Posted by Richard Ditch on March 31, 2014 at 12:33 AM
Perhaps I'm spending too much time on the web and not enough out in the field, but I've been noting a disturbing trend in the Avian Galley of what appear to be over-processed images. I see this in a few ways:
1. unnaturally light shadows
It is tempting to use shadow recovery in an attempt to bring out detail in part of the subject that ha been under-exposed. But this often results in very weak dark areas, increased noise in these shadow areas, an overall lack of contrast and an image that appears flat overall.
2. over sharpening
This is often an indication that precise focus has ben missed and too much sharpening has been applied in an attempt to compensate.
3. multiple applications used on a single image
I've encountered very few properly exposed images that can't be processed start to finish in Photoshop, and I'm still using CS3. So I'm a bit bewildered when I see a string of apps listed for post processing of an image. At times I wonder if just having all these apps available tempts people into using them just because they already have them.
Does anyone see these trends? If so do they bother you? Or am I "seeing" things that aren't really happening?
Posted by Keith Bauer on March 31, 2014 at 10:35 AM
Hi Richard:
There have been a few images in the past couple of weeks that have had processing done that didn't help the images in my opinion. I've worked with a couple of the people offline to provide alternate versions of the images to improve the image and hopefully improve knowledge of post processing.
In the digital world, it is very easy to "over" process images. I would not assert that using many different software applications is a bad thing. I regularly use LightRoom Develop for my RAW processing, Photoshop CC for anything and everything dealing with targeted adjustments via layers and layer masks, and NIK Sharpener Pro because I believe it does a better job for me than Unsharp Mask, or Smart Sharpen. For many of my non Avian images where I am pushing the boundaries of photography and art, I use other software applications to help me create the look I'm after. I don't see that as a bad thing, I see it as a way to create the image I wanted. Sounds like for you, Photoshop CS3 is doing the job. I do think you are missing some improved processing algorithms in later versions of Photoshop, but maybe you don't need them.
My encouragement to people is to really learn how to process a "natural" image. If the shadows are lost from the initial in camera capture, then they are lost and no amount of post processing is going to make them look normal. Getting it right in camera is always step number 1. Sometimes the best thing to do with an image is let it spin around on your hard drive for a couple of days or a couple of weeks, then re-visit after the emotional experience of capturing that image has begun to fade, and really evaluate the image for it's technical merits. If it is great, then process it, and share it. If it really has some technical issues that just can't be solved with post processing, then throw it in the trash. It's not going to get any better spinning around on your hard drive
NPN is a great learning environment. If someone wants / needs to post an image for help in processing, then post it, and ask for help. I wish I could count how many images I've pulled from a posting, processed it and sent it to the photographer with my thoughts on how to improve it.
"In the digital world, it is very easy to "over" process images."
I agree with this, and have done it myself. The usual outcome is one of two things: I either throw the image out (expensive with 4x5!), or re-scan the film and start over. I do all my processing in CS-6 for film, and for digital captures either View NX2 or ACR to convert NEF files and then process them in CS-6. I do make frequent use of Tony Kuyper's layer masks.
I do think that, in some cases, folks look for a 'silver bullet' in the form of various plugins to rescue certain images. Sometimes it works, and in others attempts are made to get detail, sharpness, and/or color where there isn't any to resolve. On the other hand, I've seen very nice results from the use of various plugins.
"Sometimes the best thing to do with an image is let it spin around on your hard drive for a couple of days or a couple of weeks, then re-visit after the emotional experience of capturing that image has begun to fade, and really evaluate the image for it's technical merits."
I think this is key. We all have a natural emotional bias for our subjects, so the tendency is to get the image out there without giving time for critical thought. I have fallen prey to this, myself, and it's hard to not fall into the trap. This 'gurgle time' to which Keith refers does allow time to lose some of the emotional attachment to the image and really evaluate it on it's merits, both technically and artistically, in order for it to 'sing'.
Ultimately, the goal is to get the best possible in-camera exposure in both a technical and aesthetic sense and then use the tools at our disposal to realize the optimum print or Web image.
Fascinating topic, Richard. To me this harkens back to the arguments over Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Velvia, etc. from slide days (probably true in negative film as well, but I was a slide shooter) with all of the discussion as to which film better approximated reality. Yes it's easy to over process (too much added brightness as seen through noise in the shadows), too much sharpening, most easily seen in blown out edges (been there and done that!) or a crunchy look, and too much saturation. I'd hate to count the number of comments that I've made and seen about wishing to see just a bit more detail in the shadows, so there's clear justification for pushing the shadows. As always, the challenge is what is too much and while I expect that most of us would agree on the meaning of "too much", picking what is "just right" is the gray area where artistic vision comes into play.
