# Post-processing of photos - inputs, views, discussions.....



## skr (Dec 10, 2012)

Hi! friends,

I have started this thread to discuss the aspect of post-processing of photos. 

There are certain scenarios where post-processing of photos is a necessity, like for pictures of functions, family gatherings etc. Also where closeups of faces need touch-ups, smoothening etc. post-processing of photos is a necessity.

However in other circumstances, I feel, a photo will appear as natural as possible if it is devoid of any post-processing. The actual mood of the scene, potrait, nature settings etc. is best captured naturally, than being induced in post-processing.

In this regard, my opinion is that more emphasis must be laid on COMPOSING the shots, to capture the true essence and mood of the moment, rather than taking the help of post-processing softwares to create or induce the moods.

Awaiting Valuable inputs from learned friends.


----------



## dashing.sujay (Dec 10, 2012)

Alas! I was much in need of it. All photoshoppers please put your valuable inputs.


----------



## nac (Dec 10, 2012)

^  I could use some...


----------



## anirbandd (Dec 10, 2012)

good job creating a thread for this purpose. 

VOTE on being Made Sticky, as the comments start pourong in.


----------



## lm2k (Dec 10, 2012)

A thread for discussion n sharing of *techniques* n avoiding never ending debate whether to pp or not .


----------



## marvelousprashant (Dec 10, 2012)

For faces/portraits you can use Perfect 365. It is a very very easy to use application and lets you do most of the post processing like removing flash shine, changing skin tone, texture, eye color, eyelashes and eyebrow color/styles, lift cheeks, remove dark circles etc. Results are pretty good too

Few of my own samples

*lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xe-gVL9oYX0/UMX1YXugWDI/AAAAAAAABF8/2XGVDQgOYWk/s912/Screenshot%2520%252833%2529.jpg

*lh5.googleusercontent.com/-HBzVA6ulM0o/UMX1ZFwHX1I/AAAAAAAABGA/LR8mTizAl7k/s912/Screenshot%2520%252832%2529.jpg


----------



## nac (Dec 10, 2012)

^ So we can even do a "facelift"


----------



## marvelousprashant (Dec 10, 2012)

Great thread BTW. Will post a tutorial on how to create a composite from burst shots in Photoshop soon

Regarding question of OP, Post processing is necessary. Out of camera shots may be inaccurate wrt color and white balance. Natural = what eye sees. PP can be used to bridge the gap


----------



## raja manuel (Dec 10, 2012)

I shoot in RAW and post process using DPP which is quite simple but gives impressive results. Now experimenting a bit with RAW Therapee for more advanced stuff, but it isn't as intuitive.


----------



## anirbandd (Dec 11, 2012)

just an input: one should not PP to cover his/her mistake. but rather to amplify what one wants to show in the shot. a well shot image is 98% final production image. 

except for special cases.


----------



## marvelousprashant (Dec 11, 2012)

ignore


----------



## skr (Dec 11, 2012)

Thanks all for the appreciative and informative inputs. I would like more discussions here.

OFCOURSE, POST-PROCESSING OWING TO A HANDICAP IN THE GEAR DEPARTMENT (i.e. not having the features in the camera) IS NOT WHAT THIS DISCUSSION SHOUL BE ABOUT.

I would like to put forth my opinion illustratively. 

This is a photo I uploaded on the Photographic thread. 

*farm9.staticflickr.com/8361/8260905548_bf8a4671ec.jpg
IMG_5273 by skr sx130, on Flickr

Learned friends suggested the the bird, the subject, should get highlighted and that the green leaf was actually drawing the attention away from the bird. The somewhat modified photo is posted below.

*farm9.staticflickr.com/8346/8263937702_5fac392ab0.jpg
IMG_52731 by skr sx130, on Flickr

My argument here is, the assessment of the skill and capability of a good photographer is in the shot composition, rather than the post processing. When a photo is composed with control over such aspects like highlights, colour shades, backgrounds, blurs etc. it shows the depth of the person behind the camera.

One more point for discussion. IS IT A PHOTO OR A PICTURE..... WHAT IS THE RIGHT WORD TO USE?


----------



## dashing.sujay (Dec 11, 2012)

@prashant - you made that gal look chick


----------



## pranav0091 (Dec 11, 2012)

Though a well taken shot is the single most important factor, post processing if used wisely, is a wonderful tool. 

I personally always use atleast a bit of processing to almost any image that i take - trim the levels from one or both ends and/or tweak the curves a wee bit to enhance contrast. It usually results in a bit of loss of detail, but I prefer the punchier result as compared to the originals for pictures involving people.

