Artikel Core

Post-Processing

Recently I seem to be getting a lot of questions from people about, and requests for information about, post-processing. (This probably came up because of my recent preoccupation with making and selling prints, and from posts such as "<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-printmaking.html">On Printmaking</a>.") So I plan to do a few posts in the coming months on the subject, with some concrete examples. The problem of post-processing is twofold: 1) What to do, and 2) How to do it. I tend to be a little too much interested in part 1 (my skills are a little too seat-of-the-pants), and most instructional books are skewed pretty radically toward part 2. But the two things really arise together. They also inform each other: what you know how to do influences what you do, and—similar but not the same thing at all—the effects you feel you need to achieve can drive you to go learn how to do it. <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5406/570/1600/174405/illinois20small.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5406/570/400/745911/illinois20small.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>Illinois #20—Mike's version </div> I posted my picture "Illinois #20" for sale a couple of days ago (it's been selling like hotcakes*), and my e-friend Stephen Best of <a href="http://www.macquarieeditions.com.au/">Macquarie Editions</a> wrote from Australia to say he found it too "bleak," asking me if I wanted him to have a go at it. I happen to really like the print a lot—I'm sort of besotted with it right now, actually, in the way you get about the things that come along occasionally to "nourish your enthusiasm" (Ansel Adams's phrase). I keep wandering over to look at it. And one thing I like about it is its bleakness and apparent emptiness. But I'm never averse to learning—especially from people who know what they're doing—so I took Stephen up on his offer. <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5406/570/1600/151280/illinois20SBest.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5406/570/400/640834/illinois20SBest.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>Illinois #20—Stephen's version </div> Here's what he came up with. He was working just with my posted JPEG, and he was also influenced somewhat by my interpretation, which of course he'd already seen. So it's possible—likely, even—that he would come up with something different if he were to start from the RAW file with no guidance from me and only his own taste to satisfy. Stephen basically converted to LAB color and ran the procedure that Dan Margulis recommends in the first chapter of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPhotoshop-LAB-Color-Adventures-Colorspace%2Fdp%2F0321356780%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1167770302%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;tag=theonlinephot-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">his new book on the subject</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theonlinephot-20&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;l=ur2&o=1" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" width="1" />. After converting to LAB, Stephen ran a Haze Reduction action to increase local contrast. Then, using a Curves layer, he first adjusted the L (luminance) curve to tweak tonality, and then steepened the a and b curves ("a lot," he says) to "bring out the latent colours in [the] flat original." Lastly, he added a gradient fill to the layer mask to stop the top of the image from blowing out. Once it was back on my desktop I reconverted it to RGB and, as Phil Davis never used to say, viola. So what do you think? Here's what I think, provisionally: I think my version preserves the look and intensity of the light a little better—it was near dark and the light was murky—but Stephen's is actually more accurate in terms of color as I remember it. The sunset, behind hazy clouds, was behind my right shoulder, and you can see that in Stephen's interpretation. So why "provisionally"? For the same reason that you only know what you think provisionally—I haven't seen prints side-by-side yet (and neither have you). To really decide, I'd have to try to replicate his effects on the RAW file and reprint it to his vision of it, and then live with the two for a bit. There are two very basic lessons of post-processing that cannot be stressed enough: First, in interpreting a photograph as a print there is only bleh, fair, fine, better, better, better, and different: there's no best. (You can quote me on that. Please.) The interpretation an expert settles on will likely be better than the best interpretation a neophyte can come up with, but half a dozen experienced photographer/printmakers could conceivably come up with half a dozen different versions of the same file; it depends on how you think the particular picture works best, how you want it to communicate, and what aspects of it you like and wants to bring out. The second lesson is: You have to see it. Never skip the looking stage of the process. I think I like my version better than Stephen's, and I'll bet he believes the same thing in reverse. But unless and until we each actually see prints side-by-side, final judgment has to be reserved. Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON with STEPHEN BEST *Have you ever bought a hotcake? Well me neither.** **See William's comment and my response. Featured Comment by advman: Sorry Mike, I couldn't resist. Here is a version I just did. You may hate it, it is almost certainly not what you've seen, but that's what I think would sell. I made this with Lab as well, only not so decent, and added three curves adjustment layers to adjust contrast differently for the forest, the city, and finally the top of the sky. I have no idea how bad the effect on noise would be. That is always the problem with so drastic contrast adjustments, but you might well get away with it. It is only crucial that you don't use any noise reduction on the forest. Micro-detail in the forest and noise reduction, they don't go well with each other. <a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5406/570/1600/750950/advmansversionillinois20.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5406/570/400/799286/advmansversionillinois20.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>

Post-Processing

Recently I seem to be getting a lot of questions from people about, and requests for information about, post-processing. (This probably came...

