Photo editing

[Outdated]

This isn’t about fancy effects, it’s about getting the most out of pictures you’ve taken, especially those taken in poor light or using a very long lens. Getting rid of noise whilst not losing too much definition in your subject, etc.

Nothing beats a well taken image in perfect light but in the real world things don’t always work out that easy. Where do you draw the line between trying to enhance a picture and where you think you can still make something decent out of it to where you’d give up and discard the image?

I thought I might use this picture as an example, the spoonbills were incredibly camera shy and I could only use a very long lens, this was back before we had anti-shake lenses so I had to use shutter speed to try and compensate for any movement.

This is a cropped copy of the image I’m thinking of in jpeg format but the original Canon cr2 file can be downloaded here if you want to have a play with it.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/xm2fpl6gkinpvjl/_mg_0447.cr2/file

Would you try and recover a worthwhile image from this exposure or would you forget about it?

Do you have some of your own examples of how far you’d go to keep a picture?

What software do you use and what features do you use most?

 

[Judge]

Let's see what I can do with this one.

Yeah, my first inclination is to try in Photoshop 5.5 than simply throw away the image. But it's true in that some images just can't be salvaged digitally. At least it's my experience, and I get a bigger kick out of enhancing images than actually taking the picture itself.

The graininess of the image is what catches my immediate attention. Not sure what I can do with it besides reducing the size of the image, perhaps down to 8.5x11 inches at 300DPI.

 

[Outdated]

At least it's my experience, and I get a bigger kick out of enhancing images than actually taking the picture itself.

I was hoping I'd spark some interest.

I never really tried with this image, it's one of those in the too hard basket for me. When you look at it closely there's just not quite enough definition there, a slight blur from camera wobble.

But I'm curious if others think differently. Perhaps someone's now playing with AI and that does a better job? I don't know but I'm curious to find out.

 

[Judge]

The real problem I see right now is the image compression more than anything. When you blow it up to about 1600X you can really see how the compression enhances the graininess of the image. To a point to where using a "despeckle" filter doesn't help all that much. It may be a matter of attempting to enhance and sharpen the bird, while blurring both the background and the foreground and creating a very shallow depth of field- less than what the camera actually depicted.

Enhancing color saturation and increasing the contrast are easy enough, but the rest is the real challenge so far. I may have to separate the bird into a different layer.

 

[Slime_Punk]

Lazy lo-fi vignette to the rescue!

Obviously kidding here, but sometimes when there are no options left I like to just lean into it becoming more of a creative endeavor than a photograph and doing something a little odd with it instead!

 

[Sherlock77]

Hmmm... I know the feeling... When I've really blown a photo (it happens), I will sometimes just simply go creative, not that I'm the best with creative editing... Since I'm known more for documentary style photography

I edit to a degree, but don't really "manipulate" photos

 

[Ella Spell]

I like the original image. I thought it was an example of "After".

I like the soft texture and the shades of green.

 

[Sherlock77]

Don't forget that most creative photography isn't perfect... Photography artists I know often work on a conceptual basis, not how perfectly they follow the rules of composition, etc...

 

[Judge]

Yeah...this is a tough one to work with on so many levels.

First I reduced the size of the image to around 8.5 x 12 inches at 300DPI. Then I separated the bird as a new layer, and then resized it about 104% to eclipse the original image of the bird. That's how I gave it much sharper and clean edges, but at the same time allowed the sharpness to gradually fade where the bird's neck meets the torso.

All to give it an illusion of a very shallow depth of field, where it appears the focus was on the head of the bird while moving slightly.

And then of course I did what I could to clean up the background and make it a little more aesthetically pleasing, but without completely erasing the blurred fence in the background. But it's still pretty grainy, even using a number of filters to subdue it. Forcing me to make more compromises than I'd like to admit to. Oh well....it's always good practice.

The thing about using a 20+ year version of Photoshop is that there are so many things I can do, but what I call "the hard way" compared to so many special effects one can do in a heartbeat these days.
Still, this one only took about an hour and a half. I could spend a lot more time on it if I felt like it. Though I'm not sure how much any more effort might improve it. Like I said, this was a tough one.

The one filter I use extensively in editing existing images is probably the infamous "smudge tool". Which can make or break an image a bit too easily. But it allows you to really blend things and maintain soft edges where needed. Also using the "noise" filter is very valuable, as it can emulate grain where you need it, and be able to fade it to make it all blend well. I also make a lot of use of the dodge and burn tools, to lighten or darken select spots without ruining the rest. Increasing both brightness, contrast and color saturation of this image also helped to enhance it.

With more time I'd probably go back and fluff up the bird's feathers around its neck using the smudge filter. A great tool in Photoshop's "arsenal", but it can also ruin an image as fast as it can save it. Where hand-eye coordination becomes paramount.

 

[Rodafina]

Do you have some of your own examples of how far you’d go to keep a picture?

I’ll go pretty far. Mistakes seem like a good opportunity to play around with creativity.

original:

 

[Rodafina]

original:

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

Starting with RAW files with tricky situations gives me good results when I am processing underwater photos.