Then there are somethings that cant be avoided - red eye reduction and the like.


Agreed I desaturated that leaf a bit too much, but this is typical of what I do to pics I take.


----------



## nac (Dec 12, 2012)

skr said:


> One more point for discussion. IS IT A PHOTO OR A PICTURE..... WHAT IS THE RIGHT WORD TO USE?



I am not so sure... photo, photograph, picture, image, exposure, click, snap all seems to be similar/more or less same. Probably, photograph may be more appropriate.


----------



## sujoyp (Dec 12, 2012)

Nice thread...sadly I know very little about PP techniques and use various software inbuilt features to do these work...
Picasa - day to day editing
photomatrix - HDR
Photoshop - lot n lot of things including panorama,dodging, remmoving people from picture
neat image - removing noise
irfan view - batch processing like decreasing resolution , cropping
face editing using portrait professional


----------



## clickclick (Dec 12, 2012)

sujoyp said:


> Nice thread...sadly I know very little about PP techniques and use various software inbuilt features to do these work...
> Picasa - day to day editing
> photomatrix - HDR
> Photoshop - lot n lot of things including panorama,dodging, remmoving people from picture
> ...



Nice post, what about lightroom? Is it more advanced than picasa?


----------



## mastervk (Dec 12, 2012)

clickclick said:


> Nice post, what about lightroom? Is it more advanced than picasa?



LR is much more advanced than picasa.They are not at same level.

Picasa is good as picture manger and doing some tweaks(crop,adjustment) etc.For mobile and P&S pics i use picasa.

LR is very capable software and can be used for complete workflow (import,select/reject,process,export).I use it in this way.

I dont use photoshop.It is very good for heavy post processing but that is more effort that i want to spend on a single photo..Though many photographers use photoshop actions for batch processing..


----------



## sujoyp (Dec 12, 2012)

LR is good one...but its as big as photoshop...and too many options ...I use picasa simply and photoshop for manual editing


----------



## clickclick (Dec 12, 2012)

mastervk said:


> LR is much more advanced than picasa.They are not at same level.
> 
> Picasa is good as picture manger and doing some tweaks(crop,adjustment) etc.For mobile and P&S pics i use picasa.
> 
> ...



My cousin brother is a fashion and wedding photographer, he uses photoshop and lightroom. The amount of time and effort he puts in to retouch in PS really gives the desired results.


----------



## marvelousprashant (Dec 12, 2012)

I personally dont like picasa. LR is basically for correcting exposure contrast, tone, color saturation, noise removal and sharpening. PS lets you do anything from replacing the mole on your nose to replacing your girlfriend with Megan fox


----------



## clickclick (Dec 12, 2012)

marvelousprashant said:


> I personally dont like picasa. LR is basically for correcting exposure contrast, tone, color saturation, noise removal and sharpening. PS lets you do anything from replacing the mole on your nose to replacing your girlfriend with Megan fox



lols


----------



## mastervk (Dec 12, 2012)

clickclick said:


> My cousin brother is a fashion and wedding photographer, he uses photoshop and lightroom. The amount of time and effort he puts in to retouch in PS really gives the desired results.


I guess all professionals use photoshop for adjustment/corrections etc as nowadays it has become standard policy to to such modification before publishing...but for non professionals it might not make much sense to put so much effort .But if you enjoy working on PS then it will be worth it.



sujoyp said:


> LR is good one...but its as big as photoshop...and too many options ...I use picasa simply and photoshop for manual editing



LR does not seem as heavy on resource as PS to me..i was using photoshop action to create frame and it required 2 GB temp space to create temp files (though there are simpler ways to create frame also) for a single pic..
also I am not sure if you can import all you pics directly from camera,tag them ,select/reject,process ,adjust and then export or publish as smoothly in photoshop as we can in LR..


----------



## clickclick (Dec 12, 2012)

mastervk said:


> I guess all professionals use photoshop for adjustment/corrections etc as nowadays it has become standard policy to to such modification before publishing...but for non professionals it might not make much sense to put so much effort .But if you enjoy working on PS then it will be worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have downloaded LR tutorial by colin smith, its really good and teaches the very basics and the very advanced tips, tricks and tools.

And its really fun to learn by watching the video than to join a class


----------



## sujoyp (Dec 12, 2012)

But LR is just another picture management software ...but Photoshop is like masters of all ...but it really takes time in PS soo better use both


----------



## mastervk (Dec 12, 2012)

@sujoy
Lr is not picture manager tool only.it helps you in complete work flow from import to developing.you can do exposure correction adjustments crop etc
You can also use presets and plugins.