11:24 AM

How To Choose CD/DVD Archival Media

By Patrick McFarland Ahh, I’ve been planning to write this one for awhile: an entire article on archival quality media. As I do professional software development as well as professional photography (what a weird combination), I need archival quality CD and DVD media to store my data on. However, one of the hardest things to is actually find good media, or even understand why it is good media. This article focuses on the history of Compact Discs, writable CD/DVD media, and why DVD+R is superior to DVD-R. If you want to just know what media is worth buying, skip to the summary at the bottom.... <a href="http://adterrasperaspera.com/blog/2006/10/30/how-to-choose-cddvd-archival-media/">READ ON</a> <div style="text-align: left;">Posted by: JOHN LEHET <form method="LINK" action="http://www.lehet.com"> <div style="text-align: right;"><input value="John's Site" type="submit"> </div></form></div>

How To Choose CD/DVD Archival Media

By Patrick McFarland Ahh, I’ve been planning to write this one for awhile: an entire article on archival quality media. As I do professional...

9:48 AM

Book Review: 'Plastic Cameras: Toying With Creativity' by Michelle Bates

<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5406/570/1600/166721/blog13figure1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5406/570/400/394751/blog13figure1.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>by Ctein I'm not fanatically in love with the snapshot aesthetic. Most work done in this vein is a serious bore. Practitioners too often confuse artlessness with art, failing to understand that to produce art when you're standing that close to the edge of an aesthetic cliff requires exceptional clever and nimble movements. I'm unenamored of "Lomographers" who think that copying the motions of Garry Winogrand make them artists. Garry was a genius and accomplished the near impossible. Not so the rest. Uninsightful emulation of form just produces boring photographs; they're not even bad art. This is not a technique prejudice. I'm equally uninterested in the renderings of Orthodox Zonies, who think mechanically replicating the techniques of Adams and Weston produce work of comparable artistic merit. News flash: brilliant technique without soul is also boring. Nothing wrong with fun (viz. my reviews of the $10 digital camera) but there's a big difference between fun and work of enduring merit. Plastic Cameras: Toying with Creativity understands both the fun and merit of toy camera photography. It proves conclusively that not only can you produce wonderful art with these gadgets, along with having a great time, but that "plastic camera photography" has no more of a single, forced "look" than does Nikon photography. Chapter 2, "Plastic Portfolios," is 30% of the book, and I wish it were longer (and that many of the photos were reproduced larger). If you thought cheap "toy" cameras were incapable of producing interesting and diverse art, it'll open your eyes. There's lots of amazing and unexpected work on display. I'm especially enamored of Pauline St. Denis' and Susan Bowen's intricate and brilliant panoramas, Harvey Stein's New York street photography, and Teru Kuwayama's documentary images. Convincing proof that folks are making a lot more than toy pictures with these toy cameras. The rest of the book thoroughly covers the 5 W's (who, what, when, where, and how) of toy camera equipment and technique. It includes all sorts of cool hacks for extending the range of capabilities of these little cameras—that's half the fun of playing with them. Focus [sic] is on the Holga, but the information's of value across the range of toycams. Plastic Cameras is published by Focal Press and has a suggested list price of $29.95. Although you could <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPlastic-Cameras-Creativity-Michelle-Bates%2Fdp%2F0240808401%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1167828173%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks&amp;amp;amp;amp;tag=theonlinephot-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">purchase it from Amazon</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theonlinephot-20&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;l=ur2&o=1" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> at a discount, I recommend <a href="http://michellebates.net/PCTWC.html">buying a signed copy directly from the author</a>. Authors do a lot better when you buy books directly from them instead of through distributors. This one's highly recommended. <div style="text-align: left;">Posted by CTEIN <form method="LINK" action="http://www.ctein.com"><div style="text-align: right;"><input value="Ctein's Site" type="submit"> </div></form></div>

Book Review: 'Plastic Cameras: Toying With Creativity' by Michelle Bates

by Ctein I'm not fanatically in love with the snapshot aesthetic. Most work done in this vein is a serious bore. Practitioners too ofte...

