Before and After Photoshop pictures!

[LanceM]

I agree. The first is too cool, but the second is too warm. I haven't bothered measuring, but it looks odd to the naked eye.

Otherwise, keep having fun!

 

[SparkyJJO]

Impressive!

I stink at photochop so all my pics I take aren't retouched - some of them need it tho Guess I should learn how to use it.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Legendary
The problem with Photoshop is that you can't create a montage of someone just pointing and clicking around and then make it seem dramatic, while darkroom montages give it that "air" of superiority.

Acutally, the darkroom *does* require more skill. There's no undo, and there's no history palette. There's no save point.

This comment brought to you by a guy who'd be lucky to find his way out of a dark room, and uses photoshop for a living.

Agreed. I use my history palette and undo/redo a lot. I can't imagine doing it the old fashioned way... you'd have to be perfect your first time through, or else you'd have to either do it over and over again, live with the imperfections, or try to find some way to mask the mistake.

Originally posted by: Aharami
fuzzy, very impressive (although I prefer the before macro shots). Would you mind sharing what you did to make the pics look so much better? Also how did you learn photoshop? Is there some site, some tutorial? Or did you just learn it by tinkering with it? What monitor do you use for photo editing? LCD or CRT? IF LCD, which one?

Also, do you have an pano shots that are larger than 3200x1200 pixels? Im always looking to add to my dual screen desktop background collection

I'll get around to sharing my workflow tonight.

I learned photoshop by basically tinkering with it. I have photoshop guide books, but to be honest I almost never read them except for reference. Once you have thousands of photos to edit, your opportunities to tinker with PS increase dramatically One thing I should mention though is that my photoshop skills increased with my photography skills. As I became better in photography, I found that I could better understand how to apply certain things in photoshop, and why I should apply them. They went hand in hand for me.

I use a Dell 2001FP 20" for editing because its color rendition is very faithful. They can be had for about $300 on eBay. Check in the sticky in Video for other, newer recommendations for what LCD to get. One thing that I don't have, and I really, really should have, is a monitor calibration tool. They're about $200+, but it'll probably be my next purchase.

When I shoot panos, I don't shoot them specifically for 3200x1200 in mind. They are as wide as they want to be. I don't think I have any specifically dual screen pictures. I have some rediculously wide 40-some megapixel panos in my Chicago Panoramas gallery in my sig.

Originally posted by: ATLien247

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Hocking Hills

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/110899974-L.jpg
http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/79561294-L.jpg

I prefer the "before" shot on this one. It looks more... natural.

I agree. I wanted the picture to have something of a surreal look to it. The original just seemed a bit boring to me. This was also right after my trip to the red dusty areas of Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park, so I was kinda seeing red at the time

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Impressive!

I stink at photochop so all my pics I take aren't retouched - some of them need it tho Guess I should learn how to use it.

Photoshop definitely helps, especially if you do not work in a studio where you have full control of your lighting and setting.

For someone like me who's a nature/landscape kind of photog, we can almost never control the lighting. Images taken are often too bland, even during sunrise and sunset, so we have to pump up the colors and the contrast in PS. Then there's the dynamic range problem, and you find yourself in a whole different set of problems.

In addition, photos that come straight out of the camera are often not as sharp as I'd like them to be, despite having good glass, so I like to increase the sharpness too.

As for city stuff, city lights are too orange, too much of the time, so I like to cool down the pictures a bit, sometimes to a point where it's surreal (my highway lights are blue )

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Vegitto
Nice work! I love the HDR pics, I'm still working with exposure times on our camera..

What you can do is use exposure bracketing. Set the camera to bracket three exposures, for example, one at center, one stopped down one stop, and another stopped up one stop. The camera will then take three pictures in rapid succession, all at different exposures. Sometimes I like to go beyond this and get five or six different exposures, which means shooting two different brackets, to give me more dynamic range and greater security that my final HDR image will look more natural.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Impressive!

I stink at photochop so all my pics I take aren't retouched - some of them need it tho Guess I should learn how to use it.

Photoshop definitely helps, especially if you do not work in a studio where you have full control of your lighting and setting.

For someone like me who's a nature/landscape kind of photog, we can almost never control the lighting. Images taken are often too bland, even during sunrise and sunset, so we have to pump up the colors and the contrast in PS. Then there's the dynamic range problem, and you find yourself in a whole different set of problems.

In addition, photos that come straight out of the camera are often not as sharp as I'd like them to be, despite having good glass, so I like to increase the sharpness too.

As for city stuff, city lights are too orange, too much of the time, so I like to cool down the pictures a bit, sometimes to a point where it's surreal (my highway lights are blue )

which filter do you use for sharpness? Sharpen? or Unsharp Mask? Ive tried both and cant make up my mind as to which one is definitively better

 

[JulesMaximus]

Fuzzy, do you use photoshop or photoshop elements?

