SHOW: Before and After Shots

[comment23]

Light conditions were too contrasty for decent images of my buddy's motorcycle.
I had to make do with a full shade shot but background was too bright.

View attachment 836113

A bit of editing changes the mood and look completely.
I did not use a single global filter or slider because that effects the whole image, but I built it in layers masking out the areas where I didn't want the treatment to appear.
About 20 layers later...

View attachment 836114 Drew on Duke390_4b_JX180044 by gnarlydog, on Flickr

Nice! Very natural look.

 

[gnarlydog australia]

Nice! Very natural look.

well, yes and no
If one doesn't see the original it could be believable, but then if you do a comparison and it looks odd.
My intent was not to crate "fidelity" of what the camera lacks to capture (you know dynamic range and all that) but more of a different "story" than reality without needing to be pure fantasy

 

[comment23]

well, yes and no
If one doesn't see the original it could be believable, but then if you do a comparison and it looks odd.
My intent was not to crate "fidelity" of what the camera lacks to capture (you know dynamic range and all that) but more of a different "story" than reality without needing to be pure fantasy

And you’ve achieved that. By natural look I meant it doesn’t have that over processed or fake look. I could easily believe it was a SOOC shot on a different time of day when the sunny and shady patches just happened to fall in different places. So on that basis I think you’ve done a great job. ?

 

[Andrewmap]

For @ektar the before and after shots of the yacht:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And after:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The post processing was done on Photoshop Elements 2020 and the Nik Collection Silver Efex Pro 2 add on. I chose the Fine Art High Key template and then used tone number 6 (Selenium tone), added the number 13 border and then used the Red filter to darken the sky slightly.

 

[Brownie]

well, yes and no
If one doesn't see the original it could be believable, but then if you do a comparison and it looks odd.
My intent was not to crate "fidelity" of what the camera lacks to capture (you know dynamic range and all that) but more of a different "story" than reality without needing to be pure fantasy

It looks believable. Your efforts make the rider and bike pop, nice detail and the background doesn't grab my attention. Don't worry about the original V. processed, remember, no one has to see the original but you. I was watching a video on processing several years ago and the guy had an interesting bit of advice. If you're unsure, get it where you think it should be then walk away for 24 hours. When you return, don't open the original, just the processed. How does it hit you? Looking at it after a break and without a refreshed look at the original lets you evaluate it on its own merits. Not something for every photo you process, but if it's something you want to keep//print/sell etc., it makes sense.

 

[gnarlydog australia]

It looks believable. Your efforts make the rider and bike pop, nice detail and the background doesn't grab my attention. Don't worry about the original V. processed, remember, no one has to see the original but you. I was watching a video on processing several years ago and the guy had an interesting bit of advice. If you're unsure, get it where you think it should be then walk away for 24 hours. When you return, don't open the original, just the processed. How does it hit you? Looking at it after a break and without a refreshed look at the original lets you evaluate it on its own merits. Not something for every photo you process, but if it's something you want to keep//print/sell etc., it makes sense.

While I am not a purist nor a photojournalist (where editing is frowned upon) but I still like to maintain a certain look that doesn't reek of cheap overcooked editing. I have a long way to go to achieve the level of my inspiration. Watch the very short edit video of one of his works http://lightrider.at/portfolio/lightpainting-motorrad-fotoshooting-kawasaki-z900/

 

[Brownie]

While I am not a purist nor a photojournalist (where editing is frowned upon) but I still like to maintain a certain look that doesn't reek of cheap overcooked editing. I have a long way to go to achieve the level of my inspiration. Watch the very short edit video of one of his works http://lightrider.at/portfolio/lightpainting-motorrad-fotoshooting-kawasaki-z900/

Interesting. It'd be fun to be able to achieve that look, but it's not something I'd want to use a lot. The finished result looks more like a David Mann painting than a photograph.

 

[ektar]

For @ektar the before and after shots of the yacht:

The post processing was done on Photoshop Elements 2020 and the Nik Collection Silver Efex Pro 2 add on. I chose the Fine Art High Key template and then used tone number 6 (Selenium tone), added the number 13 border and then used the Red filter to darken the sky slightly.

That is really cool. I find that the "Tri-X Mode" B&W setting on the Pen-F sheds too much detail. PM-ing you with a question.

 

[BrianLa]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Picture is a new Class 68 diesel taken at Kirkham Abbey, near Malton in North Yorkshire UK. The original was taken with my EM-1 mkii and the 12-100mm f4 at ISO500. The upper image is just a resize of the original converted to jpeg. The lower image is processed, a bit, in Affinity photo and subjected to my new copy of Topaz Denoise. Please note I've done no sharpening apart from that applied by Topaz during it's procesing. I'd read good reviews but seeing is believing. I'm pretty happy!
Brian

 

[gnarlydog australia]

I was not too impress by the light I had available to me: in the middle of the day it was too harsh.
I took some images anyway hoping I could get lucky with post-production.
I used an adapted C-mount lens: Canon TV-16 50mm f1.4 and "aperture bracketed" a few. I wanted subject isolation but at wide open is a bit glowy

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I stacked a stopped down frame over the above one taken at f2.8. Masked the background.
Over several layers I toned the image to bring the motorcycle forward, de-saturated the background, subtle HDR on the mechanical bits, light painted some small spots.
The goal was to create a surreal scene, almost night shot, nothing like when I took the image

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Scenic Rim_3 by gnarlydog, on Flickr

 

[ektar]