4:34 AM

Metacommentary

If you're interested in Photoshop technique, I've just posted a new Featured Comment to "<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/12/year-in-photography_116726021089714470.html">T.O.P. Technical Book of the Year 2006</a>" by David Mantripp, including a link to David's mini-review of the book. And speaking of comments, I've closed the comments for "T.O.P. Photographer of the Year 2006," so anyone who comments further shouldn't be offended if it doesn't show up (it will show they didn't read the post all the way to the end, anyway). I do tend to pay for it whenever I venture to post controversial things here. If something I say makes people feel bad, the bad feelings are magnified back on me, via comments. My little observation about Saddam drew fiercely unhappy complaints from both sides—the usual ones from conservatives objecting to what they see as reflexive Bush-bashing, and even more of them—about a third again as many—from people who provided copious links to evidence that Saddam was put in power by the U.S. in the first place, and to other sites asserting that Bush was simply eliminating a witness to U.S. complicity in the region. Then I had to deal with comments from people who were angry that I hadn't posted their first comments. I even got several examples of a quixotic type of response I've gotten before, namely, from non-Americans holding me personally responsible for U.S. policy. I hate to say it, but I have very, very little influence over my nation's government. (In effect, I just live here.) I vote, but that's about where the reach of my power ends. Believe me on this. I can't get Condi Rice on the phone. The reason I ended the comments to the Jill Greenberg post was that I perceived that people who've already been immersed in this argument had linked back to T.O.P. and were coming here to contribute arguments they had already been involved in elsewhere; I was getting comments from people, in other words, whose views on the matter had already been radicalized, and seemed to have hardened that way. I don't think it's as big a deal as some other people do, obviously, but at the same time I'm sort of sorry I got into it. In any event, I don't think that T.O.P. is the proper place to hash out emotional issues unto exhaustion. We can argue all day—but why? Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Metacommentary

If you're interested in Photoshop technique, I've just posted a new Featured Comment to " T.O.P. Technical Book of the Year 200...