I definitely agree with the comments about letting images sit for a bit so that we can overcome the immediate emotional aspects of being there and getting the best in-camera results.
I know, that I have been guilty of oversharpening. I have a slight vision problem, so I have to rely on pinpoint autofocus. I know, we are only supposed to submit our best shots. Well, many of my cutest shots are almost in great focus...or part of the bird is in more focus than the rest. I would hate to not be able to post any avian photos at all. So, I tend to oversharpen to avoid the dreaded "soft" comment.
Many commenters will just say...too soft, like that is that. No comp, color, etc comments. And the discussion will stop dead at that one comment. I think being perfectly in focus is ideal, but many times photos can tell a story or be beautiful even if they are a little soft. In fact, sometimes adding glamour glow can make an ordinary bird look gorgeous (but not too much glow). Many would argue to put all of these photos in photo art, but I think soft is not always the most accurate way to judge a photo. The Flora gallery is much more forgiving in terms of softness and, in many photos, softness is praised. Although a number of those in Flora, in fact, IMO, belong in photo art.
But... Maybe the avian gallery could look at beauty a little more and "ID catalog-perfect" a little less. Avian does not have to give the leeway of Flora...But, it might "bend" just a bit.
Just my own opinion.....
I would hate to not be able to post any avian photos at all.
Lucy - it has never been my intention to prohibit anyone from posting an image that fits the rues of the gallery. And I've never thought that only a person's best image should be posted - a great way to learn is to post images with issues and ask for feedback on how to avoid them or mitigate them.
I agree that factors such as color and composition are important to the overall image, but I personally cannot dismiss flaws in the underlying technical aspects of focus and exposure. The best images combine artistic elements such as composition with solid technicals, and I hope that is the goal that every photographer tries to meet.
For the sake of argument let's assume people offer critiques from the point of view that they would critique their own images. If sharpness is a top criteria for their own shots then that's probably the first thing they will look at when viewing other images. Over time it seems that different forums develop a mild case of "group think" that can be off putting to some. The only thing I can suggest is to post and critique images in the most honest way possible from your personal perspective and let the chips fall where they may.
As to the question of over processed images, I can speak from experience that my processing has changed over time and hopefully it will continue to change as my skills mature. Looking back at some of my older images makes me cringe.
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 2, 2014 at 11:00 PM
At one time the easiest way to tell someone had gone overboard was seeing if they way over did the saturation. Now it seems to be evening out the shadows too much.
"The only thing I can suggest is to post and critique images in the most honest way possible from your personal perspective and let the chips fall where they may."
I think this is a really good and worthwhile path to follow. I believe it will also be helpful to those evaluating an image if the photographer gave some idea of what their goal is for a particular image.
I do agree with Kent in that there appears to be tendency to bring up detail in very low-value areas of the image. Perhaps this due to the prevalence of HDR and attempts to emulate the effect in images that not suited for it? In my own work, I try to keep such low-value areas very small, so that I can leave them alone. Attempts to bring up detail in large dark areas usually leads to un-natural tonal and color values and noise that is unacceptable to me.
Discussion
8 replies1. unnaturally light shadows
It is tempting to use shadow recovery in an attempt to bring out detail in part of the subject that ha been under-exposed. But this often results in very weak dark areas, increased noise in these shadow areas, an overall lack of contrast and an image that appears flat overall.
2. over sharpening
This is often an indication that precise focus has ben missed and too much sharpening has been applied in an attempt to compensate.
3. multiple applications used on a single image
I've encountered very few properly exposed images that can't be processed start to finish in Photoshop, and I'm still using CS3. So I'm a bit bewildered when I see a string of apps listed for post processing of an image. At times I wonder if just having all these apps available tempts people into using them just because they already have them.
Does anyone see these trends? If so do they bother you? Or am I "seeing" things that aren't really happening?
There have been a few images in the past couple of weeks that have had processing done that didn't help the images in my opinion. I've worked with a couple of the people offline to provide alternate versions of the images to improve the image and hopefully improve knowledge of post processing.
