The Importance of Post-Processing Images
I've been writing a lot about wildlife photography and posting many examples of bird photography in my recent blog posts. I am also in the process of writing a piece with tips for this type of photography. Until I publish that piece, I thought I would write about the importance of one of the tips I offer in that piece... the art of post-processing that needs to go into your images after you capture those images.
There is no doubt that today's cameras can produce some beautiful images right out of the camera. Dynamic ranges are getting better with each new generation of digital cameras, tonal qualities continue to improve, sharpness and clarity continue to improve but there are still things which are out of our control which must be tweaked while there may be other things requiring a significant amount of post-processing.
I, myself, will post images right out of the camera especially while we are traveling. That doesn't mean that an image would not benefit from even some basic post-processing though. Every image needs some amount of developing in post-processing. It is just that, while traveling, easy and speed are my two priorities when sharing photos online. When I get home, those same photos I already shared get some post-process developing.
In the days of film, this post-processing occurred in the darkroom. The darkroom had tools of various shapes and sizes for dodging and burning, gradient tools, contrast tools, eyepieces for "sharpening", tall pieces of machinery for enlarging and more. A lot of work went into getting each print exactly the way you wanted it. Some people were better at this than others... it is an art. The same holds true for digital developing... it is an art... it requires education and effective practice... and, it is essential in order to get the most out of the images your camera captures.
For those of you who never learned to develop photos in a darkroom, here is a pretty good short video showing how some of us learned to develop an image into a beautiful print. Keep in mind that this was a process used for each and every print...
After watching that video (or experiencing it firsthand as I did decades ago when I was first starting in photography), it should be abundantly clear that a lot of work went into each and every image. Contrary to what most people may think, this need for a lot of tedious work going into each and every image has not changed at all. The only thing that has changed is how we accomplish this post-processing. Today, we've traded the chemical darkroom full of fumes, strange tools, odd lighting, trays, bottles, and archaic machinery for a powerful, pimped-out graphics computer and a catalog of complicated software.
As my twin-lens reflex camera and 35mm rangefinder sit on a shelf (my first two cameras), I continue my education and effective practice in the art of digital photography. The intended end product is the same... a beautiful print... but the tools and how we get there are completely different. If you do not understand this, you will never... repeat, never... get the most out of your photography gear. All photographs require some amount of post-process developing.
To prove this point, let me show you five of my images which need varying degrees of post-processing. I will show a side-by-side comparison of the original RAW file right out of the camera next to the post-processed (or digitally developed) image ready for print (and not printed on any consumer-grade home printer... my prints are done professionally at high-end print shops... but that is another topic for another blog post). These side-by-side comparisons should make it abundantly clear how important it is to learn the art of post-processing.
First up... let's start with a fairly average one. This image on the right was pretty good straight out of the camera as can be seen in the top image labeled "Original RAW" but it did improve quite a bit with a little bit of post-processing as can be seen in the lower image labeled "Developed Image".
I cropped the photo slightly for a better composition while also providing a slight enlargement of my little feathery subject.
This particular camera captures a slightly cooler color temperature than what the eye sees so I needed to warm up the colors a little bit while correcting the color overall. You can see that the developed image now has a warmer feel to it than the top original RAW image.
I removed some grainy noise (in the form of little pixelated dots) from the background by using a noise removal plugin, masks and an eraser. This noise removal helped to smooth the background a little too.
I then used a series of brushes and tools to apply changes to this original RAW image. I selectively sharpened the bird by using masks. I did a bit of "dodging" (remember the tools from the darkroom in the video above?) to brighten the bird as well as a bit of "burning" to darken the background. This helped to separate my subject from the background. I did some selective tonal contrast adjustments and then did a final "high pass" sharpening only on my subject to bring out some of that very fine feather detail.
Compared to many images, this image did not require a whole lot of post-processing work but, clearly, the image benefited from the little bit of work I did do on it.
This next example almost ended up in the trash can when I first viewed it on my computer! I didn't like it at all. The background was so busy and distracting that I felt the image belonged in the bin. I was up for a challenge so I decided to give it a shot and see what I could accomplish in post-processing anyway. The eye contact with this Purple Finch really made the photo and perhaps that is what drove me to salvage this image. This little feathered friend looks like he is angry with me and about to fly over to tell me who is the boss!
