Digital Dark Room Tips and Suggestions

[geoand]

Steve, the pictures you have posted are outstanding. Some of the things I have noticed is that your pics with water are bluer, your pics of sky are bluer, your pics with sky and clouds are bluer and clouds just pop out. Are you using any filters on your lens? And/or are you adjusting white balance on the camera? And/or are you adjusting the colors thru you photo processing program? Or am I off the mark completely? If so, I know I would like to know what you are doing as well as many others here.

Thanks for any info you can provide.

 

[Brett]

I'm not the caveman but you can have my unsolicited opinion - which you can ignore and move on if necessary. I use Corel Paint Shop Pro for photo enhancements. One click and even a bad photo can look good. (or maybe acceptable) Also great for those older scanned prints you put in a digital frame!

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

I'm not the caveman but you can have my unsolicited opinion - which you can ignore and move on if necessary. I use Corel Paint Shop Pro for photo enhancements. One click and even a bad photo can look good. (or maybe acceptable) Also great for those older scanned prints you put in a digital frame!

I also use Corel Paint Shop Pro. I do sometimes use UV and polarizing filters on outdoor shots - but to get really good photos you have to work with your images after they come off the camera.

I started managing my photos when I was took a photo of the view from the lanai of our unit at Po'ipu Point. I had my laptop with me, and I immediately downloaded it and viewed it on the screen. I then sat there looking at how different the image was from what I was actually seeing. I had a simple photo editing program on the computer, so I started working with the image to try to get it to show the beauty of what I was actually seeing.

***

None of photos are taken with DSLR - they are all from pretty simple point and shoot cameras. Until 2006 I was using a 2.3 megapixel Nikon I bought for $80 at Long's Drug in Lihu'e (after my film camera got wet while kayaking the Wailua). Just before we went to Hawai'i in 2006 I upgraded to an 8 megapixel Kodak Z612.

Most of the photos I take are not set up. I have the camera with me. I see something I like - that I think would make a good photo - I grab the camera and start shooting, generally using the automatic settings. If I spend too much time trying to get things right DW usually gets frustrated waiting for me. I discard well over 90% of the photos I take.

 

[geoand]

Steve, I am very surprised. We do have dslr's and we use Photoshop elements or Photoshop 3 and we use Aperture (we are mac people). I guess I am going to have to start playing with some of the photos with these programs.

Let me know will you if the Bear pic I posted takes too long to download.

 

[Brett]

I also use Corel Paint Shop Pro. .. use UV and polarizing filters on outdoor shots - but to get really good photos you have to work with your images after they come off the camera.

You may not have the latest PSP upgrades, versions 11 and 12 have a "one click" photo enhancement feature that adjusts a number of variables - brightness, color saturation, sharpness, etc. I use it almost every time

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

You may not have the latest PSP upgrades, versions 11 and 12 have a "one click" photo enhancement feature that adjusts a number of variables - brightness, color saturation, sharpness, etc. I use it almost every time

I just ordered PSP2 yesterday. With the version I have I seldom use the one-click SmartFix because I like my adjustments better.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Steve, I am very surprised. We do have dslr's and we use Photoshop elements or Photoshop 3 and we use Aperture (we are mac people). I guess I am going to have to start playing with some of the photos with these programs.

Let me know will you if the Bear pic I posted takes too long to download.

The bear pick is only 171k; it's probably one of the smaller photos in the thread.

 

[Kal]

You may not have the latest PSP upgrades, versions 11 and 12 have a "one click" photo enhancement feature that adjusts a number of variables - brightness, color saturation, sharpness, etc. I use it almost every time

Be very careful in modifying brightness, color saturation, sharpness, etc. Each of those steps will significantly degrade the image. There are other techniques which will accomplish the same end-point without the damage. I use Photoshop so I'm not familiar with PSP.

To get those deep tones you need to modify color saturation using RGB Histograms. Go here for a good primer on histograms.

Another key is to immediately convert the image to TIF format. If you modify a JPG image it will degrade every time you change or save it. Each time the image is regenerated important color information is removed from the file. That doesn't happen with the TIF format. Once you have the final image, then save it as a JPG format.

As a note, turn off "resampling" and you will minimize image degradation when you change the image size. The dimensions might be reduced, but the resolution will increase. Thus, the file size will be the same.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Ken - Isn't there also image loss when adjusting histograms? After doing a histogram adjustment, if you save the file and close, can you undo the changes you made?

I thought the only way to really be sure you didn't lose information was to either save a copy of the unedited file, or do all of the adjustments on an adjustment layer and save the file in format that supports layers.

******

Many of the pictures I take I don't worry about image loss that much. I'm not going to do anything with the pic other than print it out in a 4x6 format and put it in on line album. If I start with a 7.2 megapixel photo and do all of my editing in one session, saving it as a JPEG doesn't affect me much.

Just to be sure, though, I always save an unedited copy of the photo for several years, in case I do decide I want to do something more with it.

I do save as RAW or TIFF the edited versions of photos that I do want to keep and possibly do more with. When I post them I save a version of the edited photo as a JPEG, with whatever resizing or added compression I want to include. But I still retain the edited RAW or TIFF.

