Another Layered Files Question

[dmerger]

Phil’s recent post about providing layered files to his clients prompts me to ask a question that I‘ve pondered for some time.  

I have a fairly good, basic knowledge regarding Photoshop tools, layers and masks, but I’m far from having the talent and skills of the real pros.  I look at the work of these pros and marvel at their photos. I’ve often wondered if it was possible to hire someone of that caliber to take some of my raw film scans, edit them to produce final, pro quality photos and, most importantly, provide me with the layered files.  My goal is to use the layered files as a learning experience.  

I have some landscape photos that I believe are very nice; good light, nice composition, some of wilderness areas seldom seen let alone photographed.  The slides on my light box look terrific, but I can’t get most of my photos to look even close to as good as my slides.  

Below are some examples.  I’m not looking for critiques regarding my processing of these photos since I realize that my processing efforts are very bad.  If, however, anyone cares to comment, that’s fine with me.  Note that these photos are very low quality jpegs.  The originals are over 200mb 16 bit files.  I'm including these photos just to give readers a crude sample of my photos.
 
Dean

[attachment=15066:Mt_F.jpg][attachment=15065:CP.jpg][attachment=15067:Y.jpg]
[attachment=15068:CV.jpg][attachment=15069:WP.jpg][attachment=15070:Mt_B.jpg]

[Paul Sumi]

Below are some examples.  I’m not looking for critiques regarding my processing of these photos since I realize that my processing efforts are very bad.  If, however, anyone cares to comment, that’s fine with me.  Note that these photos are very low quality jpegs.  The originals are over 200mb 16 bit files.  I'm including these photos just to give readers a crude sample of my photos.
 
Dean

Your images don't seem to me to be as poorly processed as you think they are, and in fact look fairly decent.  There is a certain lack of visual clarity in the images overall, but this could just be because of the low res JPGs.

I'm not sure having a pro work on your raw image and giving you the layered file is the best way to learn how to do what they do.  You will see the layers and the visible effect they have on the final image.  But you may not understand the hows and whys they were used.

If you are able, you might be better off taking classes or a workshop in more advanced Photoshop techniques for photographers.  At least this way you will learn how and why certain things are done rather than trying to puzzle them out on your own.  I don't have any specific recommendations, but if you can attend a workshop by R. Mac Holberg, I learned a lot from him in a fine art inkjet printing class he offered.

Paul

[dmerger]

Paul, if I recall correctly, all but one of the photos was shot using a tripod, cable release, 35mm film (Velvia 50), 28mm lens, f8 and scanned with my Minolta 5400 (original version) at 5400 ppi.  My equipment isn’t pro level, but I think good enough to produce reasonably sharp images.  I think the lack of visual clarity you’re seeing is indeed due to the low res JPGs.  

The first and fourth photos are in my opinion the best processed, but even so they are poor in comparison with the work of the real pros.  The last two photos are terrible (although the slides look good on my light box).  

Using web photos isn’t the best way to compare photos, but I guess it’s the only feasible way in the present circumstances.  When I look at photos from some people mentioned recently on this forum, for example, like Alain Briot, Elizabeth Carmel, Tony Kuyper and many others, I can see how much room I have for improvement. I realize that my equipment isn’t as good as their equipment, but for smaller prints I’d like to hope that I could get my photos to look a little closer to theirs.  I know that I don’t have the natural talent to ever be as good as these people, but I think that with some help I should be able to see a lot of improvement.

I don’t live anywhere near a location where I could take a Photoshop course. I’ve read “Real World Photoshop CS” cover to cover and some of the chapters several times.  I’ve read “Photoshop CS Artistry”.  I’ve also spent hundreds of hours working with Photoshop CS.  Nevertheless, although I’m fairly knowledgeable about how to use Photoshop, I’m not able to produce results that are satisfactory.  

It seems to me that there are two distinct aspects to getting great results with Photoshop.  First is knowledge of Photoshop techniques, i.e. technical knowledge. Second is an artist’s eye for knowing, from a purely visual perspective, what should be done to improve photos.  Improvement in the first aspect would be easier than in the second, but I hope to improve in both aspects.

I agree it would be best to take an advanced Photoshop course, but since that is not feasible, I think I could learn a lot from analyzing layered files.  Perhaps the best way to learn in my circumstances would be a personal tutor via the internet, where the tutor could process some of my photos and then we could discuss them.  Is anyone aware of people who offer this service?