Because of the crazily distracting background, this image would require more work than most. Fortunately, I shot this original image with a camera that has nice clarity, contrast, tonal qualities and a resolution of 16 megapixels. This allowed me to crop into the photo significantly making my subject significantly larger and more prominent in the frame.
Not only did I crop this quite tightly, but I also changed the orientation of the image as I cropped. The image now runs vertically rather than horizontally (portrait rather than landscape). This helped to minimize much of the distracting background. Then, I worked the same workflow as I did for the first image above... selective dodging to lighten areas of the bird... selective burning of distracting elements in the background to help my subject to stand out from this terrible background... noise reduction to eliminate fuzzy grain mostly affecting the background... selective local tonal contrast adjustments... selective sharpening... I corrected the color balance (again, warming up the colors a bit) while also adding some slight color saturation to my subject... and finally a selective high pass sharpening.
This image still is not an award winning photo but it is significantly better than the original after some post-processing work and a photo I don't mind showing.
This third example is a great example to show a drastic change through post-processing without making the image look fake.
First, I needed to crop and straighten this photo so my subject would fill more of the frame. While cropping, I kept the "rule of thirds in mind and tried to minimize background clutter.
The bird is underexposed a bit in my original RAW image because my camera exposed for the highlights in the frame... the top of the bird feeder and the white trim on the house in the background. My bird, however, was in the shadows so I needed to bring up the exposure by using the "curves" tool and then applying some extra dodging to bring my subject out of the shadows.
When I brightened the image, the gray background turned almost white making for a very odd looking flat background. Before going further with fixing the now whitish background, I applied all the same workflow as described in the previous two examples then I came back to figure out what to do with the background.
In the end, I decided upon layering two other images behind my edited bird layer to help with the almost-white background. One image was something I shot earlier that day of a tree branch... I added it as a layer, blurred it a bit, and brought its opacity down to around 15%. The other image was an out-of-focus image of specular highlights... in other words, a blurry image of just bright, out-of-focus circles of light. Then I brought the opacity of this layer down to around 20%. I then selectively erased problem areas. This changed my flat, boring almost-white background into a much more interesting, warmer background.
There is no doubt that this developed image is far better than the original RAW image straight out of the camera!
This fourth example is an example of what can be done when you do have outstanding image quality from a latest generation full-frame sensor with very high resolution. My longest lens for this camera, however, is only a medium telephoto zoom so my subject is quite small in this image. This photo was shot with an f4 70-200mm lens providing me with only a third of the zoom magnification as what is seen in the above examples. However, because of the amazing quality of this larger sensor, I was able to crop more than usual and was still left with a large file size.
After cropping to bring this little bird much closer, I used some of the usual developing tools mentioned in all the previous examples such as dodging, burning, local tonal contrast, and sharpening to get the final developed image. This particular camera is well above average with exceptional image rendering so color is beautiful right out of the camera... clarity is amazing right out of the camera... tonal qualities are beautiful right out of the camera... so this helps to minimize the work required in post-processing. Post-processing is still necessary, however. Cameras of this caliber are exceedingly rare too.
A 200mm field of view is not nearly enough for capturing close-ups of these little birds but I did manage to develop this image in a way that provided a nice photo nevertheless.
This last example shows the same minor problems as the fourth example above. The same camera and lens combo was used for this image as the previous one above so we know that the main goal for this image will be to bring our subject closer and apply minor tweaks with our tools.
Not having enough reach to immediately notice our subject but having the outstanding image quality of a full frame sensor provides you with the latitude to crop more heavily than usual. I think I cropped this image from 24 megapixels down to around 10 megapixels. A 10 megapixel image is still a high quality image and perfectly fine for high quality prints.
After cropping, I carefully and lightly applied my usual workflow of developing tools. With just a little bit of post-processing and a fairly heavy crop, we end up with a decent image. That original image, as it is straight out of the camera, would never make it to print if it were up to me... and it is up to me!
