I am not a poster on NPN but a very active reader and viewer :-)
I am a big fan of great and breathtaking photos of Marc Adamus, Floris van Breugel, Zack Schnepf, Chip Phillips and other great photographers posting here. I also recently discovered for myself a group of great French photographers: Ecrins de Lumiere, Emmanuel Boitier, Vincent Favre and others. I am amazed by their simple and yet compelling compositions.
I am not a complete newbie. I’ve purchased my first DSLR in 2005 and am serious with landscape photography as a hobby. You may see some of my photos here:
So, as a more or less experienced photographer, I certainly realize that a good photo is first of all the ability of a photographer to be in the right place in the right time, to see the light, to build the strong composition, to find an interesting subject, etc.
At the same time, I believe no one will argue that post-processing skills are essential in today digital age. And here is my problem. I don’t feel that my PPing skills are good enough. I mean, I don’t get consistent results and while I have an understanding what I’d like to have in the output and have correctly-exposed RAW files shot in right conditions, I often don’t have a clear understanding of how to achieve the result. So, often a good final image is a matter of some experimenting or even lucky coincidence in PPing rather than a planned work. Some files still remain on my hard disk, as I can’t get the result I’d like to have.
The photos of the master photographers listed above are greatly superior from the PPing point of view (I am not talking about their “direct photographic” skills, which are certainly vastly superior either). The color, tonality, dynamic range and other “technical” aspects of the images are simply perfect.
While learning “mere photographic” skills is a very non-material process, I believe PPing is a more technical matter, though it is certainly a creative process as well. And, I am not sure that I have the adequate tools and techniques to achieve the same results.
Let me briefly describe my PPing.
First, I work with RAW files in converter (Capture NX). In most cases, this includes white balance, curves, minor exposure adjustments (I tend to expose “to the right”). Sometimes I could use some other options offered by CNX (saturation adjustments, control points and some others).
Then, I work Photoshop (CS4). Here I could with work curves, different layers in case I need some dynamic range adjustments (in this case I either shoot or get in CNX several exposures) or other local adjustments, saturation adjustments in LAB (thank you, Dan Margulis :-) ). These are basic things, sometimes I do something more “special”, like sharpening with big radius for midtone contrast, working with luminosity masks and some other minor tricks.
This is my basic toolkit. I can’t say my PP results are really bad, but I also can’t say I am always and completely satisfied with them.
So, what do I miss here? What other PP techniques are used by the best landscape photographers to get their results? Do they use the same tools with just more skills/patience or there are some other instruments/techniques I should look into further?
Any references to good literature/internet materials on this topic will be greatly appreciated. I read through Dan Margulis books more or less carefully but frankly, I can’t say that they are very useful for a photographer, though I learned the basics from these books. I tried to look for other literature, but all Photoshop books I see are very similar and are targeted at very broad audience with a lot’s of basics, while I need something more special, targeted at landscape photographers.
I hope I’m not alone with this problem and welcome everyone to participate in this discussion. Let’s share our experience :)
Evgeny.
PS sorry for my English - I am not a native speaker
Have you looked a the articles in the Instruction section here at the site? There's good stuff there. The section is accessed from the navigation bar at the top of this page.
Posted by Robert Cubit on June 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Hi Evgeny!
I looked at your site and it is clear you already have a good understanding of camera operation, exposure and an excellent eye for composition. And I’m not just saying that to encourage you. I find many of your images express the heart and spark of passion for the beautiful (and unique) places you have visited.
It is also clear that you have a good fundamental knowledge of digital processing. So to take your images to the next level, in addition to Hank’s recommendation to carefully study the “Instruction” articles on NPN, I would strongly recommend an in-depth review and implementation of Tony Kuyper’s many procedures on his web site (beginning with Luminosity Masks):
http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html
His methods will give you MUCH greater control over the tonal and color values in your images, than just using simple curve layers in Photoshop.
If you feel you need to fill any gaps in your basic to advanced general skills in Photoshop, I recommend Ellen Anon’s book, Photoshop CS4 for Nature Photographers:
The good news is you have already done most of the hard work by capturing many great, technically precise, images of stunning places. So you now just need to add the finishing touches in your PP workflow. I think this is an ever-evolving learning experience for every photographer, including the top pros. Any photographer who states that he’s “done”, probably is!
Hope this helps!
