Post processing images - The final step to getting that awesome click

OP
izzikio_rage

izzikio_rage

Technomancer
A whatsapp forward that explains this issue quite well


It's Perception...

In Washington, DC, at a Metro Station, on a cold January morning in 2007, this man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, approximately 2,000 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. After about 3 minutes, a middle-aged man noticed that there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds, and then he hurried on to meet his schedule.

About 4 minutes later:

The violinist received his first dollar. A woman threw money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.

At 6 minutes:

A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.

At 10 minutes:

A 3-year old boy stopped, but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head the whole time. This action was repeated by several other children, but every parent — without exception — forced their children to move on quickly.

At 45 minutes:

The musician played continuously. Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while. About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.

After 1 hour:

He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed and no one applauded. There was no recognition at all.

No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days earlier, Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged over $100 each to sit and listen to him play the same music.

This is a true story. Joshua Bell, playing incognito in the D.C. Metro Station, was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities.

This experiment raised several questions:

In a common-place environment, at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty?

If so, do we stop to appreciate it?

Are we able to recognize talent in an unexpected context?

One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this:

If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made .
 

raja manuel

In the zone
You must be really young if you first got that in a whatsapp forward :) I wonder what that study actually proved. If you enjoy something you may not like to do it in a hurry. I like to eat but I enjoy it only when I am relaxed and can savour the flavour. I don't stop to photograph every beautiful scene I come across because I enjoy the process just as much the result (or perhaps even more than the result). This does not mean that I don't subconsciously register it as beautiful, but the conscience mind has other priorities.

As far as the nature vs. nurture debate on art, I think the inclination towards art is innate, but the critiquing of art is learned. E.g., before a guy gets a DSLR he sees a photo of a pretty girl and thinks 'Cute chick!' After he gets a DSLR and hangs out on internet forums listening to armchair experts brainlessly parrot stale advice, he will now look at a picture of a pretty girl and think 'Ugh! Horizon is tilted. Awful photo!'. There's nothing wrong in having subjective preferences, but I don't care for people trying to establish their preferences as an objective standard. They very badly need a history lesson.
 
OP
izzikio_rage

izzikio_rage

Technomancer
Not that young, have read the story before

There is this whole school that ties art to our mind's craving for new experiences. So something that is unique will trigger pleasure, a unique view on a common subject (startrails), something that is not possible to see (macros) or even a common idea presented in a new way (humans of new York project)
That's why postprocessing does wonders. We've grown jaded with the normal pics and crave a newer look
 

raja manuel

In the zone
And an escape from reality. People criticising 'unreal' looking photos don't seem to get the craving for fantasy (and the subjectiveness of reality).
I think there are various factors at play here. When something is new there is a tendency to emphasis it in the beginning, and the subtle treatment comes later e.g., the use of colours when colour cinema first came out, and the gratuitous use of 3D nowadays. Post processing might be in that stage as well. It will also vary by the user - they might also overuse it when they first use it and wield more subtle control later (similar to young singers performing vocal gymnastics while older singers are less technical but more expressive).
 

nac

Aspiring Novelist
Usually I touch photograph and save for web viewing and don't keep psd files. One of the main reason for working in low res is coz of low config PC. After my friend made prints with the photographs from my compact, I have been thinking of sending some of mine too. So I touched few photographs but at full resolution. I know it's little hard to mimic to get the same result, but I was kinda fed up as my full res. (4000x3000 @ 300dpi) touched photos are not as sharp as the low resolution (800px long edge @ 72dpi) one which I touched some months back. After lot of trail, I saved the new one as low res, now it is as sharp as the old one. Nothing changed, but the resolution to 800px.

What's the problem here? I would really could use some help. I have been trying for hours now, looking at the time... oooohh... it's 2:30 in the morning. Those who make prints, those who were in my shoes sometime in the past... comment, help, reply... *2.bp.blogspot.com/_IT0Lbect4h0/SG0_HjrQuXI/AAAAAAAAA_8/9dP2zL7Osh8/s400/praying%2Bsmiley.gif

PS: My friend made the prints from the low res. I sent him (800px @ 72dpi) Print size 5x7. If he said he is gonna send it, I would have sent him full res. But to my surprise, prints are so good.

- - - Updated - - -

Problem seems to be with windows photo viewer (in other words, with software), not with the picture. But yet to find a solution "how to view high dpi images as sharp as it should be in a PC"?
PS - Not sharp
Windows photo viewer - Not sharp
MS Picture manager - not sharp
Paint - Right now this is the only thing shows sharp.
 

sujoyp

Grand Master
Really Nac?? thats some strange analysis... till now I thought we need to have a 300DPI to get a 8x10 sharp picture print. is it the software too.

When I had low config PC I didnt PP RAW file..it took lot of time. and then to convert again. I used JPEG only. Now I have high config lappy and I dont find much time to play with settings. What ever I shoot , I pp within minutes.

I never liked to much PP..but what I see is people do not appreciate true colors but they want more saturated colors. This time when I edited my friends pics I saturated the scene behind and edit the skit tone manually for each pic.. that why friend would look fair and less saturated and her dress will look more colorful (thats what they want).
 