Dean

[Paul Sumi]

I don’t live anywhere near a location where I could take a Photoshop course. I’ve read “Real World Photoshop CS” cover to cover and some of the chapters several times.  I’ve read “Photoshop CS Artistry”.  I’ve also spent hundreds of hours working with Photoshop CS.  Nevertheless, although I’m fairly knowledgeable about how to use Photoshop, I’m not able to produce results that are satisfactory.  


Dean

Hi Dean,

In terms of information, have you already availed yourself of some of the Photoshop and digital workflow tutorials here on Lula?  Some of these are dated but are still useful in terms of workflow:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/

Also, Michael and Jeff Schewe produced a video on fine art printing (US$34.95), and the post processing sections would probably be useful to you. It's a download, which can be a PITA.  But Calumet also sells a CD of this video (US$39.99) and they provide a nice front-end menu for playing the sections.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/camera-print.shtml

http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/CE9930/

And you can always ask questions here.  Starting off, it might be best to describe your digital workflow and how you process your image files.  There are a lot of knowledgeable people here who can help.

Best,

Paul

[situgrrl]

First off, I like your photos a lot - and that's from someone who doesn't really get landscape!

Second, to echo Paul, are you quite sure it's you?  Take a slide to a renouned lab and have a cibachrome print made straight from it, the old fashioned way.  Compare this to an inkjet that you have made at home.

Third, thought about medium format?  6x9 has the same ratio as 35mm.  My thinking is that your slides look better on the box than the screen because they aren't enlarged - except I grant by your loupe.

[frugal]

I'll start with saying I really like the images as well. I think some could possibly use a little tweaking to really give them more impact but it's really hard to gauge them over the web though so I can't say how much is down to your post-processing vs. the fact I'm on an non-calibrated display at the moment.

I question exactly how much could be learned from seeing someone else's layered file after it was completed. The reason for this is that you'll see the final product but not the decision process that arrived at it, this could make it hard to determine what was chosen specifically for the image vs. what was general techniques that they apply to every image.

Similarly, sometimes the final layer doesn't show you all of the steps that the person took. For instance, one of the methods I've used for sharpening an image is a fairly commonly seen method on the net (or at least it was when I got it several years ago) where you duplicate your background layer (or flattened image if you've done retouching in layers), run the high pass filter on that and then set the blending mode to soft light or hard light and adjust the transparency of that layer to get the sharpening you want. Looking at the layer you'd see the blending mode and transparency I set for the layer but you wouldn't have any indication of how I created that layer in the first place.

Here's what I'd recommend:

• Profile your display - this is a must
• Profile your scanner - this will likely go a long way to helping your scans look closer to your slides
• Use adjustment layers - this lets you keep the settings for levels, curves, etc and change them later, great for if you're just learning and want to play with different settings
• Start with levels for rough settings - I usually edit each colour channel individually for the end points, usually just moving them in to where the histogram starts. Then I adjust the mid points to adjust the overall colour cast of the image.
• Learn some colour theory - it really helps with correcting colour casts if you understand what colours are opposite of each other. For instance, red and cyan are opposites, if the image is too red then go to the red channel in levels and move the midpoint slider to the right, it will shift the whole cast toward cyan. The other opposites are blue-yellow and green-magenta.
• Get familiar with curves for adjusting the contrast. A great trick with curves is while you have the curves dialogue box open command-click (if you're on a mac) or control-click (on windows) on a part of the image that you want to make lighter or darker, that will place a control point on your curve in the right place, drag that point up to make it lighter, down for darker. I found that my understanding of curves really improved when I started using that trick.

[feppe]

The images look great to me, and the lack of sharpness is probably due to lack of proper capture/output sharpening.

If you're not able to attend workshops (I'm not, either), Alain Briot has an extensive DVD set on retouching, where he shows the entire process he uses for his own stunning shots. I don't have it, but it sounds by far the most comprehensive retouching tutorial available. It's fairly pricey, but if it delivers what Alain claims (I'm sure it does), it should be well worth its money to someone serious about his photography.

There's also kelbytraining.com, but the retouching tutorials there are for portraits - that might change in the future, of course. There are also only a few advanced-level guides, which I'm sure are coming later. And you you have to wade through plenty of product placement and infomercial-type "guides."

[cmi]

...I’m far from having the talent and skills of the real pros. ... I realize that my processing efforts are very bad.

These so called pros also only cook with water. Dont let depress yourself. Practice is the key. I dont see your processing as particulary bad, if you could just give one picture as an example, and point out what exactly you dont like about it, or if you could provide an example image where everything is perfect as you wish along with an picture wich should pick up that style, maybe we can help.