Bob
p.s. I would sure like to see more of your beautiful images from these locations.
Posted by Robert Cubit on June 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM
One last thing, Evgeny. After a closer review of you site, I found that most of your best images are right at the end of the gallery, where they can easily be missed. I would encourage you to move these to the front of the gallery and separate out the man in nature and ski shots from the pure nature images. I hope you don't mind me posting links to what are, IMO, some of your best work so others do not overlook them (some of these are very well PP'ed, I would simply not touch them):
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
Bob
Humm, unfortunately it does not seem possible to link directly to specific images on your site. So folks should just start at page three and work their way forward.
Haven't looked at your site yet...sorry. A comment. If you are shooting RAW, think about shooting with both RAW and JPG. Take a look at what the camera has figured out for the JPG. This might give you a great start to think about for your RAW images. Also, you may just find that with a little bit of effort (much less than RAW) you can turn your camera JPG's into your final images (perhaps saved as TIFF's). This goes against many conventions and opinions. You have found out that just because you have a RAW image, you have nothing close to a final image.
If you take just a few shots of something, then maybe you have the time to go through all the RAW manipulations to get BACK to what you SAW and what you THOUGHT you had captured. There is no question that if you are a RAW expert, you can get a better end result. On the other hand, you can probably deal with the camera produced JPG and come close with an image that most folks will have no idea whether it was created as a RAW or JPG image.
Generally, when I shoot, I take alot of images; like for documentary purposes. There is no way I could take each image and adjust from RAW. Just takes too much time. If I happen to get exceptional images due to the time I am there, right light etc., then I might spend a little more time in PPing. Generally, I use only about 3 or 4 post processing techniques. Much more than that then the image probably was not shot correctly in the first place.
There are many professionals that believe the camera's PPing is good enough for a starting point if you have accomplished the correct imaging processes BEFORE you took the shot.
Now once again, if you just took one shot or so, then maybe RAW is the thing for you.
I am pretty sure that there will be many RAW shooters who do not like my opinion. There are many who do!
Opinions vary. Good luck! I would rather spend my time behind the lens than behind the screen.
Hank, yes I looked through articles on NPN previously, thank you.
Bob, thank you, I am pleased you enjoyed my photos. I am proud to say that all of them were taken in one place - south of Sakhalin island (a big Russian island on the north from Japan). I am a kind of person who likes to shoot the place where he leaves. Unfortunately, your links to my photos do not work - they link to the gallery. I don't know how you browsed them, but each photo has a separate link, just an example:
I recently discovered Tony Kuyper’s website and tried luminosity masks on some occasions. I will look through his other techniques. Thanks a lot for linking to Ellen Anon book - I will try it.
Troup, thank you for your thoughts, but I am a RAW-shooter. I even shoot RAW for snapshots as I believe it gives me much more possibilities than JPEG. The only question is how to use these possibilities to get the best results. I am not worried about spending some time for PPing, although I certainly enjoy my time in the field much more just like you.
I did not mention that in my first post, but I seem to have more PPing problems with summer shots. I have an impression that my Nikon D300 does not produce good greens and they often look unnatural. I am not sure how to describe it, but the greens seem to be over-saturated and with some strange tint. Sometimes I even have to reduce the saturation for the images so that they look more naturally. I don’t remember such problems with D70 I owned before...
So, I guess D300 is a more “winter” camera for me :) I wonder whether it’s my personal impression or someone has the same feeling with his D300. Just for the reference, my Picture Control setting is neutral.
I did not mention that in my first post, but I seem to have more PPing problems with summer shots. I have an impression that my Nikon D300 does not produce good greens and they often look unnatural. I am not sure how to describe it, but the greens seem to be over-saturated and with some strange tint. Sometimes I even have to reduce the saturation for the images so that they look more naturally. I don’t remember such problems with D70 I owned before...
I wonder if that's something specific to your 300, local lighting, or choice of color balance. We use both 300's and D2X's in our business, and both are far better than any successors, and in fact the 300 is much better than the D2X for saturation and color "fidelity." We truly feel that the 300 is the best to come along for us.
But there's one thing. We ALWAYS do custom white balances before shooting because we shoot in so many circumstances outside the standard settings for the camera. And very often we are dealing with multiple light sources and temperatures, making us especially "sensitive" to light color and accurate rendition of subjects.