Just curious. I've been wondering how elements stands up.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Aharami
which filter do you use for sharpness? Sharpen? or Unsharp Mask? Ive tried both and cant make up my mind as to which one is definitively better

I use three different filters. The two main ones are USM and Smart Sharpen.

I use Unsharp Mask (USM) using magnitude 1-50 and radius 20 to give the photo more punch.

I use Smart Sharpen (in CS2) to bring out the fine detail. If you don't have Smart Sharpen you can try USM with a small radius and change the magnitude to the desired level.

I'm learning how to use Photokit Sharpener, which is supposed to be the best sharpener out there. I can't provide too many details since I'm a real noob at it currently.

I sometimes also use this method that doesn't introduce sharpening artifacts:

On the Layer palette select your Background Layer and right click. Select Duplicate Layer.

With this new layer highlighted select Filter / Other / High Pass. Set the Radius to 10 and click OK.

Go back to the Layer Palette and select Hard Light from the left drop down.

Go to the Opacity Slider and select a level of sharpening that you like. Usually something between 20% and 70%.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Fuzzy, do you use photoshop or photoshop elements?

Just curious. I've been wondering how elements stands up.

Photoshop CS2. I've never used Elements.

 

[Mucho]

Nice work.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Fuzzy, do you use photoshop or photoshop elements?

Just curious. I've been wondering how elements stands up.

Photoshop CS2. I've never used Elements.

I've only used Elements as that's what came with my camera. Any idea where I could get a copy of Photoshop CS2 for not a whole lot of money?

I see B&H Photo has an acedemic version for $299.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Fuzzy, do you use photoshop or photoshop elements?

Just curious. I've been wondering how elements stands up.

Photoshop CS2. I've never used Elements.

I've only used Elements as that's what came with my camera. Any idea where I could get a copy of Photoshop CS2 for not a whole lot of money?

I see B&H Photo has an acedemic version for $299.

DC++
JK JK...i dont condone piracy

I'm still stuck with PS 7.0. I bought the liscense thru my university back when I was in college. Dont have the balls to pony up $299 for a software I dont know how to use and dont use that often

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Fuzzy, do you use photoshop or photoshop elements?

Just curious. I've been wondering how elements stands up.

Photoshop CS2. I've never used Elements.

I've only used Elements as that's what came with my camera. Any idea where I could get a copy of Photoshop CS2 for not a whole lot of money?

I see B&H Photo has an acedemic version for $299.

DC++
JK JK...i dont condone piracy

I'm still stuck with PS 7.0. I bought the liscense thru my university back when I was in college. Dont have the balls to pony up $299 for a software I dont know how to use and dont use that often

You could probably upgrade to CS2 for $140 or so. I see newegg has upgrades to CS2 for around that price.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Fuzzy, do you use photoshop or photoshop elements?

Just curious. I've been wondering how elements stands up.

Photoshop CS2. I've never used Elements.

I've only used Elements as that's what came with my camera. Any idea where I could get a copy of Photoshop CS2 for not a whole lot of money?

I see B&H Photo has an acedemic version for $299.

DC++
JK JK...i dont condone piracy

I'm still stuck with PS 7.0. I bought the liscense thru my university back when I was in college. Dont have the balls to pony up $299 for a software I dont know how to use and dont use that often

i have 7 also and not really wanting to spend that much money for something i don't really know how to use or rarely use. even to upgrade is a lot to me.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Fuzzy, do you use photoshop or photoshop elements?

Just curious. I've been wondering how elements stands up.

Photoshop CS2. I've never used Elements.

I've only used Elements as that's what came with my camera. Any idea where I could get a copy of Photoshop CS2 for not a whole lot of money?

I see B&H Photo has an acedemic version for $299.

DC++
JK JK...i dont condone piracy

I'm still stuck with PS 7.0. I bought the liscense thru my university back when I was in college. Dont have the balls to pony up $299 for a software I dont know how to use and dont use that often

i have 7 also and not really wanting to spend that much money for something i don't really know how to use or rarely use. even to upgrade is a lot to me.

I have no idea where to get CS2 for less other than to outright pirate it

Everything about post-processing costs money.

Photoshop costs money.
Plug-ins cost money.
Photomatix for HDR imaging costs money.
Photokit Sharpener costs money.
Noise Ninja costs money.
Phase One Capture One (RAW Processor) costs money.
Monitor calibration costs money.

The worst thing is that they often cost a lot of money ($100+) because they are really just niche tools

If you're low on cash and want to go the legal route and are a budding photographer or serious amateur, the costs of software is a pretty big barrier at probably around $1000.

 

[Beige]

I wish I could do that...Don't have photoshop so I'm thinking of getting it now..

 

[SoftwareEng]

Niiiiiceee. How much?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: SoftwareEng
Niiiiiceee. How much?