There is one more tool I want to mention which has not been mentioned yet. There is such a thing as "enlarging" in the digital world. This is a process involving varying techniques which is done after all this post-processing and is very specific to the type of image and intended print size. There are still techniques to this process just as there were techniques to enlarging in the film world and there are many ways to do this wrong. The better your technique, the better your output. I just wanted to point out that enlarging is indeed something which can be done and is often done in the digital world. It just must be done effectively for the particular image and the intended print size.
Some cameras are better than others but all cameras require varying amounts of post-processing regardless of what anybody says or claims. The tools available in this digital darkroom are changing and improving everyday with each new version of the myriad of software available so staying current in knowledge and proficiency is imperative in order to get the most out of your camera's image files.
Developing image files is an art. This art, like any art, requires effective practice to master. The more you experience and learn, the better you will be at this art.
There is no doubt that today's cameras can produce some beautiful images right out of the camera. Dynamic ranges are getting better with each new generation of digital cameras, tonal qualities continue to improve, sharpness and clarity continue to improve but there are still things which are out of our control which must be tweaked while there may be other things requiring a significant amount of post-processing.
I, myself, will post images right out of the camera especially while we are traveling. That doesn't mean that an image would not benefit from even some basic post-processing though. Every image needs some amount of developing in post-processing. It is just that, while traveling, easy and speed are my two priorities when sharing photos online. When I get home, those same photos I already shared get some post-process developing.
In the days of film, this post-processing occurred in the darkroom. The darkroom had tools of various shapes and sizes for dodging and burning, gradient tools, contrast tools, eyepieces for "sharpening", tall pieces of machinery for enlarging and more. A lot of work went into getting each print exactly the way you wanted it. Some people were better at this than others... it is an art. The same holds true for digital developing... it is an art... it requires education and effective practice... and, it is essential in order to get the most out of the images your camera captures.
For those of you who never learned to develop photos in a darkroom, here is a pretty good short video showing how some of us learned to develop an image into a beautiful print. Keep in mind that this was a process used for each and every print...
After watching that video (or experiencing it firsthand as I did decades ago when I was first starting in photography), it should be abundantly clear that a lot of work went into each and every image. Contrary to what most people may think, this need for a lot of tedious work going into each and every image has not changed at all. The only thing that has changed is how we accomplish this post-processing. Today, we've traded the chemical darkroom full of fumes, strange tools, odd lighting, trays, bottles, and archaic machinery for a powerful, pimped-out graphics computer and a catalog of complicated software.
As my twin-lens reflex camera and 35mm rangefinder sit on a shelf (my first two cameras), I continue my education and effective practice in the art of digital photography. The intended end product is the same... a beautiful print... but the tools and how we get there are completely different. If you do not understand this, you will never... repeat, never... get the most out of your photography gear. All photographs require some amount of post-process developing.
To prove this point, let me show you five of my images which need varying degrees of post-processing. I will show a side-by-side comparison of the original RAW file right out of the camera next to the post-processed (or digitally developed) image ready for print (and not printed on any consumer-grade home printer... my prints are done professionally at high-end print shops... but that is another topic for another blog post). These side-by-side comparisons should make it abundantly clear how important it is to learn the art of post-processing.
I cropped the photo slightly for a better composition while also providing a slight enlargement of my little feathery subject.
This particular camera captures a slightly cooler color temperature than what the eye sees so I needed to warm up the colors a little bit while correcting the color overall. You can see that the developed image now has a warmer feel to it than the top original RAW image.
I removed some grainy noise (in the form of little pixelated dots) from the background by using a noise removal plugin, masks and an eraser. This noise removal helped to smooth the background a little too.
I then used a series of brushes and tools to apply changes to this original RAW image. I selectively sharpened the bird by using masks. I did a bit of "dodging" (remember the tools from the darkroom in the video above?) to brighten the bird as well as a bit of "burning" to darken the background. This helped to separate my subject from the background. I did some selective tonal contrast adjustments and then did a final "high pass" sharpening only on my subject to bring out some of that very fine feather detail.
Compared to many images, this image did not require a whole lot of post-processing work but, clearly, the image benefited from the little bit of work I did do on it.