 

[Conan]

I've had pretty good results with the free Picasa2 program.
Besides cropping, redeye reduction, and straightening, there's an "eyedropper" function where you click on an area that you know to be gray [a white shirt in shadow works best] and it rebalances the color of the entire shot.

Once you're happy with your Picasa image, it's good to export it to another file at maximum image size. The exported jpeg contains all your changes [you need to do that because Picasa leaves your original photo file unchanged - - it somehow overlays your changes so you can "undo" at any time all the way back to what you started with]

Once you have your exported file, you can use PSP or another program to fiddle further.

 

[Kal]

Ken - Isn't there also image loss when adjusting histograms? After doing a histogram adjustment, if you save the file and close, can you undo the changes you made?

I thought the only way to really be sure you didn't lose information was to either save a copy of the unedited file, or do all of the adjustments on an adjustment layer and save the file in format that supports layers...

When you adjust a histogram you're changing the tonal range by eliminating areas where no color data exists. The revised image only includes all the color info and therefore it is more saturated. It's a way to correct over- and under-exposure and get a richer image.

I don't think histogram changes can be placed on another layer, but I could be wrong. If not, saving the revised image in the same file name will over-write resulting in loss of the original. You would need to give the revised image a different name.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

When you adjust a histogram you're changing the tonal range by eliminating areas where no color data exists. The revised image only includes all the color info and therefore it is more saturated. It's a way to correct over- and under-exposure and get a richer image.

I don't think histogram changes can be placed on another layer, but I could be wrong. If not, saving the revised image in the same file name will over-write resulting in loss of the original. You would need to give the revised image a different name.

In Corel Paint Shop Pro histogrom adjustments operate on the selected layer. So if I promote a selection to a layer (which could be the entire image), I can do histogram adjustment on the promoted image, while leaving the original image intact on the lower layer. But to preserve the layers I have to save the file in a format that preserves layers, such as .PSD. At that points it's just as easy to simply save both edited and unedited files.

 

[Kal]

The multi-layered image will have a much larger file size so once you are satisfied with the product you can "flatten" the image to consolidate changes and avoid the large file size.

For me, as a rule I always preserve the original images and any modifications are done in renamed file. Ultimately tho the images are like rabbits, they're everywhere! File management including backup and being able to find an old image is a continuing challenge.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

File management including backup and being able to find an old image is a continuing challenge.

Isn't it?!!!

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Isn't it?!!!

What I'm trying to have the discipline to do is:

1. Download photos from the camera first to my primary photo storage location on an external drive..
2. In the backup directory, preview the images on the external drive, keeping only those that I deem worthy of retaining.
3. Copy the remaining unedited images to a working directory on the hard drive of the machine I use for editing, putting those images in an "unedited" files folder.
4. Open images from the unedited folder and do whatever work I want to do. When I'm done, save them to an edited files folder. At the same time I make final decisions on which images I want to keep and which I want to discard.
5. Do a final cleanup of the unedited folder, removing images I don't want to keep.
6. Delete all of the original unedited images from the external primary photo storage hard drive and transfer both thne edited and unedited folders from the working directory on my local hard drive to the primary photo storage external drive.
7. Some time later, at my convenience, delete the files of my local drive.

The external primary photo storage hard drive is backed up nightly onto another external drive. Once every two or three weeks that backup drive is taken offsite for storage, and a twin unit that has been located off site is added to the system and used for backup.

***

I'm toying a bit with the idea of going to an internet based offsite backup system that would run nightly. That would eliminate the hassle of swapping drives all of the time.

 

[Kal]

The real problem is the size of digital camera removable media. If there were only 150MB cards and users were limited to 1 card, the problem of file management would go away. Remember when a 35mm roll of color positive film had 24 exposures! Three or four rolls and we were good to go.

I put new original images on a DVD and that way I can't modify them. I am using internet based storage and that is really nice. Let someone else hold those files. My wife and I will easily take 1200 images combined, many of the same subject. Then we have to sort thru all that just to screen out lesser duplicates and rejects. Files, files, files!

 

[geoand]

We just spent 2 weeks in Hawaii and we shot over 3600 RAW format photos. File management is done by DW and she has it under control. If it were left to me, it would be a disaster in huge proportions.

My understanding of what she does: downloads into Aperture and stores the data in Aperture Vault on external hard drive (vault takes up 239 gigs). She uses Time Machine for backup on a terabyte external hard drive. Once every month or two, she takes the external hd from safe deposit box and updates it with the latest vault.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

The real problem is the size of digital camera removable media. If there were only 150MB cards and users were limited to 1 card, the problem of file management would go away. Remember when a 35mm roll of color positive film had 24 exposures! Three or four rolls and we were good to go.

But that's also the beauty of digital. Years ago, in the film days, I wanted to do more with photography but didn't pursue it because of the time, effort, and expense. I couldn't give it that priority. So I brought the camera along, took pictures, and had them developed and printed. Threw out some and kept others. I used to shoot four or five pictures of the same scene to find one to keep, but that got pretty expensive.

But digital changes all of that!!!