----------



## anirbandd (Dec 12, 2012)

mastervk said:


> LR is much more advanced than picasa.They are not at same level.
> 
> Picasa is good as picture manger and doing some tweaks(crop,adjustment) etc.For mobile and P&S pics i use picasa.
> 
> ...





sujoyp said:


> LR is good one...but its as big as photoshop...and too many options ...I use picasa simply and photoshop for manual editing





marvelousprashant said:


> I personally dont like picasa. LR is basically for correcting exposure contrast, tone, color saturation, noise removal and sharpening. PS lets you do anything from replacing the mole on your nose to replacing your girlfriend with Megan fox


 *<<-- LOL *



sujoyp said:


> But LR is just another picture management software ...but Photoshop is like masters of all ...but it really takes time in PS soo better use both





mastervk said:


> @sujoy
> Lr is not picture manager tool only.it helps you in complete work flow from import to developing.you can do exposure correction adjustments crop etc
> You can also use presets and plugins.



for those who use Canon cameras, i would recommend Digital Photo Professional. Its a helluva s/w for import, organising, converting and basic PP. Its RAW tool is certainly recommendable.

and if you have PS, why not use Adobe Bridge?? its a complete import/organising s/w with full PS support.


----------



## marvelousprashant (Dec 12, 2012)

^anirbad If you have a DSLR and shoot in RAW... Nothing beats DxO Pro. They have tailormade profiles for most of the DSLRs hence more accurate and automatic results wrt noise reduction and lens distortion


----------



## skr (Dec 12, 2012)

Amazing treasure trove of information!!! Let the knowledge keep flowing!!!


----------



## mastervk (Dec 13, 2012)

I have some portraits on which i would like to do some post processing..Is there any general set of adjustments (like denoise,smooth,sharpen etc) which you guys use on portraits?

My problem i know how do do something in PS/LR but don't know what to do ?


----------



## marvelousprashant (Dec 13, 2012)

^ Each photo has its own needs


----------



## anirbandd (Dec 13, 2012)

marvelousprashant said:


> ^anirbad If you have a DSLR and shoot in RAW... Nothing beats DxO Pro. They have tailormade profiles for most of the DSLRs hence more accurate and automatic results wrt noise reduction and lens distortion


Hmm.. 
tailor made or not, a s/w made by canon's own engineers are by far the best for canon cams, especially dSLRs. who would know their cams better?? only, i think they have discontinued the thing... 

and if not DPP, i use Bridge, seamless integration with PS, where you get to edit RAW to your imagination's limit, and not according to some readymade profiles. 



mastervk said:


> I have some portraits on which i would like to do some post processing..Is there any general set of adjustments (like denoise,smooth,sharpen etc) which you guys use on portraits?
> 
> *My problem i know how do do something in PS/LR but don't know what to do* ?



you have answered your problem yourself. 
fix a goal, and use your resources to achieve it.


----------



## marvelousprashant (Dec 13, 2012)

DxO Pro is made by DxO labs. They also rate camera sensors and have rated D800E at #1 and 1DX at #12. So I guess Canon engineers aren't involved


----------



## anirbandd (Dec 14, 2012)

anirbandd said:


> Hmm..
> *tailor made or not, a s/w made by canon's own engineers are by far the best for canon cams, especially dSLRs. who would know their cams better?? only, i think they have discontinued the thing... *
> 
> and if not DPP, i use Bridge, seamless integration with PS, where you get to edit RAW to your imagination's limit, and not according to some readymade profiles.
> ...





marvelousprashant said:


> DxO Pro is made by DxO labs. They also rate camera sensors and have rated D800E at #1 and 1DX at #12. So I guess Canon engineers aren't involved



err.. i was talking about DPP..?  my mistake, should have specified.


----------



## marvelousprashant (Jan 21, 2013)

*Tutorial : Selective Coloring*

Software used : Adobe Photoshop CS5

Skill Required : Noob without any prior knowledge of Photoshop

Instructions:
1. Open Photoshop. Go to *File *> *Open* and browse the image you want to open

*lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4L6gbU5SEqI/UPzyjtWEPBI/AAAAAAAABHI/1hJM1W6Zkzc/s800/Screenshot%2520%25282%2529.png


2. Duplicate the image. Use the shortcut "*Ctrl +J*". You will see another layer named *Layer 1* under *Layers* tab

*lh5.googleusercontent.com/-G6oC14ph7xE/UPzyjqk2RNI/AAAAAAAABHQ/96gvugKJ5iI/s800/Screenshot%2520%25283%2529.png



