I really need to start to learn the art of post processing. I seriously have no idea how to get from point a to point b, or even a taste as far as what looks good. Here are a couple of images from my last e-shoot that are pretty much off camera, I have a feeling they could look better if I knew anything about pp.
I recently purchased both LR and CS4 and am not sure where to begin. I am doing ok in LR and think its GREAT, but have hardly touched photo shop yet. I could go with presets or actions, but would really love some type of video tutorial that would teach me what the different tools do and different ways to use the tools to get different look so that I can create my own presets. One geared towards wedding photography would be 100% amazing. I have an hour or so a day over a couple of months that I am willing to invest in learning whatever if need be. I was even thinking of working through the disc that comes in photoshop.
Lynda.com would be a good placed to start. Finding things that are strictly wedding oriented isn't what you should be looking for. Learn how to incorporate what you find into wedding photography. Good luck and never stop learning.
I'll preface this by saying that I wholeheartedly support you learning photoshop/lightroom, and that its pretty much necessary in this day and age.
That said,
In my opinion most photographers these days have the idea that they have to "do something" to every photo to make it good... that if it doesn't LOOK "edited," then its not a complete image. IMHO, about 90% of the editing being done by wedding photographers these days will prematurely date those images.
You say that these three images would look better with "PP." My questions are:
1. What do you like about each of these images?
2. Is there anything that you feel could be improved about each image, more specifically than "just needs post-processing?"
Start looking at each image from a compositional standpoint. Squint at your images to see what stands out. Once you've got a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of each photo, look for ways to subtly enhance the strengths while minimizing the weaknesses. Consider the crop, consider dodging and burning (lightening darkening), etc....
I guess what I'm trying to say is that from these first steps, don't think about "doing Photoshop" to images for its own sake, or for some fancy special effects work. Look at using editing to bring out the best that's already present in each image.
Evan, interesting thought about too much pp dating images-- we might view them as contemporary today, but with an heirloom like a wedding album, better to focus on great light and composition Do you think the same about using ultra modern compositioning and shooting style-- like shooting wide open most of the time or cropping off appendages to focus on the details of a suit in the same boat? Maybe a more Jeff Ascough style with superb shooting and little post is the way to go, if you can-- to even get a snippet of his skill would be beyond amazing, right? On a similar note maybe figuring out how to use off-camera flash would be a better next step for me than pp(?)
If I take myself through the little exercise, I'd say, and really I have lots of trouble with this stuff, but here goes:
1. I like the blue tint caused by dusk, but some others may remove the color cast
2. Maybe more emphasis on the center of the photo and less on the edges
3. Too much pink on the skin and not enough in the background?
I really have no idea-- I'd be interested to hear others thoughts or see what they'd do if they took these shots. Hmm that may be a better post-- put up higher res images and see what people would come up with...
Evan, interesting thought about too much pp dating images-- we might view them as contemporary today, but with an heirloom like a wedding album, better to focus on great light and composition Do you think the same about using ultra modern compositioning and shooting style-- like shooting wide open most of the time or cropping off appendages to focus on the details of a suit in the same boat? Maybe a more Jeff Ascough style with superb shooting and little post is the way to go, if you can-- to even get a snippet of his skill would be beyond amazing, right? On a similar note maybe figuring out how to use off-camera flash would be a better next step for me than pp(?)
I think that any stylistic flourishes that are done purely for their own sake have a tendency to date themselves, whether they are executed in post-production or at the time of capture. If you're going out every wedding and shooting everything at 1.4, constantly finding reasons to shoot 90% of the frame as negative space, etc.... then its probably not always going to look as fresh as it does today. This is not to say that using fast glass and dynamic compositions will date: just that using them without giving any thought to a meaningful interpretation of content leads to style over substance. Any photographic device or technique can either be a gimmick or a tool depending on how its used. That was the point of my post: by all means learn to use Photoshop... but stop and think before you buy into this current trend that every image requires at LEAST 6 Totally Rad Actions before its "done."