Christian

[Jack Flesher]

One thing that jumps out to me on your processing is that the finals appear to be fairly high (read too high for my tastes) in both contrast and saturation.  An initial suggestion would be to back these off in the original scan, and then process them up to taste in post.  So for example, make sure your levels slider during the scan has a few points of elbow room at the shadow and highlight end, insuring there are no clipped or blown channels.  Saturation is much easier to add in during post than it is to remove; it also can create havoc with getting colors balanced.  Much nicer to be able to adjust saturation more carefully by channel during post as you can also tweak the hue at the same time.

Finally, note that it's tough to get a digital file as viewed on a profiled monitor looking exactly like a slide you scanned looked on your lightbox, and then tougher still to get either looking exactly like that in print; you need to learn how to interpret the way that version appears and converts, and this basically takes experience gained from doing it. But you also want to learn to do it correctly, so a good book or two on the topic is a great way to start, as it a good workshop on digital processing...

Cheers,

[marcmccalmont]

Just for fun!
step 1 noiseware pro
step 2 focus fixer
step 3 PS curves layer using the highlight dropper to white balance then opacity change to 54%
Marc
[attachment=15125:Mt_B2.jpg]
[attachment=15124:Mt_B.jpg]

[gardenvalley]

Just for fun!
step 1 noiseware pro
step 2 focus fixer
step 3 PS curves layer using the highlight dropper to white balance then opacity change to 54%
Marc
[attachment=15125:Mt_B2.jpg]
[attachment=15124:Mt_B.jpg]

You are not comparing like with like. A slide is not an image on a monitor. If you gave the scanned file to 50 different `experts` you would get 50 different interpretations none of which would be right. and by the same token none of them would be wrong and you would be none the wiser. I believe in keeping things simple in an attempt to reproduce what I think I saw. Photoshop is not aimed at photographers per se, but is meant for the graphic design industry. Just because a bit of software has a myriad of tools and techniques doesn`t mean you have to use them all. It`s all too easy to over-egg the pudding. I really like these photos and would be happy to have taken any of them, and that`s not something I say very often. A photograph should induce an emotional response and these do that for me. I think you`re pretty close to getting it right, my only comment would be the white balance may be slightly off, but I wasn`t there when you took them so I don`t know what you saw. You could spend the rest of your life constantly tweaking but there has to come a point when enough becomes too much. There is no perfect medium, accept the limitations of whatever medium you choose. I resisted digital for years in favour of chrome but the ability to get the exposure dead right and be able to correct particularly highlights and shadows was too strong a temptation and I have never looked back. There is a bit of a standing joke in my camera club, where I tease the techy dweebs by saying that if they can`t get an acceptable image in 5 mouse clicks then they should delete it forever. I was challenged and proved my point, although I accept that this lighthearted approach won`t work every time for every image for everyone. Good luck.

[Dick Roadnight]

The most important thing about landscape photography is to be in the right place at the right time with the right equipment, and you get the first two right.

I make two suggestions:

Give up photography and be a tour guide, or location finder for people with better still equipment, or for the film industry.

Buy a (10 * sheet film camera.

Many photographers blame their equipment, many more do not use their kit to it's full potential - if you have what it takes to get to these locations, it  is a crying shame not to have the equipment to do your art justice.

A Medium-format digital view camera would be nice, but the 10 * 8 would be more cost effective (and lighter) in the short term.

[ckimmerle]

The most important thing about landscape photography is to be in the right place at the right time with the right equipment....

Leading this thread a bit off topic, but I'll go for it.....

While I understand what you are trying to get at, I must disagree with that actual statement. There is no single RIGHT PLACE or RIGHT TIME...anywhere. Assuming as such relinquishes photographers to little more than either lucky bastards or good planners, giving credence to the arguments that landscape photographs are more about place than about the photographer. Instead, consider that there are millions of "right places" and "right times", and that it's our responsibility/mission/passion (whatever you want to call it) to find that one particular scene that speaks to us.

[Dick Roadnight]

Leading this thread a bit off topic, but I'll go for it.....

While I understand what you are trying to get at, I must disagree with that actual statement. There is no single RIGHT PLACE or RIGHT TIME...anywhere. Assuming as such relinquishes photographers to little more than either lucky bastards or good planners, giving credence to the arguments that landscape photographs are more about place than about the photographer. Instead, consider that there are millions of "right places" and "right times", and that it's our responsibility/mission/passion (whatever you want to call it) to find that one particular scene that speaks to us.

Perhaps I should have said "a good place at a good time"... but photographers do have to be lucky or good planners, and landscapes are of or about places - for a painter that place can be totally imaginary.

Photography is, to some extent, based on fact, but a painter or e-artist can create "anything, anywhere, anytime"