Because of the crazily distracting background, this image would require more work than most. Fortunately, I shot this original image with a camera that has nice clarity, contrast, tonal qualities and a resolution of 16 megapixels. This allowed me to crop into the photo significantly making my subject significantly larger and more prominent in the frame.
Not only did I crop this quite tightly, but I also changed the orientation of the image as I cropped. The image now runs vertically rather than horizontally (portrait rather than landscape). This helped to minimize much of the distracting background. Then, I worked the same workflow as I did for the first image above... selective dodging to lighten areas of the bird... selective burning of distracting elements in the background to help my subject to stand out from this terrible background... noise reduction to eliminate fuzzy grain mostly affecting the background... selective local tonal contrast adjustments... selective sharpening... I corrected the color balance (again, warming up the colors a bit) while also adding some slight color saturation to my subject... and finally a selective high pass sharpening.
This image still is not an award winning photo but it is significantly better than the original after some post-processing work and a photo I don't mind showing.
First, I needed to crop and straighten this photo so my subject would fill more of the frame. While cropping, I kept the "rule of thirds in mind and tried to minimize background clutter.
The bird is underexposed a bit in my original RAW image because my camera exposed for the highlights in the frame... the top of the bird feeder and the white trim on the house in the background. My bird, however, was in the shadows so I needed to bring up the exposure by using the "curves" tool and then applying some extra dodging to bring my subject out of the shadows.
When I brightened the image, the gray background turned almost white making for a very odd looking flat background. Before going further with fixing the now whitish background, I applied all the same workflow as described in the previous two examples then I came back to figure out what to do with the background.
In the end, I decided upon layering two other images behind my edited bird layer to help with the almost-white background. One image was something I shot earlier that day of a tree branch... I added it as a layer, blurred it a bit, and brought its opacity down to around 15%. The other image was an out-of-focus image of specular highlights... in other words, a blurry image of just bright, out-of-focus circles of light. Then I brought the opacity of this layer down to around 20%. I then selectively erased problem areas. This changed my flat, boring almost-white background into a much more interesting, warmer background.
There is no doubt that this developed image is far better than the original RAW image straight out of the camera!
After cropping to bring this little bird much closer, I used some of the usual developing tools mentioned in all the previous examples such as dodging, burning, local tonal contrast, and sharpening to get the final developed image. This particular camera is well above average with exceptional image rendering so color is beautiful right out of the camera... clarity is amazing right out of the camera... tonal qualities are beautiful right out of the camera... so this helps to minimize the work required in post-processing. Post-processing is still necessary, however. Cameras of this caliber are exceedingly rare too.
A 200mm field of view is not nearly enough for capturing close-ups of these little birds but I did manage to develop this image in a way that provided a nice photo nevertheless.
Not having enough reach to immediately notice our subject but having the outstanding image quality of a full frame sensor provides you with the latitude to crop more heavily than usual. I think I cropped this image from 24 megapixels down to around 10 megapixels. A 10 megapixel image is still a high quality image and perfectly fine for high quality prints.
After cropping, I carefully and lightly applied my usual workflow of developing tools. With just a little bit of post-processing and a fairly heavy crop, we end up with a decent image. That original image, as it is straight out of the camera, would never make it to print if it were up to me... and it is up to me!
There is one more tool I want to mention which has not been mentioned yet. There is such a thing as "enlarging" in the digital world. This is a process involving varying techniques which is done after all this post-processing and is very specific to the type of image and intended print size. There are still techniques to this process just as there were techniques to enlarging in the film world and there are many ways to do this wrong. The better your technique, the better your output. I just wanted to point out that enlarging is indeed something which can be done and is often done in the digital world. It just must be done effectively for the particular image and the intended print size.
Some cameras are better than others but all cameras require varying amounts of post-processing regardless of what anybody says or claims. The tools available in this digital darkroom are changing and improving everyday with each new version of the myriad of software available so staying current in knowledge and proficiency is imperative in order to get the most out of your camera's image files.
Developing image files is an art. This art, like any art, requires effective practice to master. The more you experience and learn, the better you will be at this art.
Comments
Post a Comment