Custom white balance is certainly not necessary in average conditions, but since it's easy to do and force of habit for us, we do it anyway.
Posted by Robert Cubit on June 29, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Evgeny, I think you will like Anon's book. It is one of the best catering specifically to nature photographers. Although you did not mention NPN's own Guy Tal and Ian Plant in your list (personally, I consider this truly unpardonable sin! ), they both have excellent e-books. I’m currently reading Ian’s new e-book:
http://ianplant.com/ebook-chasing-the-light.htm
It will not give you specific PP advice. But as with Guy’s books, it contains many gems of wisdom that can help you create more compelling images (Guy, Ian---kickbacks are most welcome ).
“I did not mention that in my first post, but I seem to have more PPing problems with summer shots. I have an impression that my Nikon D300 does not produce good greens and they often look unnatural. I am not sure how to describe it, but the greens seem to be over-saturated and with some strange tint. Sometimes I even have to reduce the saturation for the images so that they look more naturally. I don’t remember such problems with D70 I owned before...”
To address this specific question, this is a very common issue which I have also dealt with on my D700 and D200 (and I also used the D70). I do not believe it is in any way specific to Nikon. As Hank pointed out, the warm yellow tint I see in your image is likely a simple color balance issue (caused by the warm color temperature of the summer light). There are many ways to resolve this, setting a custom white balance on location in the warm tinted light, as Hank mentions, works well. You just need a good neutral gray reference card (Google WhiBal). I carry the small WhiBal card at all times and just place it in the scene for the first image captured. It is a simple matter to correct the WB later in post by clicking on the gray card in the first image, using the gray eyedropper in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) or CaptureNX. The WB settings can then be easily applied to all the images under those lighting conditions.
As far as the saturation, keep in mind that both ACR and CNX will, by default, tend to change saturation when you apply any curves adjustment (it’s considered a “feature!”). In Photoshop, I always make sure I change from the “Normal” mode to “Luminosity” mode to avoid this annoying behavior. Luminosity mode will only affect the luminosity of the tones in the image, without affecting color.
When shooting in RAW, picture control settings have no effect on RAW conversions when using ACR. However, they can and will affect conversions done in CNX. But you still have full control of this for RAW files. I always turn off almost all of the in camera settings in CNX so they are not applied to the RAW file during conversion (especially Picture Control and sharpening) Shutting these off can be done by applying a custom preset that can be applied as the first step in your CNX workflow.
Even when using a neutral gray reference, you may find the greens still do not quite look the way you remembered them. One of the first steps in my workflow is to adjust the Color Temperature slider in ACR or CNX to optimize the greens to taste.
Certainly, WB is a setting I am aware about and this is the first setting I work with in CNX. I never did custom white balance though, my usual workflow is to set it up to Auto or predefined Kelvin value and then just try different positions in CNX (which is by the way not so good with WB adjustments - there is no much interval for adjustments).
Previously, I tried to use "natural grey cards" (clouds, snow, etc.) but later on I found that working with WB in "experimental manner" (i.e., moving sliders in converter and choosing the result you like) is a more efficient method, as grey should not be always grey in photos. And, it is not obligatory to have black and white points in the images – these instructions from Dan Margulis spoiled my life for some period, before I realized that a lot of great landscape shots are not right from the “monkey” approach he describes in his books.
I never tried grey cards, however, maybe I should... Do you find convenient to use them in the field? What if you are shooting in rapidly changing conditions, let’s say during a sunset/sunrise? Do you need to calibrate your WB several times in such conditions? I believe you should to get correct results... Then, it may become too complicated...
I work with luminosity blending mode in PS, so I know this trick. At some point I even completely moved to LAB, as it is more convenient to work with luminosity and saturation separately. Just like you, I also set my Picture Control settings to minimum to have more freedom in PPing...
So, as far as I can see, I am a pretty “advanced” guy when it comes to general knowledge of PS/CNX. But, this knowledge is nothing without knowing which technique should be used in a particular situation, which, I believe, is a matter of personal experience and taste.
I would really like to see a step-by-step PPing description for some photos of Marc Adamus, for example. Wonder, if someone from the masters ever posted such descriptions.
I spent last weekend in the field and... Again, I feel that pictures could be much better if processed in more creative manner:
Certainly, pros visit much more interesting places and witness incredible light shows. But, where we are in more or less similar conditions, is shooting forest streams. I guess the common approach is an overcast day or twilight, polarizer, tripod and long exposure.