Okay. Discussion welcome. The image was shot with an OM-Mount Vivitar 19mm f3.8 @ f8.0. It was not a particularly pretty morning, but I thought that the original image was extra flat. The light was a little adverse, coming somewhat from the right.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I knew there was nothing to do with it in color. The next image was processed through Luminar 4 first, with the sky enhancement, then through Silver Efex Pro. There's a sharpening step in there that I think created the weirdness in the tree to the right. Also the yellow filter sort of over-emphasized the contrast and the sky. I have no idea why it also jagged the lines in the door. The film emulation was either Plus-X 125 or some flavor of Fuji ISO 125.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I looked at the original image again, and there was some CA in the highlights that may have created the "crunchy" look in that tree. I toned that down, eliminated the sharpening step, the yellow filter and the specific film emulation. The sky effect in Luminar 4 came out a little different as well.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[gnarlydog australia]

Okay. Discussion welcome. The image was shot with an OM-Mount Vivitar 19mm f3.8 @ f8.0. It was not a particularly pretty morning, but I thought that the original image was extra flat. The light was a little adverse, coming somewhat from the right.

View attachment 839388

I knew there was nothing to do with it in color. The next image was processed through Luminar 4 first, with the sky enhancement, then through Silver Efex Pro. There's a sharpening step in there that I think created the weirdness in the tree to the right. Also the yellow filter sort of over-emphasized the contrast and the sky. I have no idea why it also jagged the lines in the door. The film emulation was either Plus-X 125 or some flavor of Fuji ISO 125.

View attachment 839389

I looked at the original image again, and there was some CA in the highlights that may have created the "crunchy" look in that tree. I toned that down, eliminated the sharpening step, the yellow filter and the specific film emulation. The sky effect in Luminar 4 came out a little different as well.

View attachment 839390

I am glad it was not just me that thought that your first attempt at editing it in monochrome was kind of.... overcooked. Scaling it back looks much better to me

 

[Brownie]

Yes. In that second photo the tree is screaming for help. I've done that trying to pull something out of a flat image and not noticed it until later. The second effort is much better.

Just as a side note, how would it look cropped so the lower roofed part of the building was chopped short, just letting it trail off and left to the viewer's imagination? You'd have to do it before the roof runs out or the effect would be gone. The reason I ask is that the garage part is very interesting, the other end of the building just kind of waters it down for me.

 

[Will Focus]

For @ektar the before and after shots of the yacht:

View attachment 836144

And after:

View attachment 836145

The post processing was done on Photoshop Elements 2020 and the Nik Collection Silver Efex Pro 2 add on. I chose the Fine Art High Key template and then used tone number 6 (Selenium tone), added the number 13 border and then used the Red filter to darken the sky slightly.

I was expecting to see it floating on the incoming tide.

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

Okay. Discussion welcome. The image was shot with an OM-Mount Vivitar 19mm f3.8 @ f8.0. It was not a particularly pretty morning, but I thought that the original image was extra flat. The light was a little adverse, coming somewhat from the right.

View attachment 839388

I knew there was nothing to do with it in color. The next image was processed through Luminar 4 first, with the sky enhancement, then through Silver Efex Pro. There's a sharpening step in there that I think created the weirdness in the tree to the right. Also the yellow filter sort of over-emphasized the contrast and the sky. I have no idea why it also jagged the lines in the door. The film emulation was either Plus-X 125 or some flavor of Fuji ISO 125.

View attachment 839389

I looked at the original image again, and there was some CA in the highlights that may have created the "crunchy" look in that tree. I toned that down, eliminated the sharpening step, the yellow filter and the specific film emulation. The sky effect in Luminar 4 came out a little different as well.

View attachment 839390

Vote for second edit. Clouds and sky look so much better. In the first one sky was too HDR-ish while the trees washed out in contrast. Second edit seems more balanced, also reduced contrast on the garage is great too.

 

[Brownie]

An old airport in Tecumseh, Michigan. Turns out this Meyers guy was awarded a contract during WWII to build training aircraft, Tecumseh being his home base. First shot is the JPEG SOOC. It was so monochrome already that color didn't do anything for me. Started messing with mono and ended up with a touch of sepia. Added grain and changed the aspect ratio to loose the grass up front, it was too much of nothing. Bumped the contrast but also lightened it so it looked a bit washed out to add to the old effect.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P1031104 by telecast, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P1031104 by telecast, on Flickr

 

[Will Focus]

The other day I was scanning with my camera's viewfinder for a random image and came upon a yawning duck. It occurred to me that it looked like a quack, but it wasn't. Anyway, the image was pretty terrible but I didn't delete it because of the yawning duck, which brings me to tonight and this thread. This is the first time I've seen this thread and I said to myself "Self, why don't you see what you can do with that yawning duck?"

So here is the before, a pretty terrible shot of a yawning duck with other ducks that are bored. (No wonder he's yawning)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And here is the after...

A still terrible shot of a yawning duck, cropped converted to B&W with a touch of sepia, shadows lifted beyond the grave and a reverse vignetting thrown in for laughs and giggles.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

To complete the transformation, just imaging the duck is quacking.

Quack, quack, quack, quack. quack.....

(sometimes I quack myself up)

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

Seemed like as an ideal time as any to try the insert fake sun rays thingy from Luminar -

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Apollo T.]

@Will Focus
You don't understand that's the Edvard Munch of the feathered world.

 

[Will Focus]

@Will Focus
You don't understand that's the Edvard Munch of the feathered world.

I suppose I never considered the duck may have been living a life of silent torment. I guess I'll have to go down the lake tomorrow and offer up a loaf of bread as penance.