I would not go against post processing. Although the only bit of post processing I usually do is adjusting the Monochrome output. Then again, when bored, I have used various other film filters from vsco or dxo. The point is that I don't care how people see my image, it's mostly how I see the image I have clicked.
 

nac

Aspiring Novelist
Really Nac?? thats some strange analysis... till now I thought we need to have a 300DPI to get a 8x10 sharp picture print. is it the software too.

When I had low config PC I didnt PP RAW file..it took lot of time. and then to convert again. I used JPEG only. Now I have high config lappy and I dont find much time to play with settings. What ever I shoot , I pp within minutes.

I never liked to much PP..but what I see is people do not appreciate true colors but they want more saturated colors. This time when I edited my friends pics I saturated the scene behind and edit the skit tone manually for each pic.. that why friend would look fair and less saturated and her dress will look more colorful (thats what they want).
I vaguely remember I have bumped into something like this before as the things I read now seems to be little familiar but not sure.
Only your display would show it little blurry or less sharp, it wouldn't affect your print. Your print would be perfect. You're right, higher dpi would get you good quality prints.
Yes, me too thought that photographs has to be SOOC when I joined this photography world. :) Now I am almost always touching my photographs to some extent.

I would not go against post processing. Although the only bit of post processing I usually do is adjusting the Monochrome output. Then again, when bored, I have used various other film filters from vsco or dxo. The point is that I don't care how people see my image, it's mostly how I see the image I have clicked.
I guess to some extend (the degree may vary form person to person, but...)everyone cares, atleast those who expect some C&C.

I am kinda sure that this issue is nothing to do with PP. Here is a sample...
Photo sourced from google, copyrighted ©Following Splendor Images
It's a random pick from google to see the sharpness difference. If you can't view the whole image @ pixel level, zoom in 100%. Image size is not big, you can download too to see the difference.

*i102.photobucket.com/albums/m108/tkphotos1/sharpness%20compare_zpscmepxlud.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, it's not PPed - neither this one nor the previous one. All are untouched other than changing dpi and resizing the image size.

Here is one more... In this picture it would be lot more evident.
Photo sourced from google.

*i102.photobucket.com/albums/m108/tkphotos1/eye%20sharp_zpsbc45hjct.png

Left is original - 42mp photograph @ 300dpi
Right is downsampled to 800px height @ 72dpi
 
I vaguely remember I have bumped into something like this before as the things I read now seems to be little familiar but not sure.
Only your display would show it little blurry or less sharp, it wouldn't affect your print. Your print would be perfect. You're right, higher dpi would get you good quality prints.
Yes, me too thought that photographs has to be SOOC when I joined this photography world. :) Now I am almost always touching my photographs to some extent.


I guess to some extend (the degree may vary form person to person, but...)everyone cares, atleast those who expect some C&C.

I am kinda sure that this issue is nothing to do with PP. Here is a sample...
Photo sourced from google, copyrighted ©Following Splendor Images
It's a random pick from google to see the sharpness difference. If you can't view the whole image @ pixel level, zoom in 100%. Image size is not big, you can download too to see the difference.

*i102.photobucket.com/albums/m108/tkphotos1/sharpness%20compare_zpscmepxlud.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, it's not PPed - neither this one nor the previous one. All are untouched other than changing dpi and resizing the image size.

Here is one more... In this picture it would be lot more evident.
Photo sourced from google.

*i102.photobucket.com/albums/m108/tkphotos1/eye%20sharp_zpsbc45hjct.png

Left is original - 42mp photograph @ 300dpi
Right is downsampled to 800px height @ 72dpi

Maybe you are right, yup I do feel good when somebody praises my shot(and I do like when someone criticizes them in a rather down to earth manner), but I rarely accept criticism from those who rephrase lines from books or other photographers. There is no point in that. Honestly, I never care about minute details in my photographs. Many of you might have noticed that I have lots of negative space in pictures, the angles are not that great and stuff. But I can't wait for a perfect condition to brew in and present itself. The moments are rather instantaneous in nature, and if a person is able to capture them, then he/she is a good amateur photographer(which I'm still not).
And about the much debate on post-processing, I think people should switch to film cameras if they can't tolerate it(or buy a Fuji :p ). The whole point of making photography digital was convenience, whatever it might be, shooting many pictures, ease of storage etc etc. Even RAW conversion is a form of post-processing, so yeah....
 

nac

Aspiring Novelist
I think people should switch to film cameras if they can't tolerate it(or buy a Fuji :p ). The whole point of making photography digital was convenience, whatever it might be, shooting many pictures, ease of storage etc etc. Even RAW conversion is a form of post-processing, so yeah....
If there's no digital camera, probably many of us wouldn't have picked it up as a hobby... :) BTW, what they can't "tolerate"?

x------x--------x

I don't know whether softer look is common for every PC or very few and I am being one among them :( Microsoft page says something, but it seems like they are talking about blurred texts than pictures. I am not sure whether they are talking about the symptom I am talking about or something else. I am yet to find a solution, until I find one I gotta save one in small res to see if the things are alright.

