Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in
About post processing
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Do you post process your images?
I just resize and sharpen.
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Yes, but only a few basic settings, curves, levels, sharpening++
42%
 42%  [ 14 ]
I sometimes do alot of PP
33%
 33%  [ 11 ]
I shoot RAW and just resize and develop without adjustments
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
No, I shoot jpg and just resize them for web
6%
 6%  [ 2 ]
I try to do minimum of PP on this forum to present a honest description of lens abilities og character
15%
 15%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 33



PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:56 pm    Post subject: About post processing Reply with quote

There are different workflows, some people do not apply PP on this forum, others try to give the picture that little extra boost with software.

What is your workflow with legacy lenses?
(If the Poll options don`t fit, make a comment instead)


PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would need a chance to give a multiple answer.

x - I sometimes do alot of PP

x - I try to do minimum of PP on this forum to present a honest description of lens abilities og character


PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends on which forum images gets posted!

In Galleries and "Best of" forums I use PP to make the image the best it can be. (well I try to do that Laughing)

In "Manual Focus Lenses" forum if the goal is to be able to compare lenses, I think images posted need to have as little pp as possible.

A sharpened image does not represent well, the focus or bokeh of the lens. Same with altered image contrast. Images without any Sharpness and Contrast adjustments are much preferred when comparing lenses.

Also important is unaltered levels -- the image should be properly exposed, not corrected in pp.

Resize is usually okay, but also show camera-pixel level "100%" crops, prefer center, & at least one corner.

Before and After pp images would be useful too!


PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lens performance will be different on different sensors and different image processors ...

For photos which used for lens evaluation, I use the same camera, adjust exposure and WB individually, and keep all other settings the same across all the photos. By doing this, the result will be comparable across the lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I only shoot RAW, so I need to pp every image.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For "casual" shooting (holidays, trips etc.) I try to get the best possible shot in camera. Sometimes it's possible, sometimes not, depending on light conditions. When it's not, I expose thinking on how I will post process the image, so I shoot the image that will give me a better base for pp rather than the best possible exposure (sometimes the two are the same).
Then I almost always shoot raw, so I fiddle with them all when I download the pics, but if a picture is ok out of the camera it's better.

When I do more staged shots (usually it's for video), on the other hand, pp is a fundamental part of the process, and it usually is quite heavy and time consuming.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SonicScot wrote:
I only shoot RAW, so I need to pp every image.


Therein lies the rub! Laughing

Does anybody (else) know how to make an unprocessed image from raw data? <-- serious question!!!


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
SonicScot wrote:
I only shoot RAW, so I need to pp every image.


Therein lies the rub! Laughing

Does anybody (else) know how to make an unprocessed image from raw data? <-- serious question!!!

Rawtherapee can do exactly that. Load the raw image, select the [neutral] profile and then go to the raw tab and for demosaicing method select "none". I doubt this is what you really want though.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
SonicScot wrote:
I only shoot RAW, so I need to pp every image.


Therein lies the rub! Laughing

Does anybody (else) know how to make an unprocessed image from raw data? <-- serious question!!!

Rawtherapee can do exactly that. Load the raw image, select the [neutral] profile and then go to the raw tab and for demosaicing method select "none". I doubt this is what you really want though.


Processed a little more than that, I think. Wink Certainly de-mosaic the image so we can see lens(/camera) color balance/tone. No levels, curves, contrast, sharpen. What about color balance? Always use D65 or make constant for all images to compare?


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, then just select the neutral profile. You can select no colour profile as well if you want. Btw, just for the sake of curiosity I made a comparison. Three images: first one is completely raw, second one is converted with absolutely no processing other than demosaicing and colour profile and the third is a normally processed one (exposure, curve, white balance, crop, etc.):



I have a feeling most people don't really know what they're talking about when they say "unprocessed photo". Wink


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
Well, then just select the neutral profile. You can select no colour profile as well if you want. Btw, just for the sake of curiosity I made a comparison. Three images: first one is completely raw, second one is converted with absolutely no processing other than demosaicing and colour profile and the third is a normally processed one (exposure, curve, white balance, crop, etc.):

photo

I have a feeling most people don't really know what they're talking about when they say "unprocessed photo". Wink


We have a winner!

That is the unprocessed photo I'm talking about.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surely an "unprocessed" raw would simply be 1s and 0s... Cool


PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My post processing ranges from resizing only to a heavy amount of pp. It all depends on the photo and/or the situation. If I'm doing a lens test, for example, and I want to post the results at a forum such as this one, then typically all I'll do is resize the images. But if I'm after getting the maximum "look" from an image, then I'll pull out all the stops.

I have found from experience that, if I do a lot of pp to an image, often when I look at it the next day, I won't like it at all because it looks like too much was done to it. So I'll redo it, scaling things down some. If it still looks good the next day, then it's probably a keeper. I've found this "cooling off period" to be very important when it comes to the final appearance of an image.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TAo2 wrote:
Surely an "unprocessed" raw would simply be 1s and 0s... Cool

Exactly! Smile

Or something like this:



I'm now tempted to post an image like this every time someone complains that a particular photo is not good because it's processed and they demand to see the "original" as it came out of the camera. Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
TAo2 wrote:
Surely an "unprocessed" raw would simply be 1s and 0s... Cool

Exactly! Smile

Or something like this:

[hexadecimal dump]

I'm now tempted to post an image like this every time someone complains that a particular photo is not good because it's processed and they demand to see the "original" as it came out of the camera. Laughing


Somebody posts images from two different lenses to show differences in sharpness. The point here is they shouldn't sharpen those images in PP.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Somebody posts images from two different lenses to show differences in sharpness. The point here is they shouldn't sharpen those images in PP.


