Enhancing Photo's

[in the vale]

If you camera can take RAW images, then these are images that bypass most of the camera processing and therefore retain most of the sensor data. These can then be post-processed by many photo programmes such as PS. Not always useful, but sometimes with a strangely lit or coloured landscape it will preserve more of the 'original' feel of the shot you think you took. If you can, try it. Take two shots of the same scene - one RAW and one JPEG - and compare them in your software. There is often quite a difference! P.S. They are often much bigger than your normal files.

Edited June 7, 2011 by in the vale

[in the vale]

If I had read some earlier posts I would have realised that my post is old hat - sorry!

[gsteruk]

hmm, a lot of people say natural is best - but remember, if you take a photograph and apply an in camera style, i.e. landscape mode or portrait etc, all your doing is letting the camera make enhancements - but that is still classed as natural as its "out of the camera". personally speaking id rather take a picture in RAW with no enhancements, then process it in photoshop. its no different than developing a negative in a darkroom for film. also adding filters is strictly not natural - and is non reversible - with software its reversible. The main prob as some have said is if you start chaging the content of the photograph, then its no longer a natural shot. i guess its the difference between strict photography and art. if all art was natural then there would be no different lighting techniques, no props - just someone standing - but not smiling, cause smiling when your not happy isnt natural......

[FetchCB]

Photography is always going to be a compromise on what the human eye sees and even then everyone else sees the same scene different. In some respects this is the analogue versus digital argument that has raged all spheres of arts.

When i started photographt we used film and filters to "change/enhance" what we saw. Even then the film we chose could give differing characteristics of print. To my mind I see no problem in post production because in effect "photoshopping" is no different from what was done in the darkroom. If you wanted a punchy picture you would slightly underexpose and print onto a specific paper. It still takes skill, albeit a different one. the only difference is and to me this is the biggest plus , is that I can take a picture and get a decent result, sometimes a great one whereas in the analogue age I would take a picture and a week later I would discover whether it was any good and if not well the momemnt had gone.

I see the term natural being badies about and wonder what that is. Does that mean unprocessed but all jpeg photographs are processed with differeing manufacturers having there own algorithm. So is the true natural RAW but again we are subject to manaufacturers processes, is it the human eye? but recently an opthalmic surgeon is suggested that JWM Turner, suffering from early, slight colour-blindness and later cataracts, was painted exactly what he saw but when you or I look at we struggle to recognize the scene.

I think the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" sums it all up

[in the vale]

Even in the past when I had a fully functioning darkroom at home, it was hard to reproduce the same great print twice - age of the chemicals & paper would always vary slightly. Try developing two Ektachrome positive rolls back to back and get identical results manually rolling your drum at home - never got it perfect (most people won't have a clue what I am on about!). That was art in that it was easy to get wrong. At least with digital you can reproduce exactly the same processing results again and again with no variation. PS batch processing does take some of the fun out of it - and I really do miss those smells! Or is that just time passing? Some were pretty dreadful!

[Sprites]

Im new to digital photography, only bought a DSLR last summer.

Looking through the landscape photos on this site i wonder how the sky and foreground are equally well exposed?

its some photoshop tweaking im guessing?...

[4wd]

You should be using RAW, then you can use 'fill light' to lighten dark areas and 'recovery' for over bright areas.

Simply reducing contrast in one of your picture style settings will improve things a bit.

You can look at ND Grad filters (too much faff IMO)

If this is all too much you'll need to revert to old techniques like keeping the sun mainly behind you and looking out for scenes with a well lit foreground.

[in the vale]

Im new to digital photography, only bought a DSLR last summer.

Looking through the landscape photos on this site i wonder how the sky and foreground are equally well exposed?

its some photoshop tweaking im guessing?...

Check your metering settings also - a general spread (matrix) setting will often get a more balanced exposure than a spot or centre-weighted setting.

[The PIT]

I shoot in raw which is really the negative of the photo. I also use cokin graduated filter so the skies stay as you see them. See pic below.

I then process the images in Dxoptics pro 6 or 7 remove the one main dust particle which is stuck on the sensor. Sometime I'll clean it but while there's one faint one I won't risk adding more.

One thing I have noticed My Nikon is very poor in picking up blue colours like bluebells. I then have to adjust the pictures in the software to bring them back. Otherwise a see of blue will largely disappear.

[4wd]

That's a good picture but it does show the disadvantage of the grad filter by darkening the tree parts which reach up into the sky.

With a more open scene they can work well.

I find in many cases you can apply almost as good a grad effect in Lightroom or photoshop.

In photoshop you can often select only the sky to apply it to - avoiding unwanted darkening of tall things!

[Sprites]

Thanks to all who answered my questions, i always use RAW too , i may buy some software to help with balancing sky/foreground exposure.

Thanks to all who answered my questions, i always use RAW too , i may buy some software to help with balancing sky/foreground exposure.