I like the way Marc renders the midtones –lush on his pictures is not too bright, yet has enough contrast and saturation. Just right for this kind of photographs.
I believe his shadows are also better – they have details, while my shadows are either blacks or the pictures don’t have black point at all, since at PPing I preferred not to have so much blacks. So, I conclude that Marc’s shadows have more tonal gradations, which he efficiently uses. Interesting, maybe it’s a result of luminosity masks work?
I never tried grey cards, however, maybe I should... Do you find convenient to use them in the field? What if you are shooting in rapidly changing conditions, let’s say during a sunset/sunrise? Do you need to calibrate your WB several times in such conditions? I believe you should to get correct results... Then, it may become too complicated...
We carry small gray cards roughly 4"x5"- actually a full size gray card cut in quarters. They're very convenient to use in the field, but you highlight important exceptions to their use- sunrises and sunsets. There's no way to use them often enough to keep up with conditions.
Since accurate colors during those periods is subjective we use either the cloudy or open shade presets to give things a warm tone rather than to try to eliminate them via a gray card. If you're going to try using the Kelvin scale, it's best to have a color meter. My ancient Minolta finally died and I need to replace it, but they are very expensive. Here are contemporary examples. I doubt you would find one all that useful for nature shooting, but it's mandatory in our commercial work for balancing mixed lighting sources via filters and gels.
Posted by Robert Cubit on June 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM
So, I conclude that Marc’s shadows have more tonal gradations, which he efficiently uses. Interesting, maybe it’s a result of luminosity masks work?
Of course, only Marc can answer that question, Evgeny. Maybe he will see this thread and respond. But I do know Marc (and many other top pros) uses TK's procedures---and the ability to control midtone and shadow detail and textures is precisely what these allow. And do not forget TK's Saturation Masks, Magic Mid-tones and focus blending (for increasing DOF), procedures and PS actions.
Posted by Robert Cubit on June 30, 2010 at 6:28 PM
Since accurate colors during those periods is subjective we use either the cloudy or open shade presets to give things a warm tone rather than to try to eliminate them via a gray card.
I fully agree, Hank. The gray card is just a starting point, which can help in many common lighting conditions to help remove color casts like too much yellow in greens under warm sunlit landscapes---it's really necessary in cases like product photography, where color accuracy is critical. Human vision corrects for much of this effect, but camera sensors sometimes need help. However, as you pointed out Evgeny, there are definitely times when you do not want to neutralize all color casts, like sunrises and sunsets. I carry just the small WhiBal card (about 2x3 inches) which is quite easy to carry in a pocket. If I'm in a situation where I think I might need a neutral reference during post, I'll take a shot of the gray card---only takes 10 seconds. In changing light conditions, you can just periodically capture a frame with the card in the scene. I find it much better than trying to find something neutral in the scene to use as a reference during post.
In changing light conditions, you can just periodically capture a frame with the card in the scene.
That's priceless advice. It gives you a reference point for color adjustments in post processing. And with the small card, you can even clone it out, should you forget to remove it from subsequent shots.
I guess I'll need to digest this information and look at the literature/materials you mentioned, as well as to try TK's masks more.
BTW, I wonder if anyone tried to compare TK's masks versus Photoshop "blend if" feature. I guess it should have the same effect, though the masks are more apparent and easy to use.
Tony's luminosity masks can certainly be helpful, but I've found myself more often than not just using a curves adjustment on a basic luminosity mask to control highlights and shadows. This gives me very strong control over what I want to do with specific portions of the image. Something else that works well are gradients on the luminosity mask at varying opacities as well as brushing with a soft edge.
Something else you may want to consider reading into are contrast masks. You can do some amazing things with contrast masking, which also works well with other masking methods, as well as blending overlays when coming towards the end of your post process.
Two months passed after I posed my questions. Although I did not get definite answers (do they exist in art at all?), this discussion gave me a great food for thought and I’d like to share my recent experience with the technics/literature discussed here. Hope this could help someone too.
I tried TK’s luminosity masks more and found them an incredible tool. They give precise control over adjustments of different tones of an image – this is what I missed in my PPing. I also tried saturation masks and don’t have a final opinion on them – they certainly work, but I don’t see much difference with other saturation options offered by Photoshop. Maybe my monitor is too bad to appreciate the advantage of this technique.