The most crucial factor that I'm seeing in these images is that all of them could be improved by a careful consideration of composition. The first two are completely centered, and the third feels a little off balance and tight. The second shot is the one that I feel has the most potential from a composition standpoint: you have two main interests in the frame: the couple and the light at the end of the road. The rest of the image is effectively negative space. Now, if the shape of the couple and the arch of trees at the end of the road were both cut out and put on a white piece of paper, what is the most interesting way that you could arrange those two objects? There's no "right" answer, but I feel like centering the couple and having the arch just a bit to the right could be improved.
Hope this helps! I've seen you post a number of times here, and you've impressed me with both your thick skin and sincere desire to learn (not that impressing me should matter to you in the slightest ). Those qualities will take you far!
Agree with Evan you will find that in the beginning you feel the need to PP the hell out of all your images but eventually you realize that with better more meaningful compositions your pictures will stand for themselves without needed all the fancy PP.
Doug
hardlyboring wrote:
Agree with Evan you will find that in the beginning you feel the need to PP the hell out of all your images but eventually you realize that with better more meaningful compositions your pictures will stand for themselves without needed all the fancy PP.
Doug
+1! When I started doing this as a hobby every image had gaussian blurs, diffuse glows, spot colouring, soft focus, you name it I threw it at images, now I find that 90% of the time dodging and burning and subtle ACR vignetting is all I do. Let the images speak for themselves, you don't want the MOST noticable thing about your images to cease to be the subject/setting but your editing.
I will sort of paraphrase what's already been said in my own words...
First, it's important to realize the difference between "Processing" and "Digital Art". Processing should only enhance an already good photo. Noticing the processing before the content is usually a recipe for a dated photo.
If we look at a photo and think "I need to improve this with processing" then there's probably something you missed in-camera.
Thanks, everyone! it's good to know I'm not alone in this-- you are a great group of people, and I love the sense of humor/honesty here.
Evan-- thanks for the encouragement, it means a lot to me. You are right about compositions... now that I think about it, someone mentioned the same thing on an earlier fm post (maybe Sam?) while others mentioned they were lacking pp, but for whatever reason I focused on the pp comments.
I agree with Tony, it's best to get it right in camera-- but how to do that? I wonder how I can work on composition? Maybe try different angles, specifically not standing straight and straight shooting, maybe. Actually, some of the pics started with slightly different composition and I cropped them in pp, probably b/c that's one of the only pp things I can do, and I have to do some pp or it isn't any good(!)
What struck me as cool for #2 initially was the depth/scale of the tunnel relative to them and just the magical glow it had. That is not captured much in the pic though. Maybe I should have stepped back quite a bit, squatted down and shot up at them-- I dunno.
I shot at the same locale for a friend the next night, from the other end and like it better. Instead of looking into the light letting the light hit her and having the dark in the background. Sorry for the facebook quality resolution
This is another one I like from that set-- it's not centered, and it has the fountain in it that they wanted, but again, maybe it's a yawn compared to what it could be.
#1 rule, learn composition and lighting first. WAY more important than PP in my humble opinion. It's too easy to use post-processing to cover a bad photo, when learning the discipline will allow the photo to speak for itself.
Remember, especially with PP, it's not always how much you do to an image, it's learning the restraint to stop and not do any more to it.
Also, I think the original versions of those pics look better than your cropped ones. They have better composition overall.
Read up on the "rule of thirds", as no-one ever said a photo had to be centered. Take a look at photos you think are "wow" and you might notice that they're not either. A great way to learn is to look at what others have done right and analyze what they did, then apply it to your shooting. Don't copy, but apply it to what makes you..YOU.
Evan and the others said all this already, but I just wanted to re-iterate. Good luck!
Tony Hoffer wrote:
I will sort of paraphrase what's already been said in my own words...
First, it's important to realize the difference between "Processing" and "Digital Art". Processing should only enhance an already good photo. Noticing the processing before the content is usually a recipe for a dated photo.
If we look at a photo and think "I need to improve this with processing" then there's probably something you missed in-camera.
