Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Show your before and after images

Hosermage

Hosermage

Active member
Fun idea!

I hard set the ISO and Shutters in hope to contain noise and movement, figured I can deal with exposure later in PP.


L1006298-2.jpg by Hosermage, on Flickr


L1006298.jpg by Hosermage, on Flickr

I also wanted to make sure that when viewed as a thumbnail, the silhouette would be visible. It seems flickr adds a lot of sharpening... because the thumbnail in Lightroom looks a lot better.
 
DavidE

DavidE

Active member
This is a display window in Manhattan, shot with an M9 and 18mm Super-Elmar. The buildings across the street are being reflected on the glass.



Tried to process it so that everything appears to be in one spatial plane. Used Lightroom 4 for the processing.



Here's another Manhattan store window, shot with a Monochrom and 21mm Super-Elmar.



Used Lightroom 5 and Silver Effex 2 to process this one.

 
russelljtdyer

russelljtdyer

New member
Exposing the Attention

I've been trying lately to improve my skills in street photography. In this photo, I felt that the man in the white t-shirt was interesting. He had an animated way of speaking that seems to come through in the photo. The original was a little over exposed, so I reduced exposure with Adobe Lightroom. But I wanted to focus the attention on him and his conversation, so I used the adjustment brush in Lightroom to reduce the exposure much more on everything and everyone except for him and the woman to whom he was speaking, as well as their bench and personal items.


Leica M8.2 camera, Zeiss Plannar 50mm f/2 ZM lens; 1/350 second, f/5.6, iso 320



I also increased the vibrancy and saturation of colors, and increased contrast and clarity, but not by much. And I adjusted the white balance for less blue, but reduced the saturation of yellow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N

NB23

New member
I have to be honest and say that I MUCH prefer the originals vs. the retouched ones. Much!
Except (maybe) the one featuring the homeless person kneeling. But it too lacks some finesse.
 
2

250swb

Member
NB23 said:
I have to be honest and say that I MUCH prefer the originals vs. the retouched ones. Much!
Except (maybe) the one featuring the homeless person kneeling. But it too lacks some finesse.
Click to expand...
Serious question, do you use a properly calibrated monitor?

The reason I ask is because on my monitor the originals are all 'thin and weedy' as many photographs are as they come off the SD card, it keeps as many tones in the picture as possible without clipping. Mine are, that is why I do post processing. And of course the originals do not show the photographers final vision of how to render the subject anyway. But if you are seeing the originals as 'better' it seems to me that it can only be because your brightness and contrast is turned up to much already.

Steve
 
russelljtdyer

russelljtdyer

New member
After years of posting on photography web sites--this one is new for me--and other public forums, I've learned that there will always be people who prefer the opposite of what I prefer, who see things differently--usually several--and almost no one will agree with me, or at least no one who will post a message saying so. I'm not criticizing anyone who disagrees with me or scolding those who agree with me but remain silent. I'm just observing a human phenomenon.

Whenever I post a photo that has been processed or changed in some way, no matter how clear it may be for me that the processed one is better than the original, there will be those who will say that the original was better. There is usually no one who will say the processing improved it. One would think from my experiences that there is little value to programs like Adobe Photoshop. And yet, people buy and use such software, spending millions.

If I don't show anyone the original photo, though, and post only the processed one, people will tell me they like the processed one. For instance, I posted on another site the altered version of the photo I took above, but not the original. I received good comments for it. No one said, "Why are the other people in the photo so dark? Did you alter this photo? It looks weird." Nor did anyone say, "You should try to increase the exposure in PhotoShop to make the other people and things as bright as the man and woman talking on the bench. Oh, and decrease the color saturation: the colors are too rich." They just said things like, "Nice photo." and "Interesting shot of this guy."

This contrary reaction is strange to me. But I have learned to accept it. Before I post two versions of the same photo, I tell myself this is probably how others will react. I prepare myself for it.

-Russell
 
MichaelToye

MichaelToye

New member
Russell, be assured your process is quite excellent. The man in the white shirt has the casual look of a local and, surrounded by what appear to be tourists, the frame has a subtle juxtaposition to it. Interesting commentary piece.

As for the subject of PP. This thread was supposed to raise questions, both positive and constructive.

I'm pleased to see I am in the company of people who use PS/LR to style their photographs rather than manipulate and crop.

Michael
 
2

250swb

Member
I'm debating with myself whether to post on this thread because I think the photograph should be what you want other people to see, not give them an option to get it wrong.

Altering an image to perfect the contrast and image balance is as old as the hills. A bit of burning in here or dodging there, the choice of paper grade, or the choice of a warm tone paper or a cool tone paper are things photographers have always addressed. That sophistication has however gone out the window for some people in the digital age who think it is manipulating the image. Well, we all manipulate the image just by pointing the camera at something.

I think best the sources of before and after imaging, which show how a photographer takes what the camera delivers and adjusts it to show how they envisioned the end image are the two books by Aperture, 'Darkroom' and 'Darkroom 2'. Even though darkroom based it is the image that gives the lesson, as does Adams 'The Print', showing how much he manipulated the negative to make it conform to his will.

Steve
 
J

jabberwocky

New member
A good portion of the photos on this forum ARE interesting and I hope no one gets scared off from posting by the opinions of others.

The biggest "Post Processing" for me is the "cull". Sifting through hundreds of images, looking for that one that fits my aesthetics or has a special something that I personally find interesting. The photoshop bit is just post post. I forgot where i read this before, but: "If it wasn't an interesting photo to begin with, then all the post processing in the world won't help it."
 
Last edited:
Hosermage

Hosermage

Active member
jabberwocky said:
A good portion of the photos on this forum ARE interesting and I hope no one gets scared off from posting by the opinions of others.

The biggest "Post Processing" for me is the "cull". Sifting through hundreds of images, looking for that one that fits my aesthetics or has a special something that I personally find interesting. The photoshop bit is just post post. I forgot where i read this before, but: "If it wasn't an interesting photo to begin with, then all the post processing in the world won't help it."
Click to expand...
Well, it's pretty hard to discourage me to post :D The following shot I actually ignored in the initial cull. Then I was playing with some VSCO film presets and wanted to test them on a landscape shot. I found a preset "Fuji FP-100c Negative - -" that really enhanced it for me and I ended up liking it a lot. I hope this doesn't spark a preset/no-preset argument, it simply worked for me on this image.

Before:


After:
 
F

Froyd

Member
I'm really liking this thread. Please post more!

Of course PP is a matter of taste, so I appreciate the brave souls who are posting here and opening themselves up for unwarranted criticism.
 
chrism

chrism

Well-known member
Sooner or later someone will be told they crop too much, and it might as well be me.





I had the 35 Lux FLE and the MacroElmar-M 90 with me. For wandering around the house and ambushing various relatives it seemed the 35 was more likely suit, and even a heavy crop like this gives plenty of resolution for a portrait. The 90 is a bit too sharp anyway for kind portraits. It's easier to get back to the unaltered original in LR, so that's where the first pic comes from. The processed version comes from Aperture.

Chris
 
f 10

f 10

New member
Here is my before/after image example

I use C1Pro only. No PS or anything else.

before


after
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top