I also ordered some books from Amazon. I tried Ellen Anon’s “Photoshop CS4 for Nature Photographers” (Bob, thank you for recommending this), but did not find it too useful. However, I’ve read and highly recommend another book – “Landscape and Nature Photography with Photoshop CS2” by Rob Sheppard. This book contains a lot of information on general philosophy of post processing and it teaches you not only how to do something, but also why and when. I really liked Rob’s parallels with Ansel Adam’s fine prints where he explains what he was doing and how the same could be done in digital era with Photoshop. Very useful book, give it a try.
Thank you all for participating in this discussion. BTW, I substantially reworked my website and you are welcome to visit it :) http://taren.fishup.ru/
Discussion
16 repliesI am not a poster on NPN but a very active reader and viewer :-)
I am a big fan of great and breathtaking photos of Marc Adamus, Floris van Breugel, Zack Schnepf, Chip Phillips and other great photographers posting here. I also recently discovered for myself a group of great French photographers: Ecrins de Lumiere, Emmanuel Boitier, Vincent Favre and others. I am amazed by their simple and yet compelling compositions.
I am not a complete newbie. I’ve purchased my first DSLR in 2005 and am serious with landscape photography as a hobby. You may see some of my photos here:
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/997541/lid/60
So, as a more or less experienced photographer, I certainly realize that a good photo is first of all the ability of a photographer to be in the right place in the right time, to see the light, to build the strong composition, to find an interesting subject, etc.
At the same time, I believe no one will argue that post-processing skills are essential in today digital age. And here is my problem. I don’t feel that my PPing skills are good enough. I mean, I don’t get consistent results and while I have an understanding what I’d like to have in the output and have correctly-exposed RAW files shot in right conditions, I often don’t have a clear understanding of how to achieve the result. So, often a good final image is a matter of some experimenting or even lucky coincidence in PPing rather than a planned work. Some files still remain on my hard disk, as I can’t get the result I’d like to have.
The photos of the master photographers listed above are greatly superior from the PPing point of view (I am not talking about their “direct photographic” skills, which are certainly vastly superior either). The color, tonality, dynamic range and other “technical” aspects of the images are simply perfect.
While learning “mere photographic” skills is a very non-material process, I believe PPing is a more technical matter, though it is certainly a creative process as well. And, I am not sure that I have the adequate tools and techniques to achieve the same results.
Let me briefly describe my PPing.
First, I work with RAW files in converter (Capture NX). In most cases, this includes white balance, curves, minor exposure adjustments (I tend to expose “to the right”). Sometimes I could use some other options offered by CNX (saturation adjustments, control points and some others).
Then, I work Photoshop (CS4). Here I could with work curves, different layers in case I need some dynamic range adjustments (in this case I either shoot or get in CNX several exposures) or other local adjustments, saturation adjustments in LAB (thank you, Dan Margulis :-) ). These are basic things, sometimes I do something more “special”, like sharpening with big radius for midtone contrast, working with luminosity masks and some other minor tricks.
This is my basic toolkit. I can’t say my PP results are really bad, but I also can’t say I am always and completely satisfied with them.
So, what do I miss here? What other PP techniques are used by the best landscape photographers to get their results? Do they use the same tools with just more skills/patience or there are some other instruments/techniques I should look into further?
Any references to good literature/internet materials on this topic will be greatly appreciated. I read through Dan Margulis books more or less carefully but frankly, I can’t say that they are very useful for a photographer, though I learned the basics from these books. I tried to look for other literature, but all Photoshop books I see are very similar and are targeted at very broad audience with a lot’s of basics, while I need something more special, targeted at landscape photographers.
I hope I’m not alone with this problem and welcome everyone to participate in this discussion. Let’s share our experience :)
Evgeny.
PS sorry for my English - I am not a native speaker
I looked at your site and it is clear you already have a good understanding of camera operation, exposure and an excellent eye for composition. And I’m not just saying that to encourage you. I find many of your images express the heart and spark of passion for the beautiful (and unique) places you have visited.
It is also clear that you have a good fundamental knowledge of digital processing. So to take your images to the next level, in addition to Hank’s recommendation to carefully study the “Instruction” articles on NPN, I would strongly recommend an in-depth review and implementation of Tony Kuyper’s many procedures on his web site (beginning with Luminosity Masks):
http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html
His methods will give you MUCH greater control over the tonal and color values in your images, than just using simple curve layers in Photoshop.