I forgot to turn off "sharpen for screen" option for the previous portrait attempts. But that doesn't mean, it's sharper because of that. I downloaded a RAW sample from online and developed. Here is the full res, and low res comparo...

Photo sourced online; Copyrighted: Jakob K Rohrback
Camera: Canon G12

*i102.photobucket.com/albums/m108/tkphotos1/RAW_CANON_POWERSHOT_G12-1-3%20sharp%20compare_zpsoahhii7w.png

PS: Original dpi for G12 is 180 which I didn't know when processing.
 
If there's no digital camera, probably many of us wouldn't have picked it up as a hobby... :) BTW, what they can't "tolerate"?

x------x--------x

I don't know whether softer look is common for every PC or very few and I am being one among them :( Microsoft page says something, but it seems like they are talking about blurred texts than pictures. I am not sure whether they are talking about the symptom I am talking about or something else. I am yet to find a solution, until I find one I gotta save one in small res to see if the things are alright.

I forgot to turn off "sharpen for screen" option for the previous portrait attempts. But that doesn't mean, it's sharper because of that. I downloaded a RAW sample from online and developed. Here is the full res, and low res comparo...

Photo sourced online; Copyrighted: Jakob K Rohrback
Camera: Canon G12

*i102.photobucket.com/albums/m108/tkphotos1/RAW_CANON_POWERSHOT_G12-1-3%20sharp%20compare_zpsoahhii7w.png

PS: Original dpi for G12 is 180 which I didn't know when processing.

Oh, I meant that people who can't tolerate post processing.
 

sujoyp

Grand Master
I am not against PP, I do PP on almost all pics...but thing is I have lost the charm of PPing RAW files and edting patiently...dont get soo much time.

Just last week I went to elephanta island and shot almost 300 pics...now I got only one evening+night to make them look good..what I did was
1. increase contrast
2. decrease highlights
3. give some shadow
4. increase the sharpness by a bit
5. increase vibrance
6. increase saturation by a bit
7. increase skin tone make them fairer and descrease the saturation on face slightly

did 200 pics like this in 3 hrs :D by lightroom.
 
I am not against PP, I do PP on almost all pics...but thing is I have lost the charm of PPing RAW files and edting patiently...dont get soo much time.

Just last week I went to elephanta island and shot almost 300 pics...now I got only one evening+night to make them look good..what I did was
1. increase contrast
2. decrease highlights
3. give some shadow
4. increase the sharpness by a bit
5. increase vibrance
6. increase saturation by a bit
7. increase skin tone make them fairer and descrease the saturation on face slightly

did 200 pics like this in 3 hrs :D by lightroom.

I use Capture One mostly for RAW processing, and my workflow is:
-Check Exposure
-Noise Reduction
-Curve editing
-Selective editing of channels for monochromes.
 
OP
izzikio_rage

izzikio_rage

Technomancer
my two cents on this ...

downsampling images hides a lot of flaws in the lens, so small imperfections in the sharpness etc. Also it hides small flaws like the minute movement of the lens or hand when taking the shot. So that's why it seems like downsampled images are sharper. Could also be due to the downsampling process itself. Photoshop I assume sharpens the image a bit when it reduces the resolution


On PPing, even film cam shots were PPed. It was just more time consuming that's all. Also there are ways to simulate the PP effects in the cam directly, for example using a polarizer to saturate colors or using a gradiated ND filter balance exposure between sky and ground. It is straight out of the cam but then it is again tampering with the actual shot, so people against PP should be against this too.

At then end of it all it comes down to how your image looks vs what you had in mind when you shot it. That's about all
 
my two cents on this ...

downsampling images hides a lot of flaws in the lens, so small imperfections in the sharpness etc. Also it hides small flaws like the minute movement of the lens or hand when taking the shot. So that's why it seems like downsampled images are sharper. Could also be due to the downsampling process itself. Photoshop I assume sharpens the image a bit when it reduces the resolution


On PPing, even film cam shots were PPed. It was just more time consuming that's all. Also there are ways to simulate the PP effects in the cam directly, for example using a polarizer to saturate colors or using a gradiated ND filter balance exposure between sky and ground. It is straight out of the cam but then it is again tampering with the actual shot, so people against PP should be against this too.

At then end of it all it comes down to how your image looks vs what you had in mind when you shot it. That's about all

I agree about films(but I have never seen people post processing films, just dust and scratch removal). The point is that some people hate it so much that they disregard post processed images even before looking them closely. And these are mostly same people which use Nikon/Canon fullframes(from my past experience). I remember a funny incident. I met this studio photographer who told me that he completely dislikes post processing and blah blah. Funny thing, he shoots in tethered mode via his computer. Now it's not even post processing, but rather per-processing.

As for downsampling, the results are only significant if one downsamples exponentially, i.e. going from 24MP to 16MP is significant, and it is good enough to make a subjectively blurry image look okay. But marginal decrements...I don't know, they are kind of hit or miss for me.
 
Top Bottom