I disagree.
Processing makes all the difference. You can be the best shooter in the world, but if your pp is not up to par with the industry standards or your client's taste.... then your image will have no appeal.
I know You want to express your passion for " mastering the tools" which is fine and dandy.....
But you of all people cannot expect people to believe that your images are all "out of the camera" lol
The photo has to be solid out of the camera yes.... but you add that Punch to it with excellent PP.
Whoa dude, take it easy with putting words in my mouth.
I used to think that 'processing makes all the difference' too, but after editing around 100,000 photos in the last two years, I don't think that anymore.
I've found as I've been shooting this year, my ability to see light and composition has gotten a lot better - and those are what make or break a photo. Also, I've started to really understand the impact focal length and dof have on an image. Looking for light, choosing the right lens, and composing in camera are some of the most important things to learn as you shoot. This only comes with time. Posing is also extremely important - but it looks like you are capturing great moments.
I didn't know much about LR or CS4 when I started, and I think that challenged me to get things better in camera. So enjoy this time and really work on getting the best photo you can out of camera.
That said, there is a certain "pop" that is nearly impossible to get straight out of camera with a RAW file. Good lighting helps, but there are three things that I alter in my photos to get what I want (aside from crop and exposure changes):
1) white balance. This is huge - shoot in RAW and play with white balance when you need to. When white balance is off, it can throw the entire image off.
2) Tone curve. Tone curves makes your darks a tad darker and your lights a tad lighter. Basically, it changes your contrast, but in a controlled way. I have been playing with my own tone curves, but I started by using a few from presetopia.
3) Hue, saturation, luminance. I change the luminance a tad for my photos to give a little extra something to the skin tones. I find that if there is an off color in my shots, a quick change of the hue or saturation can get rid of those colors. In LR, I use the little circle thing next to the sliders - then I click on what I want to change and alter it accordingly.
with a few shots, I may need to change the clarity, blacks, or contrast. Sometimes - only a very few sometimes (like 5 pictures total this year) - will I add a vignette. But ultimately, nearly all of my shots have just had a very slight adjustment in those three things above (not counting exposure- sometimes a tone curve will throw off the exposure so you'll need to change accordingly).
Hope that helps!
For composition help, just google composition and read as much as you can. Study images you like and think about what you like about them. Etc., etc. It takes a while to grasp composition - I'm still working on it.
#7 is a nice photo. A way to compose it better would be to rotate around the couple so that the tree isn't coming out of her head.
Also, because this location is meaningful to the couple, you could use a wider lens and capture all of them, the rock and the fountain/building/trees behind them.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
Whoa dude, take it easy with putting words in my mouth.
I used to think that 'processing makes all the difference' too, but after editing around 100,000 photos in the last two years, I don't think that anymore.
lol.
I did not mean to come off as agressive...
I just think that pp can salvage a bad photo and still please the client. Shooting it right out of the camera is obviously priority number 1...
One thing that has tremendously helped me this year is ditching the idea of getting rockstar shots with off-camera flash. First, I'm not a huge fan of off-camera lighting. It's not my thing. Second, it's forced me to see natural light and work with natural light. So instead of working on getting the perfect flash to natural light balance, I work on finding the direction of the light, the quality of the light (harsh sun, or softbox cloudy), and the way the light is interacting with the background.
Instead of just throwing up an off-camera flash, grab a model and work with natural window light. I've learned a lot from watching where shadows fall on a face and how back light and front light affect a photo. Learn about light patterns on faces (rembrandt, loop, etc.) and how that affects the way a person looks. Take two or three hours and just play with the light (this takes a patient model). Play with exposure - what does it look like underexposed, what does it look like overexposed. Use two focal lengths and stick to them. I generally start far away with my 85, then work my way closer with my 35. I try to move around and get different angles - my husband reminds me to get out of my comfort zone. Bring the camera up above the subject, bring it down below.
You'll go through a ton of memory, so buy extra cards. This type of exercise is very helpful for learning about how light affects your shots.
). Those qualities will take you far!