In the digital world, it is very easy to "over" process images. I would not assert that using many different software applications is a bad thing. I regularly use LightRoom Develop for my RAW processing, Photoshop CC for anything and everything dealing with targeted adjustments via layers and layer masks, and NIK Sharpener Pro because I believe it does a better job for me than Unsharp Mask, or Smart Sharpen. For many of my non Avian images where I am pushing the boundaries of photography and art, I use other software applications to help me create the look I'm after. I don't see that as a bad thing, I see it as a way to create the image I wanted. Sounds like for you, Photoshop CS3 is doing the job. I do think you are missing some improved processing algorithms in later versions of Photoshop, but maybe you don't need them.
My encouragement to people is to really learn how to process a "natural" image. If the shadows are lost from the initial in camera capture, then they are lost and no amount of post processing is going to make them look normal. Getting it right in camera is always step number 1. Sometimes the best thing to do with an image is let it spin around on your hard drive for a couple of days or a couple of weeks, then re-visit after the emotional experience of capturing that image has begun to fade, and really evaluate the image for it's technical merits. If it is great, then process it, and share it. If it really has some technical issues that just can't be solved with post processing, then throw it in the trash. It's not going to get any better spinning around on your hard drive
NPN is a great learning environment. If someone wants / needs to post an image for help in processing, then post it, and ask for help. I wish I could count how many images I've pulled from a posting, processed it and sent it to the photographer with my thoughts on how to improve it.
I agree with this, and have done it myself. The usual outcome is one of two things: I either throw the image out (expensive with 4x5!), or re-scan the film and start over. I do all my processing in CS-6 for film, and for digital captures either View NX2 or ACR to convert NEF files and then process them in CS-6. I do make frequent use of Tony Kuyper's layer masks.
I do think that, in some cases, folks look for a 'silver bullet' in the form of various plugins to rescue certain images. Sometimes it works, and in others attempts are made to get detail, sharpness, and/or color where there isn't any to resolve. On the other hand, I've seen very nice results from the use of various plugins.
I think this is key. We all have a natural emotional bias for our subjects, so the tendency is to get the image out there without giving time for critical thought. I have fallen prey to this, myself, and it's hard to not fall into the trap. This 'gurgle time' to which Keith refers does allow time to lose some of the emotional attachment to the image and really evaluate it on it's merits, both technically and artistically, in order for it to 'sing'.
Ultimately, the goal is to get the best possible in-camera exposure in both a technical and aesthetic sense and then use the tools at our disposal to realize the optimum print or Web image.
--P
I definitely agree with the comments about letting images sit for a bit so that we can overcome the immediate emotional aspects of being there and getting the best in-camera results.
Many commenters will just say...too soft, like that is that. No comp, color, etc comments. And the discussion will stop dead at that one comment. I think being perfectly in focus is ideal, but many times photos can tell a story or be beautiful even if they are a little soft. In fact, sometimes adding glamour glow can make an ordinary bird look gorgeous (but not too much glow). Many would argue to put all of these photos in photo art, but I think soft is not always the most accurate way to judge a photo. The Flora gallery is much more forgiving in terms of softness and, in many photos, softness is praised. Although a number of those in Flora, in fact, IMO, belong in photo art.
But... Maybe the avian gallery could look at beauty a little more and "ID catalog-perfect" a little less. Avian does not have to give the leeway of Flora...But, it might "bend" just a bit.
Just my own opinion.....
Lucy - it has never been my intention to prohibit anyone from posting an image that fits the rues of the gallery. And I've never thought that only a person's best image should be posted - a great way to learn is to post images with issues and ask for feedback on how to avoid them or mitigate them.
I agree that factors such as color and composition are important to the overall image, but I personally cannot dismiss flaws in the underlying technical aspects of focus and exposure. The best images combine artistic elements such as composition with solid technicals, and I hope that is the goal that every photographer tries to meet.
As to the question of over processed images, I can speak from experience that my processing has changed over time and hopefully it will continue to change as my skills mature. Looking back at some of my older images makes me cringe.
Kent in SD
I think this is a really good and worthwhile path to follow. I believe it will also be helpful to those evaluating an image if the photographer gave some idea of what their goal is for a particular image.
I do agree with Kent in that there appears to be tendency to bring up detail in very low-value areas of the image. Perhaps this due to the prevalence of HDR and attempts to emulate the effect in images that not suited for it? In my own work, I try to keep such low-value areas very small, so that I can leave them alone. Attempts to bring up detail in large dark areas usually leads to un-natural tonal and color values and noise that is unacceptable to me.
--P