If you feel you need to fill any gaps in your basic to advanced general skills in Photoshop, I recommend Ellen Anon’s book, Photoshop CS4 for Nature Photographers:
http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-CS4-Nature-Photographers-Workshop/dp/0470381272
The good news is you have already done most of the hard work by capturing many great, technically precise, images of stunning places. So you now just need to add the finishing touches in your PP workflow. I think this is an ever-evolving learning experience for every photographer, including the top pros. Any photographer who states that he’s “done”, probably is!
Hope this helps!
Bob
p.s. I would sure like to see more of your beautiful images from these locations.
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/lid/60
Bob
Humm, unfortunately it does not seem possible to link directly to specific images on your site. So folks should just start at page three and work their way forward.
If you take just a few shots of something, then maybe you have the time to go through all the RAW manipulations to get BACK to what you SAW and what you THOUGHT you had captured. There is no question that if you are a RAW expert, you can get a better end result. On the other hand, you can probably deal with the camera produced JPG and come close with an image that most folks will have no idea whether it was created as a RAW or JPG image.
Generally, when I shoot, I take alot of images; like for documentary purposes. There is no way I could take each image and adjust from RAW. Just takes too much time. If I happen to get exceptional images due to the time I am there, right light etc., then I might spend a little more time in PPing. Generally, I use only about 3 or 4 post processing techniques. Much more than that then the image probably was not shot correctly in the first place.
There are many professionals that believe the camera's PPing is good enough for a starting point if you have accomplished the correct imaging processes BEFORE you took the shot.
Now once again, if you just took one shot or so, then maybe RAW is the thing for you.
I am pretty sure that there will be many RAW shooters who do not like my opinion. There are many who do!
Opinions vary. Good luck! I would rather spend my time behind the lens than behind the screen.
Troup Nightingale
Bob, thank you, I am pleased you enjoyed my photos. I am proud to say that all of them were taken in one place - south of Sakhalin island (a big Russian island on the north from Japan). I am a kind of person who likes to shoot the place where he leaves. Unfortunately, your links to my photos do not work - they link to the gallery. I don't know how you browsed them, but each photo has a separate link, just an example:
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/oid/14075391/lid/40
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/oid/14318361/lid/40
I recently discovered Tony Kuyper’s website and tried luminosity masks on some occasions. I will look through his other techniques. Thanks a lot for linking to Ellen Anon book - I will try it.
Troup, thank you for your thoughts, but I am a RAW-shooter. I even shoot RAW for snapshots as I believe it gives me much more possibilities than JPEG. The only question is how to use these possibilities to get the best results. I am not worried about spending some time for PPing, although I certainly enjoy my time in the field much more just like you.
I did not mention that in my first post, but I seem to have more PPing problems with summer shots. I have an impression that my Nikon D300 does not produce good greens and they often look unnatural. I am not sure how to describe it, but the greens seem to be over-saturated and with some strange tint. Sometimes I even have to reduce the saturation for the images so that they look more naturally. I don’t remember such problems with D70 I owned before...
Just an example of the color problems I mean:
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/949321/oid/17468581/lid/40
So, I guess D300 is a more “winter” camera for me :) I wonder whether it’s my personal impression or someone has the same feeling with his D300. Just for the reference, my Picture Control setting is neutral.
I wonder if that's something specific to your 300, local lighting, or choice of color balance. We use both 300's and D2X's in our business, and both are far better than any successors, and in fact the 300 is much better than the D2X for saturation and color "fidelity." We truly feel that the 300 is the best to come along for us.
But there's one thing. We ALWAYS do custom white balances before shooting because we shoot in so many circumstances outside the standard settings for the camera. And very often we are dealing with multiple light sources and temperatures, making us especially "sensitive" to light color and accurate rendition of subjects.
Custom white balance is certainly not necessary in average conditions, but since it's easy to do and force of habit for us, we do it anyway.
http://ianplant.com/ebook-chasing-the-light.htm
It will not give you specific PP advice. But as with Guy’s books, it contains many gems of wisdom that can help you create more compelling images (Guy, Ian---kickbacks are most welcome
“I did not mention that in my first post, but I seem to have more PPing problems with summer shots. I have an impression that my Nikon D300 does not produce good greens and they often look unnatural. I am not sure how to describe it, but the greens seem to be over-saturated and with some strange tint. Sometimes I even have to reduce the saturation for the images so that they look more naturally. I don’t remember such problems with D70 I owned before...”