3. Select *Background* layer. Go to the *Adjustments* tab on the right hand pane. Select *black and white*. You may not see any change in the image yet. It is because the background layer below the Layer 1 has become black and white. However Layer 1 covers it like a blanket. However you can see a layer *Black and White 1 *between Background and Layer 1

*lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Ed9EHViVVOk/UPzyjlGxnQI/AAAAAAAABHM/TlB8n0PHlOo/s800/Screenshot%2520%25284%2529.png


*lh5.googleusercontent.com/-U8G82CeTWK8/UPzym-2RYaI/AAAAAAAABHk/7n6aecgUAYc/s800/Screenshot%2520%25285%2529.png


4. Select *Layer 1*. Now select the *Quick Selection Tool* from left hand toolbar (or by pressing the key W)




5. As you can see the top bar has now changed. It now shows options for the quick selection tool. I've set the brush size to 8. You can change it depending on the resolution and subject if you want to.



6. Using the *Quick Selection Tool*, select the area of image you want to remain colored.The* Quick Selection Tool* is very precise in detecting margins.

*lh6.googleusercontent.com/-CqdFaZO5Sj0/UPzynHWN11I/AAAAAAAABHo/ji0DD9nqh10/s800/Screenshot%2520%25286%2529.png



7. After selecting, go to the Right hand pane. Select *MASKS*. Click on the *Add a Pixel Mask*. VOILA. You are done! You can save your final image now.

*lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5B6Cbblr2w4/UPzym-ArVQI/AAAAAAAABHg/RuYu-oW9bqA/s800/Screenshot%2520%25287%2529.png


----------



## nac (Jan 21, 2013)

Prashant, I really appreciate your effort


----------



## sujoyp (Jan 21, 2013)

Good work prashant


----------



## quagmire (Jan 21, 2013)

Prashant can u give a little more details about this pic of yours..


			
				marvelousprashant said:
			
		

> *farm9.staticflickr.com/8235/8377186237_cbbc6ddb93.jpg



I have read that -


> Pointing your camera in different directions will give you different star trails. For example, if you point your camera North, you will see circular trails as the stars rotate around Polaris, pointing your camera South will give you horizontal trails, and pointing it East or West will give you curving trails across the sky.



So u pointed your camera in the SE or SW direction?
Can u explain -


> Gaps merged by creating a duplicate layer and adding motion blur in PS


----------



## marvelousprashant (Jan 21, 2013)

SouthWest

Whenever you do star trails by composite method, the trails are not continuous. The gaps represent the processing time taken by camera between two images. DSLRS have faster/dual processors and these gaps are very small. They are removed by the app used for compositing (in my case "Startrails")

However my SX240 takes around 10s to process a 15s exposure. So gaps are created.

There is an intelligent way to remove the gap. The pole star is the center of rotation. In photoshop duplicate the layer. Change opacity to 60%. Enter Transform mode (ctrl +T). Move the center to pole star and rotate slightly. The trails from 2nd layer will fill the gaps in 1st layer.

Since my shot did not have the pole star I could not rotate the duplicate layer. So I added motion blur at an angle roughly matching the direction of trails. The blur filled the gaps solving my purpose


----------



## Tejas.Gupta (Jan 24, 2013)

I've noticed when Professional photographers post their pics on FB, they've got a different effect to it...
which gives an awesome feel.
How do they do it ?


----------



## marvelousprashant (Jan 25, 2013)

Post an example image. Could be as simple as instagram or as complicated as adobe after effects


----------



## pranav0091 (Jan 25, 2013)

Tejas.Gupta said:


> I've noticed when Professional photographers post their pics on FB, they've got a different effect to it...
> which gives an awesome feel.
> How do they do it ?



I think you are talking about bokeh (only the subject being kept in focus)
Its a natural consequence of the camera lenses they use. These lenses tend to have large light-gathering openings and by the rules of physics can have very shallow "depth-of-field". Google it


----------



## digitfan (Jan 25, 2013)

Bokeh is altogether a different subject and the most interesting part in photography.


----------



## Tejas.Gupta (Jan 25, 2013)

pranav0091 said:


> I think you are talking about bokeh (only the subject being kept in focus)
> Its a natural consequence of the camera lenses they use. These lenses tend to have large light-gathering openings and by the rules of physics can have very shallow "depth-of-field". Google it



No not the bokeh :/


----------



## pranav0091 (Jan 25, 2013)

Okay.. Is it the bumped up saturation thats what you are talking about?
Or that delicate instagram-ish fade near the edges? 
Or the close-up-ness of portraits?
I cant think of anything else... Could you post a pic of the kind, so that we could see too?


----------



## quagmire (Sep 20, 2013)

[Didn't want to post in the other thread and hijack ongoing discussion]

Guys need a little help with stitching images. 