 

[Judge]

Editing pictures can be challenging, but truly attempting to restore something very old and damaged, even more so:

 

[Neat Hedgehog]

Would you try and recover a worthwhile image from this exposure or would you forget about it?

Do you have some of your own examples of how far you’d go to keep a picture?

What software do you use and what features do you use most?

I'd probably try to work with an image like that if I took it. Granted, I'm not a professional, but imo it can still be rebalanced a bit and look quite nice.

I usually don't do heavy edits on photos I take, just crop and color. As long as the exposure isn't too crushed or blown, I figure usually anything is workable to at least be ok from an aesthetic standpoint, even if not so great from a technical view.

I ran the cr2 through RawTherapee 5.9 with one of my custom profiles and tweaked it a bit. Actually gave me an excuse to use some features I wasn't familiar with yet, so that was a fun learning experience.

Spoiler: spoilered photo to save space

 

[Outdated]

I'd probably try to work with an image like that if I took it. Granted, I'm not a professional, but imo it can still be rebalanced a bit and look quite nice.

I think you did a pretty good job of it. It's from a series of pics I took as an experiment. I had a Rubinar 500mm reflector telescope type lens, multiply that by 1.4 for the adapter rings to fit a Canon camera, and then the 1:1.6 crop factor as well, I think it worked out to the equivalent of about an 1100mm lens, and I was using it on a home made chest pod. It was a bit much to ask but I had fun trying.

I usually don't do heavy edits on photos I take, just crop and color. As long as the exposure isn't too crushed or blown, I figure usually anything is workable to at least be ok from an aesthetic standpoint, even if not so great from a technical view.

I'm pretty much the same here, I don't even like it if I have to adjust the colour too much. I like it to be a photograph in the technical sense instead of a drawing. The true beauty of a digital camera is that you can keep taking more pics at no extra cost, simple law of averages says some of them have to turn out alright.

Spoiler

 

[Outdated]

The thing about using a 20+ year version of Photoshop is that there are so many things I can do, but what I call "the hard way" compared to so many special effects one can do in a heartbeat these days.

I'm having the same sort of trouble. I've been using Gimp for years and I've always loved it, up until version 2.6. Ever since then a lot of the simple features I was used to using have become a lot more complex. They haven't made it better, they've just made it more awkward.

 

[Outdated]

And the home made chest pod? It looks a little silly but works really well, especially if you're chasing wildlife in thick forests. You have to get pictures quick before they're gone again.

Cut the bottom out of a 2 litre (1/2 gallon) plastic milk bottle or similar. Turn it upside down and do the belt up on your trousers through the handle on the bottle. Shove the legs of a cheap tripod into the milk bottle and adjust their length so that the camera sits in front of your face. Leave all the clamps on the head loose so that you've got free easy movement with the camera.

Someone tried my dicky setup one day and he said it was better than the actual chest pod he'd bought because it gave me a lot more free movement with the camera.

 

[Judge]

I'm having the same sort of trouble. I've been using Gimp for years and I've always loved it, up until version 2.6. Ever since then a lot of the simple features I was used to using have become a lot more complex. They haven't made it better, they've just made it more awkward.

Interesting. Doesn't sound good.

I mean if I ever lose access to Photoshop, Gimp is the only logical alternative short of trying another very old Windows graphics app. But then being proficient with Photoshop is a primary reason I continue to rely on it. Without it, Gimp (even version 2.10) continues to be a mystery to me on number of levels. A "trick" this old dog doesn't want to struggle over.

So I take it you don't have access to a repository that still only provides Gimp 2.10? That's the only version I've ever seen pertaining to Mint AND Pop!OS. Granted there are some apps I will continue to download straight from the source using the terminal just to have the most recent version or to get around downloading a snap. Wasn't aware that Gimp had progressed to 2.6.

 

[Outdated]

So I take it you don't have access to a repository that still only provides Gimp 2.10? That's the only version I've ever seen pertaining to Mint AND Pop!OS. Granted there are some apps I will continue to download straight from the source using the terminal just to have the most recent version or to get around downloading a snap. Wasn't aware that Gimp had progressed to 2.6.

You can still get older versions. If desperate you can download a git version and revert it back to whatever version you like.

But I've fallen in to that trap before, chasing old libraries to satisfy old dependencies and than finding incompatibility issues, etc.

As much as I like my old versions of software to stay stuck with them is a trap and I do have to learn new tricks and move on.

Gimp 2.6 was the last version that I liked, but with Gimp 2.8 came the ability to work with 16 bits per pixel.

 

[Slime_Punk]

I don't know if it's a FOSS issue or not, but usually the awkwardness of programs like that (GIMP, Inkscape, and probably many others) are some of the reasons why I can't quit Windoze cold turkey, even though I really like the idea of just using Linux for everything, including but not limited to vector and raster editors.

I know that anyone could theoretically just crack it open and fix what they don't like, but that would take me years