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Aharami
which filter do you use for sharpness? Sharpen? or Unsharp Mask? Ive tried both and cant make up my mind as to which one is definitively better

I use three different filters. The two main ones are USM and Smart Sharpen.

I use Unsharp Mask (USM) using magnitude 1-50 and radius 20 to give the photo more punch.

I use Smart Sharpen (in CS2) to bring out the fine detail. If you don't have Smart Sharpen you can try USM with a small radius and change the magnitude to the desired level.

I'm learning how to use Photokit Sharpener, which is supposed to be the best sharpener out there. I can't provide too many details since I'm a real noob at it currently.

I sometimes also use this method that doesn't introduce sharpening artifacts:

On the Layer palette select your Background Layer and right click. Select Duplicate Layer.

With this new layer highlighted select Filter / Other / High Pass. Set the Radius to 10 and click OK.

Go back to the Layer Palette and select Hard Light from the left drop down.

Go to the Opacity Slider and select a level of sharpening that you like. Usually something between 20% and 70%.

Hey Fuzzy, just wanted to thank you for this tip. I took some wrestling photos in low light the other day and couldn't get them as sharp as I'd like, this really helped. :thumbsup:

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Fuzzy, do you use photoshop or photoshop elements?

Just curious. I've been wondering how elements stands up.

Photoshop CS2. I've never used Elements.

I've only used Elements as that's what came with my camera. Any idea where I could get a copy of Photoshop CS2 for not a whole lot of money?

I see B&H Photo has an acedemic version for $299.

DC++
JK JK...i dont condone piracy

I'm still stuck with PS 7.0. I bought the liscense thru my university back when I was in college. Dont have the balls to pony up $299 for a software I dont know how to use and dont use that often

i have 7 also and not really wanting to spend that much money for something i don't really know how to use or rarely use. even to upgrade is a lot to me.

I have no idea where to get CS2 for less other than to outright pirate it

Everything about post-processing costs money.

Photoshop costs money.
Plug-ins cost money.
Photomatix for HDR imaging costs money.
Photokit Sharpener costs money.
Noise Ninja costs money.
Phase One Capture One (RAW Processor) costs money.
Monitor calibration costs money.

The worst thing is that they often cost a lot of money ($100+) because they are really just niche tools

If you're low on cash and want to go the legal route and are a budding photographer or serious amateur, the costs of software is a pretty big barrier at probably around $1000.

http://www.gimp.org not quite as good as photoshop imo, but it's free and works decently.

 

[montanafan]

Thanks for the link, wetcat007. There are some interesting links and tutorials in there.

 

[destrekor]

two things to say:

first off, the "Sunrise through Mesa Arch" photo is beautiful. Put it in black and white, and it would easily have that spark Ansel Adams' work has.

second comment:
digital darkroom, based on most photoshop user's almost always required use of the undo feature and history palette, can ruin the love and artform.
photography is an artform in of itself, this is true, but as my photography teacher would say, and Adams preached through his work... half of the artform is what is done inside the darkroom.
the love of the art in every step. processing it yourself (correct timing is key, the chemistry requires perfect time and temperature measurement, etc etc), and then printing the prints and understanding how the different timings of light on the paper is going will affect the final photo. what you did through combing two photos, could be done in a darkroom (not sure of that actually, as it would require IMMENSE skill in terms of lining paper and negatives up and whatnot), but most easily would be done through a single negative and using dodging (or burning, depending on the circumstance).
i would kill to have a personal darkroom. I would make use of it constantly, perfecting techniques.

fuzzy, you mention not being able to imagine working in a darkroom because you use the undo feature a lot. it's not that every photo requires 1000 prints or anything, although it does require patience and dedication. true. but as you learn the role of light and the affects different techniques have, including how much of a strong or weak effect the different elements will have based on how you use them, such as how much you move the 'spoon' for dodging, how fast you move it, and how long you hold it over the film.
so as you start out, sure you will have to spend a lengthy amount of time making prints. but as you learn you cut the time down a lot.
just like, some day, with enough work, you may use less and less of the undo feature. at least, you should as that shows you are trying to learn the process and not just do what it takes for the final result. there's a certain passion for film and darkroom photography. i wish i had the money for a darkroom.
and speaking of money, digital is a much cheaper way to go, for sure. the camera, the memory card, and the software are a single cost. film is a never ending cost (although most things are cheap), but the darkroom itself is a large investment if building one from scratch in your basement. possibly upward of 3000 in of itself, not the 2000-3000 one would expect after all software is purchased and camera is purchased.

me? digital is nice and all. but i don't think I will ever move to it, at least not until I can get a 20mp+ SLR with exact film dimension CCD. and I would want some way of doing film development. It should be possible (just insanely expensive) to create a digital film enlarger (project the image directly onto the film, as if it were a negative but not being one). that would actually open up a HUGE world in terms of experimentation and would bring the darkroom back.