When I first read about 'The Brenizer Method' on Canon forum I was completely mindblown by the DOF and thought of giving it a try:

Took 9 pics and sticthed them using s/w bundled with camera :
Original pics:


Spoiler



*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3019.JPG


*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3020.JPG


*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3021.JPG


*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3022.JPG


*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3031.JPG


*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3032.JPG


*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3033.JPG


*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3034.JPG


*dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97276205/IMG_3035.JPG



Ended up with this: 

*farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/9839947903_bdd0b185f8_b.jpg

Some weird lines have appeared where the stitched seams are. Any way to fix this?  Possible in GIMP?
PS: I'm a novice in PS.


----------



## pranav0091 (Sep 21, 2013)

Yes. Reduce the temperature/warmth/saturation og the primary pic holding the flower to make ait a little more bluish before stitching the images. It wont outright remove the lines but will surely make them a lot less visible.


----------



## nac (Sep 21, 2013)

Were you trying focus stacking??? If yes, try CombineZ


----------



## pranav0091 (Sep 21, 2013)

nac said:


> Were you trying focus stacking??? If yes, try CombineZ



No, not focus stacking. I just read up about it online. Its like printing a large poster in a4 sheets and then tiling them on the wall to create the larger picture.

BTW here is some PP from me after a really long time. I havent done anything to improve the IQ. The sole purose here was to blend smoothly.

*farm4.staticflickr.com/3677/9842085016_2df7fa798f_c.jpg
Tiling demo by pranav0091, on Flickr

@Quagmire: Here's a tip - always get the subject covered in a single shot if possible, expecially in cases like these where the subject is very small. Also avoid any kind of auto settings especially like its seen in your image - color temperature/white balance.

@Quagmire: Here's a tip - always get the subject covered in a single shot if possible, expecially in cases like these where the subject is very small. Also avoid any kind of auto settings especially like its seen in your image - color temperature/white balance.


----------



## nac (Sep 21, 2013)

Thanks Pranav and Quag for introducing me a new thing. 

I couldn't able to view the picture. Something happened with my browser after it updated to the latest version. Pages are keep on loading with no picture to view. Tried Flickr, and it doesn't help either...


----------



## quagmire (Sep 21, 2013)

^Thanks a lot buddy. Will keep those in mind from next time.
Can you also describe a little more about the PP youve done. Is it in PS?


@nac: I was actually trying the 'The Brenizer Method'. Its basically stitching multiple shallow DOF images into one to obtain an even shallower DOF.

Using the Brenizer calculator I just found that my stitched pic is equivalent to 30mm f2.8 
(The max aperture on my cam is f3.5 @24mm)

Articles: brenizer method Archives - Ryan Brenizer -- NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller. » Ryan Brenizer — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.  ,   The Brenizer Method Explained With Directions | San Francisco Bay Area Editorial Story-telling Wedding Photography


----------



## pranav0091 (Sep 21, 2013)

quagmire said:


> ^Thanks a lot buddy. Will keep those in mind from next time.
> Can you also describe a little more about the PP youve done. Is it in PS?
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks to quagmire from my part too. Even I was hearing this for the first time. 

Yeah, this one was with PS. I rarely if ever use PS, but this one called for it. The need here was to use the brushes to erase the edges gently so that the lines disappeared. The only other adjustment that I used was brightness + contrast adjustment to get the images to have reasonably the same white balance.


----------



## nac (Sep 26, 2013)

I tried brenizer method... Even before trying I didn't feel like I would get decent result from a compact. I did the calculation before trying... like focal length, subject distance, angle of coverage, DOF and all...

Things I find difficult to get a decent result,
small sensor
small aperture
no OVF
slow shot to shot

I did shoot a series of shots and PS doesn't help stitching it together. Tried Autopano, it stitched very good. Since it's a trial version, watermarks are all over the image. And I couldn't find an option to save jpeg (may be that's the feature of trial version )

I don't thing I could get a decent image with people (full length) as a subject. Stitching in PS doesn't seems to easy for me...


----------



## sujoyp (Sep 26, 2013)

hmm nice info...will try it someday..


----------



## lm2k (Oct 25, 2013)

@quagmire : the pic u tried using Breneziers portrait panorama is amazing, comming from a point and shoot camera
                  i am really eager to kno how *you* did it? i mean focal length, subject distance, number of images, software????

@quagmire : the pic u tried using Breneziers portrait panorama is amazing, comming from a point and shoot camera
                  i am really eager to kno how *you* did it? i mean focal length, subject distance, number of images, software????


----------