+1


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I shoot raw, I normally show a before and after if it's about a lens on the manual lens forum to show what it looks like before processing, and then to show how good a image can look from the lens. Personally, I think that is important.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

+1 vroger

For lens comparisons, and in a forum dedicated to lens comparisons, use unprocessed images.

For lens showcase, use PP to get the very best from image lens produces.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:

Somebody posts images from two different lenses to show differences in sharpness. The point here is they shouldn't sharpen those images in PP.


Yes, this is what I always do when I'm posting images from different lenses as comparisons. Otherwise, there is no point.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
visualopsins wrote:

Somebody posts images from two different lenses to show differences in sharpness. The point here is they shouldn't sharpen those images in PP.


Yes, this is what I always do when I'm posting images from different lenses as comparisons. Otherwise, there is no point.


edit: Somebody posts images from two different lenses to show differences in sharpness. The point here is they shouldn't sharpen those images in PP or in the camera.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
visualopsins wrote:

Somebody posts images from two different lenses to show differences in sharpness. The point here is they shouldn't sharpen those images in PP.


Yes, this is what I always do when I'm posting images from different lenses as comparisons. Otherwise, there is no point.


edit: Somebody posts images from two different lenses to show differences in sharpness. The point here is they shouldn't sharpen those images in PP or in the camera.


Yeah, I know what you mean. With my EOS DSLR, I was able to set sharpness in the camera, or sharpen the raw image before translating. My view on that was, if the camera caught the detail, then the detail should be expressed. But there were limits. Too much sharpness tweaking produced undesirable artifacts, so even with this capability, I had to exercise restraint. I found with that camera, that even when I set things rather conservatively, the image always looked better when viewed at 80% rather than 100%. That's frustrating.

But if I was using the same camera and the same settings for the lens comparison, then they're both being judged by the same yardstick, so it doesn't matter.

Now, with my NEX, I have not found any internal sharpness settings in its menu selections, and the raw file translation utility I use has no sharpening function, so with the NEX, there is no post-image capture sharpening done at all when I'm doing lens comparisons.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
...

But if I was using the same camera and the same settings for the lens comparison, then they're both being judged by the same yardstick, so it doesn't matter.

...


Well, not exactly...this is incorrect imho...suppose one lens results are easier to sharpen? In any case, in the camera sharpening is done using similar algorithms to PP sharpening -- how is it that PP sharpening is not okay while in-camera is okay?! When comparing sharpness, images should not be sharpened in camera or PP, correct?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You need to go back and reread what I wrote before the sentence you quoted. If I set the in-camera sharpness to a certain value, then both lenses are being subject to the same algorithm, so I don't see how it matters. If I leave the sharpness setting to its default value, how is that any different from applying sharpness to the image? It isn't. It's just a different value. So, however you want to look at it, you can't escape the fact that a sharpness utility is being applied to the image.

Anyway, it has been my experience that if critical focus is achieved with a lens, using a sharpening utility only results in adding noise and artifacts to the image. It doesn't get any sharper. So there's no point in using an external sharpening utility. All the in-camera sharpening function is doing, imo, is making sure the image is being displayed with a maximum level of sharpness before it becomes degraded.

With that EOS, I found that I could tweak the camera's sharpness setting upward a moderate amount without the images suffering degradation from artifacts. That camera defaulted to a setting of 3 out of a possible 7. 3 is dull, dull, dull. Quite soft. It usually required that I sharpen the image in Canon's DPP raw conversion utility. I found that if I set the in-camera sharpness to 5, the images are not adversely affected, and I don't have to sharpen them in DPP.

But that was the EOS, which isn't getting used much anymore. Now I'm shooting with the NEX 7, which doesn't have an internal sharpness setting. I usually don't use the Image Data Converter software that came with the NEX, which does have a sharpness control and which behaves similar to unsharp masking. Instead I use the raw utility built into Paint Shop Pro VII, my preferred image processing software, and its raw converter doesn't have a sharpness tool. So when you see lens comparison images that I've taken with my NEX, you can be assured that no sharpening was done to them.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

None of the answers reflect what I do. Just basic levels and crop. NEVER sharpening.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
... set the in-camera sharpness to a certain value, then both lenses are being subject to the same algorithm, so I don't see how it matters. If I leave the sharpness setting to its default value, how is that any different from applying sharpness to the image? It isn't. It's just a different value. So, however you want to look at it, you can't escape the fact that a sharpness utility is being applied to the image.

...


Suppose the algorithm works better on one image...that image will appear sharper, yes? Non-zero sharpening matters because the image gets changed. Zero sharpening, in camera or PP, does not make any sharpness corrections to image.

cooltouch wrote:
... All the in-camera sharpening function is doing, imo, is making sure the image is being displayed with a maximum level of sharpness before it becomes degraded. ...


Using internal software sharpening algorithms, if sharpness setting is non-zero, yes?