11:32 AM

Blogging on a Beautiful Spring Day

<div style="text-align: right;">SA* </div>The blogger is walking alone down the street. Let's say—my street: tree-lined, with older houses, modestly generous yards, street lamps. It's April, and new leaves are on the trees. The new leaves have that peculiar delightful green color, delicate yet bright. Musing aloud, the blogger says to himself, "My, that's a beautiful green." Immediately, three people pop up at one side of the street (the virtual world is like that), cooing approval of the blogger's opinion. "It certainly is," says Coloratoora; "Right you are," agrees BornOnTheFourth; "You've very perceptive," chimes in Xtalk, "I wouldn't have noticed that if you hadn't mentioned it." The three of them murmur to their invisible friends—"hey, come look at this"; "check this out"—who pop up alongside of them. Some offer their own opinion on the matter of green. NdlssLv tells a story of his own experience of green, years ago; Imjason recites his opinions on green, sleep, the evolution of beetles, and the proposed new one-dollar coinage. Before long, a warm knot of people have gathered, all united happily in their love of green, and, by association, their admiration of the blogger. The crowd swells. The blogger feels good, and a little full of himself. Suddenly, attracted by all the hubbub, a lone individual pops up on the other side of the street. Everyone looks at her. "What's wrong with blue?" she says. "I like blue." Murmurs of assent from the blogger's left. Blue is nice. They like blue too. Blogger feels expansive. Yes, blue too! he thinks. Blue and green! Look at me—I'm all about blue and green! Two more people pop up on the blue side. "Look at that sky!" exclaims Jean2U. "It's a beautiful shade of blue." "Your blue shirt is nice," someone says. MainMan, on the green side, unbidden, begins a long disquisition on hue. "Blue is monotonous. Green can vary in hue. The blue of the sky is actually always the same shade, just lighter or darker...." "Pardon me, but that's wrong," comes a voice from the blue crowd. There is a grumble of agreement. MainMan pauses. "Are you calling MainMan wrong?" asks MainMan, sententiously. "How could you be so rude? MainMan is not wrong, MainMan is a KING, sitting in his Kingdom, surrounded by his mighty peripherals blinking and flashing like the cockpit of a Jules Verne submarine. You've assaulted MainMan, is what you've done, and I'm very close to MainMan, for MainMan is me...." "We were talking about green," says L8rJ, from the green side. "Yeah, shut the hell up, MainMain," says Nordus. "Nobody tells me to shut up!" cries MainMan. "I'm leaving this blog and never coming back!" "Blue is nice too! Everybody agrees blue is nice!" interjects LuLufromOz, hysteria in her voice. "Blogger's post said nothing about blue," several people say, their voices rising. "We can quote him! Look, here it is, he said, 'My, what a beautiful green,' emphases ours...." "Yeah, GREEN," adds Nordus. "No," says another, "he said THAT'S a beautiful green, not WHAT a beautiful green, you insipid cretin. Can't you even cut and paste?!?" At this point, sensing tension on the rise, the blogger assays his own comment, feeling (without, actually, a whole lot of justification) that he must somehow still be in control of the matter, since he brought it up. "We all agree, and we can all get along," he says soothingly. "I like the green of the new leaves; I also like the blue of the morning sky. The green of the new leaves and the blue of the morning sky go together, and are both nice." Nods from many individuals. The street is very crowded now. Expectancy is in the air, although of what it's hard to say. More and more people are popping up on both sides. Suddenly, a large, truculent-looking individual looms up from the back over the heads of the admirers of green. "You know, I never fuckin' liked you blue jerks. Blue people reek. Bugger off, blue buggers! This was a thread about green!" "Hey, it's my thread," says blogger weakly—but he's shouted down from the blue side. "Who says we can't talk about blue?" "Green makes me sick to my stomach!" "Don't you know green is evil? Here are eight links that prove it!" "Who died and made you the thread policeman?" "I'm with TrucuL3nt!" screams coatolder, from out of the mass on the green side. "This was about green! Green! Blue people go to HELL!" "GREEN—GREEN—GREEN," chant the green people. Shouting becomes general. Off to one side, green people are beseeching blue people to abandon blue and come over to the green side. A commenter named Zizzyman jumps from green, to blue, and then back to green again, welcomed with open arms each time he switches sides. Even the formerly peaceful people are angry and unhappy now. The blogger never sees who throws the first rock. Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Rocks pop into the hands of many of the more vocal individuals on both sides (you can find anything on the internet). Before he knows it, rocks are whizzing back and forth past blogger's head. One smacks into his shoulder; another hits his leg. "People! People!" he cries, his voice drowned out by the melee. "Keep your sense of perspective! It's just a nice Spring day!" "Shut up, idiot!" comes the chorus. "You knew this was going to happen—you knew it would bring traffic to your blog when you started militating for green in the first place!" "Yeah! That's why you did it!" "Yeah! This is all your fault!" "OW!" cries blogger. Inexplicably, a lull—and the blogger is aware that the already huge crowd has suddenly achieved a whole new dimension; it has magnified exponentially. Behind him, an enormous mass of people have materialized. They are armed with cudgels, verbs, spikes, bricks, epithets, all sorts of things. And they are looking menacing. A wave of fear travels up his spine. "Who are you?" says the blogger. "What do you want?" "We don't much care about that whole crowd of stupid cool-colors people," growls the burly ringleader of the new mob. "We're more concerned with bastards like you who go around deliberately promoting green...." "But who are you?" says the desperate blogger. "You've been linked over at Red.com, HotColr.org, pinkladies.net, RedPartisans.blogspot.com...all over the place...and nobody is happy about you!" comes the answer. "If this isn't obvious to you yet, we're the red people...." Posted by: MIKE ("It's Just A Nice Spring Day") JOHNSTON <div style="text-align: right;">*Satire alert </div>

Blogging on a Beautiful Spring Day

SA * The blogger is walking alone down the street. Let's say—my street: tree-lined, with older houses, modestly generous yards, street l...

4:48 AM

Illinois #20

Illinois #20

I've just posted a new print for sale. This one is probably not something that I should even try to sell—I love it, but it's going t...

4:06 PM

Peace

Peace

Richard F. Man , Peace The picture was taken at dawn on the solstice; Richard did both the photography and the calligraphy (which says ...

9:03 AM