To address this specific question, this is a very common issue which I have also dealt with on my D700 and D200 (and I also used the D70). I do not believe it is in any way specific to Nikon. As Hank pointed out, the warm yellow tint I see in your image is likely a simple color balance issue (caused by the warm color temperature of the summer light). There are many ways to resolve this, setting a custom white balance on location in the warm tinted light, as Hank mentions, works well. You just need a good neutral gray reference card (Google WhiBal). I carry the small WhiBal card at all times and just place it in the scene for the first image captured. It is a simple matter to correct the WB later in post by clicking on the gray card in the first image, using the gray eyedropper in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) or CaptureNX. The WB settings can then be easily applied to all the images under those lighting conditions.
As far as the saturation, keep in mind that both ACR and CNX will, by default, tend to change saturation when you apply any curves adjustment (it’s considered a “feature!”). In Photoshop, I always make sure I change from the “Normal” mode to “Luminosity” mode to avoid this annoying behavior. Luminosity mode will only affect the luminosity of the tones in the image, without affecting color.
When shooting in RAW, picture control settings have no effect on RAW conversions when using ACR. However, they can and will affect conversions done in CNX. But you still have full control of this for RAW files. I always turn off almost all of the in camera settings in CNX so they are not applied to the RAW file during conversion (especially Picture Control and sharpening) Shutting these off can be done by applying a custom preset that can be applied as the first step in your CNX workflow.
Even when using a neutral gray reference, you may find the greens still do not quite look the way you remembered them. One of the first steps in my workflow is to adjust the Color Temperature slider in ACR or CNX to optimize the greens to taste.
Bob
Certainly, WB is a setting I am aware about and this is the first setting I work with in CNX. I never did custom white balance though, my usual workflow is to set it up to Auto or predefined Kelvin value and then just try different positions in CNX (which is by the way not so good with WB adjustments - there is no much interval for adjustments).
Previously, I tried to use "natural grey cards" (clouds, snow, etc.) but later on I found that working with WB in "experimental manner" (i.e., moving sliders in converter and choosing the result you like) is a more efficient method, as grey should not be always grey in photos. And, it is not obligatory to have black and white points in the images – these instructions from Dan Margulis spoiled my life for some period, before I realized that a lot of great landscape shots are not right from the “monkey” approach he describes in his books.
I never tried grey cards, however, maybe I should... Do you find convenient to use them in the field? What if you are shooting in rapidly changing conditions, let’s say during a sunset/sunrise? Do you need to calibrate your WB several times in such conditions? I believe you should to get correct results... Then, it may become too complicated...
Bob, I will certainly order this book. I also found good reviews on Rob Sheppard book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471786195/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk, I think I’ll look at that as well.
I work with luminosity blending mode in PS, so I know this trick. At some point I even completely moved to LAB, as it is more convenient to work with luminosity and saturation separately. Just like you, I also set my Picture Control settings to minimum to have more freedom in PPing...
So, as far as I can see, I am a pretty “advanced” guy when it comes to general knowledge of PS/CNX. But, this knowledge is nothing without knowing which technique should be used in a particular situation, which, I believe, is a matter of personal experience and taste.
I would really like to see a step-by-step PPing description for some photos of Marc Adamus, for example. Wonder, if someone from the masters ever posted such descriptions.
I spent last weekend in the field and... Again, I feel that pictures could be much better if processed in more creative manner:
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/1095591/lid/60
Just for the reference, pictures with greens I am not happy about:
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/1095591/oid/17861641/lid/40
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/1095591/oid/17861681/lid/40
Maybe I want too much?
Thanks for your patience.
Certainly, pros visit much more interesting places and witness incredible light shows. But, where we are in more or less similar conditions, is shooting forest streams. I guess the common approach is an overcast day or twilight, polarizer, tripod and long exposure.
