- Messages
- 4,907
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
Don't leave; just hit ignore.
tbh that's me being childish I can understand why people might get offended if some one who is asking for help and disagrees with there view ...
- Messages
- 832
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some good pointers there especially all the distractions.... The car in the corner for one
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 3,347
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Everyone is looking for a Brexit these days !!!! Only joking mate, stick around as these guys are very helpful and unlike books can actually converse with you when you don't understand what is being said. Keep practising and you'll be doling out advice soon enough to others in the same boat as you are now.
- Messages
- 4,182
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hear hear... that'll be people like me doling out (sometimes rubbish) advice on the back of learning it off all these folks here. Two years ago I was in precisely your position!
- Messages
- 3,347
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was very impressed by your advice mate and will keep an eye out for more. Keep up the good work.
- Messages
- 2,480
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah i remember
Hi Paul!Hi Bradleigh, don't take things to heart so much mate.... I think we all have to bite our lips sometimes and we might get a bit carried away. I have a habit of not engaging my singular brain cell and pressing "Post" before i have even read what my gabbling brain has written. I think everyone here are just trying help.
IMHO this is a great resource for Photography and i have learnt a lot by just studying other peoples photos and subsequent critique that follows. Critique good or bad has made me LOOK at the frame before i even get my sweaty mits near the shutter! If you critique others photos your really looking at all the good bits and the bad bits as you see them, and thus you can analyse your own shots as you are framing them.
Photograph today is a different beast than what it used to be, because now its not only about taking a shot but its as much about how you process too
. So the net result is an almost endless learning curve.Learning PS and LR can be a long hard path and very time consuming so thank goodness for those tutorials on YouTube (the good ones that is). Even though I have used PS since the early days tying to keep up with the endless stream of new bits is a nightmare if you don't use it ALL the time.Unfortunately there are many Togs that will hold there processing cards very close to there chest and do not want to "Give Away" the secret recipe of how they process their images (which is of course their right). You'll see a lot of togs say they want to get it right in the camera which is a good idea as none of us want to be sat behind a PC when we could be out with the camera.
Personally i'm happy to help anyone if i can, even though i am just an enthusiastic (Long suffering) amateur.
IMHO the more photos you take the more you learn, the more you process them the more you learn.
Remember photography is subjective (i think that means i think my shots are great and everyone else thinks there crap
). Don't fall into the trap of looking at so many great photos and think mine don't look a patch on those and don't post them (I'd never post any if that were the case). Its a great place to learn and i would hate to think of anyone leaving over a slight mis understanding
- Messages
- 23,520
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Photograph today is a different beast than what it used to be, because now its not only about taking a shot but its as much about how you process too
TBH it was always like this, but just required a lot more effort (and the space for your own darkroom, plus patience with wet chemistry) and getting 2 prints the same was difficult at times. SOOC .jpg images are the direct replacement of the enprint, but now almost everyone can easily manipulate their 'negatives' instead of just the skilled few. I can remember times when it could take more than half an hour to just get colour balance and density right for a print, never mind dodging and burning etc.
thanks everyone for your wise advice it really means a lot and hopefully I can learn a lot from this site I'm going to cornwall tomorrow for a week so keep a eye out for my post's in a week or so ...any adives is allways appreciated many than ks hope use all have a good weekend
many than ks hope use all have a good weekend