ctwentytwo

iTrader: (9)

A primer for the beginners:
Processing digital information from disk to screen to produce and image is the digital photography equivalent of processing analog information from film to paper.

In the film world, brands and types of film and paper, as well as chemicals used to expose the film mixed with various techniques has a visual effect on the final viewed image; whether it affects luminance, saturation, graininess, exposure...etc.

We can get similar results with how we process our digital information contained within the memory card.

Recently, I tried using 4 programs to try and process my shots. First I used the default OEM RAW processing software that came with my Canon XTi- Canon's Digital Photo Pro, which I have mostly used for almost all my RAW processing. Dabbled in HDR. Then Leemik pointed me toward Photoshop. Lastly, I tried Apple's Aperture. Here's some of the results and comparisons between the various programs.

DPP: PS:

Photoshop lets you control various ranges of lights and darks, allowing you to affect levels of highlights, lights, darks, and shadows. It also lets you change levels of "fill light" and "recover (details in highlights)." Photoshop lets you also tweak specific parts of the image, making it IMO, the best option for post processing. You can see the weakness of DPP as it does not afford you the flexibility to adjust darks without affecting the lights.

DPP:

PS:


Backlit shots (like the ones above) are challenging because if you expose for the sky, your subject is underexposed. Conversely, if you expose for the subject, the sky is overexposed. Optimally, the pros recommend you take both shots from a tripod, and later cutting out the sky and pasting to the subject (forground), or vice-versa. Or you can just take one shot exposed for the sky, and add fill light via Photoshop... at the cost of noise. Noise likes to hide in the shadows, and changing the brightness in shadows exposes them for the world to see. Thankfully, Photoshop (CS3) has a great noise reduction feature also. Another plus for Photoshop is that it doesn't create "jagginess in lines that DPP does at higher sharpness settings.

Photomatix HDR:

Photoshop CS3:


For me, HDR great, but I'd rather spend the money on Photoshop, which can open .hdr files that Photomatix generates.

Apple Aperture:

Photoshop CS3:


I tried Apple's Aperture, which is great for managing photos and has specialized adjustments available also like highlights and shadows. The Aperture picture was processed awhile back, but can no doubt produce a similar look to the Photoshop processed pic. But I did find that on some pics, it did turn highlights black (too burned).

DPP:

Photoshop CS3:


DPP:

Photoshop CS3:


DPP:

Photoshop CS3:


You can view the full sized pics at my Flickr page here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ctwentytwo/

Here's some other full sized samples of Photoshop processed images with some different settings and vignettes applied. Ultimately, it's up to you how you process your photos, whether you want more saturation (colors), overexposure, underexposure... it's up to you. But for me, Photoshop CS3 is a must, and really allows you to optimize your shots to your liking, not limiting your options.

maXmood

iTrader: (16)

Your pics are my desktop wallpaper..

nice shots, thnx for the details and info. what settings do u play with in PS: CS3?

Moroccan_Mole

iTrader: (5)

nice comparison.

next up ... photoshop tutorials?

roast

iTrader: (2)

The gimp, FTW!

JDM SigEp Z33

those are some good pics.. but above all the sceneries were amazing ... FTW !!!!

monokuroboo

iTrader: (2)

nice pics!
just a question though: was DPP saturating the pics, or was ps desaturating them? o__o"

2TH PWR

iTrader: (21)

I was going to say the one thing I liked about he DPP shots was how intense the colours were. I would like it if the clarity, depth, and detail of the PS shots could be combined with the intensity of the DPP shots.
I really like the idea of trying to expose for the object and for the nackground adn then cutting and pasting. I will try that one day.

monokuroboo

iTrader: (2)

you could just copy one picture and then photoshop it on to the other and erase what you needa erase in ps.... hahah yay, layers! if someone's that good with the erase tool.. o__o" change the opacity of the top layer a bit maybe to make it look a little more natural
--

kinda like so: (the quick selection tool in photoshopcs3 ext. ftw)

ctwentytwo

iTrader: (9)

monokuroboo

iTrader: (2)

oh, cool! when I saturate my pics from my raw-less dinky little p&s, it's like... noise galore. and I get like random halo effects and ... yeah. bad.

noodleman

iTrader: (13)

the CS3 processed pics looks like it's maintained alot more detail, at the cost of being abit washed out. Maybe there are some settings you can play with in CS3 to add more colour back into the photos?

ctwentytwo

iTrader: (9)

You can over saturate if you want...

This is actually a RAW converter plug-in within Photoshop (also in Elements) and it gives you saturation levels per color! So you can saturate at your hearts content. Again, I purposely muted the saturation on the pics as I liked them that way.


More Saturation:


Less Saturation... all done within Camera RAW.