Let’s look at some classics from Marc Adamus:
http://www.marcadamus.com/photo.php?id=117&gallery=waterfall
http://www.marcadamus.com/photo.php?id=106&gallery=waterfall
http://www.marcadamus.com/photo.php?id=115&gallery=waterfall
http://www.marcadamus.com/photo.php?id=121&gallery=waterfall
And, my modest pictures:
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/oid/15715351/lid/40
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/997541/oid/15608271/lid/40
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/oid/15715391/lid/40
http://taren.fishup.ru/albums/p/gid/933681/oid/15461651/lid/40
I like the way Marc renders the midtones –lush on his pictures is not too bright, yet has enough contrast and saturation. Just right for this kind of photographs.
I believe his shadows are also better – they have details, while my shadows are either blacks or the pictures don’t have black point at all, since at PPing I preferred not to have so much blacks. So, I conclude that Marc’s shadows have more tonal gradations, which he efficiently uses. Interesting, maybe it’s a result of luminosity masks work?
We carry small gray cards roughly 4"x5"- actually a full size gray card cut in quarters. They're very convenient to use in the field, but you highlight important exceptions to their use- sunrises and sunsets. There's no way to use them often enough to keep up with conditions.
Since accurate colors during those periods is subjective we use either the cloudy or open shade presets to give things a warm tone rather than to try to eliminate them via a gray card. If you're going to try using the Kelvin scale, it's best to have a color meter. My ancient Minolta finally died and I need to replace it, but they are very expensive. Here are contemporary examples. I doubt you would find one all that useful for nature shooting, but it's mandatory in our commercial work for balancing mixed lighting sources via filters and gels.
Of course, only Marc can answer that question, Evgeny. Maybe he will see this thread and respond. But I do know Marc (and many other top pros) uses TK's procedures---and the ability to control midtone and shadow detail and textures is precisely what these allow. And do not forget TK's Saturation Masks, Magic Mid-tones and focus blending (for increasing DOF), procedures and PS actions.
I fully agree, Hank. The gray card is just a starting point, which can help in many common lighting conditions to help remove color casts like too much yellow in greens under warm sunlit landscapes---it's really necessary in cases like product photography, where color accuracy is critical. Human vision corrects for much of this effect, but camera sensors sometimes need help. However, as you pointed out Evgeny, there are definitely times when you do not want to neutralize all color casts, like sunrises and sunsets. I carry just the small WhiBal card (about 2x3 inches) which is quite easy to carry in a pocket. If I'm in a situation where I think I might need a neutral reference during post, I'll take a shot of the gray card---only takes 10 seconds. In changing light conditions, you can just periodically capture a frame with the card in the scene. I find it much better than trying to find something neutral in the scene to use as a reference during post.
That's priceless advice. It gives you a reference point for color adjustments in post processing. And with the small card, you can even clone it out, should you forget to remove it from subsequent shots.
Forget to remove the card? Moi? Never!
I guess I'll need to digest this information and look at the literature/materials you mentioned, as well as to try TK's masks more.
BTW, I wonder if anyone tried to compare TK's masks versus Photoshop "blend if" feature. I guess it should have the same effect, though the masks are more apparent and easy to use.
Something else you may want to consider reading into are contrast masks. You can do some amazing things with contrast masking, which also works well with other masking methods, as well as blending overlays when coming towards the end of your post process.
Two months passed after I posed my questions. Although I did not get definite answers (do they exist in art at all?), this discussion gave me a great food for thought and I’d like to share my recent experience with the technics/literature discussed here. Hope this could help someone too.
I tried TK’s luminosity masks more and found them an incredible tool. They give precise control over adjustments of different tones of an image – this is what I missed in my PPing. I also tried saturation masks and don’t have a final opinion on them – they certainly work, but I don’t see much difference with other saturation options offered by Photoshop. Maybe my monitor is too bad to appreciate the advantage of this technique.
I also ordered some books from Amazon. I tried Ellen Anon’s “Photoshop CS4 for Nature Photographers” (Bob, thank you for recommending this), but did not find it too useful. However, I’ve read and highly recommend another book – “Landscape and Nature Photography with Photoshop CS2” by Rob Sheppard. This book contains a lot of information on general philosophy of post processing and it teaches you not only how to do something, but also why and when. I really liked Rob’s parallels with Ansel Adam’s fine prints where he explains what he was doing and how the same could be done in digital era with Photoshop. Very useful book, give it a try.
Thank you all for participating in this discussion. BTW, I substantially reworked my website and you are welcome to visit it :) http://taren.fishup.ru/
Kind regards,
Evgeny.