 

[Brett]

We just spent 2 weeks in Hawaii and we shot over 3600 RAW format photos.

wow 3,600 in two weeks !

Over Christmas on a five day trip I was ridiculed for taking 200 photos.
But I have only a "point/shoot" camera - someday I will get an SLR you can do more with then I might end up taking pics in the 000's

 

[Kal]

We just spent 2 weeks in Hawaii and we shot over 3600 RAW format photos...

That would be an absolute nightmare. If you spent 30 seconds looking at each image at 4 hours per day it would take over 7 days just to stare at them. Not to mention any time trying to sort, catalog and file the things. After all that, then the time to modify, crop, enhance and print makes it an experience that you will soon change shot selection when using the camera next time.

 

[Kal]

But that's also the beauty of digital. Years ago, in the film days, I wanted to do more with photography but didn't pursue it because of the time, effort, and expense. I couldn't give it that priority. So I brought the camera along, took pictures, and had them developed and printed. Threw out some and kept others. I used to shoot four or five pictures of the same scene to find one to keep, but that got pretty expensive.

But digital changes all of that!!!

In the film days a good photographer would get 1 very good image out of every 36 on the roll. With digital a person is inclined to just fire away at absolutely everything. Today, little or no time is taken for composition, front lighting, back lighting, depth of field, exposure and subject matter. Just leave the heavy lifting to photo management software to remedy all evils. It was not uncommon to spend 20-25 minutes on a single shot and then it had to be bracketed with changes in aperture and speed so as not to miss the perfect shot.

With today's digitals, we're quickly heading back to the Brownie Hawkeye method of photography. But that's probably okay as there's no need to pack around a wheel barrow full of lenses and filters.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

In the film days a good photographer would get 1 very good image out of every 36 on the roll. With digital a person is inclined to just fire away at absolutely everything. Today, little or no time is taken for composition, front lighting, back lighting, depth of field, exposure and subject matter. Just leave the heavy lifting to photo management software to remedy all evils. It was not uncommon to spend 20-25 minutes on a single shot and then it had to be bracketed with changes in aperture and speed so as not to miss the perfect shot.

With today's digitals, we're quickly heading back to the Brownie Hawkeye method of photography. But that's probably okay as there's no need to pack around a wheel barrow full of lenses and filters.

If a person can accomplish the same thing with software vs hardware, what difference does it make?? If the software makes the task simpler, that's ok.

For the professional and serious hobbyist. the final result taking the time to get everything set up is going to be more satisfying. For the casual user such as I being able to grab my camera, shoot, and worry about enhancements later is a huge step forward from using film.

Plus many of my photos are taken as we're driving around, hiking, or doing some other activity. It's not practical to spend five or ten minutes setting up and composing a shot. Instead I snap off a bunch of photos from different vantage points, varying settings if I think it's necessary. Then I select photos, crop if needed to get the composition I want, and make the other adjustments.

 

[geoand]

That would be an absolute nightmare. If you spent 30 seconds looking at each image at 4 hours per day it would take over 7 days just to stare at them. Not to mention any time trying to sort, catalog and file the things. After all that, then the time to modify, crop, enhance and print makes it an experience that you will soon change shot selection when using the camera next time.

Actually, not a nightmare for us. We see it as pleasant dreams. We already have nearly 240 gigs of photos. We view many of them every day thru screen saver. She has the big apple cinema screen in our family room.

Yes, she spends much time doing the photo work every day. However, she loves doing it. If she has a vice this would be the only one. I can't complain because she puts together many movies of our vacations, family get togethers, etc. Many people see them and we already have friends asking when she is going to have them over so they can view her movies with us.

We will be going down to Palm Spring area for 3 weeks at end of February. Will have many more shots there. The desert is a wonderful place to take the camera.

I will post some of our Alaska trip photos over the next few days.

I know it would be a burden for some, but we thoroughly enjoy taking photos.

On a trip to Merrit Island wildlife refuge a year ago or so, we spent 12 hours taking pics of birds of all kinds. That day, we shot about 900 pics of the birds.

Our advantage is that we have the time to do all of this.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Thanks to Kal's comments on this thread, I got motivated to reassess my approaches to working with digital files. Up to now, I've pretty much just stumbled my way through working with photo software. So I decided to take a step back and get a more thorough overall grounding. It's been most informative, and I figured I would pass on a couple of resources that I've been using.

When I decided to get smarter, my goal was to be aware of techniques that are at a level that was beyond where I saw myself going. My rationale for that is twofold. First, if I do something with a picture that is convenient but less than optimal, I want to do so intelligently. I don't want to blunder like a bull in a china shop. Second, I want to know what steps are available to me at the next level because there likely will be situations where those tools would help me get what I want out of the image. If I don't know the tool exists, I won't know how to make that change. Or I would make the change and it would be less optimal.

With that in mind, I picked up a couple of books from Amazon, both of which I can easily recommend.

• "Paint Shop Pro Photo XI for Photographers" by Ken McMahon (Focal Press).
  
  If you are using Paint Shop Pro, this is the resource you need. It's like a User Manual of the type that came with software about fifteen years ago. It goes into almost all of the settings and features, and describes how almost everything in the program works. If you use an Adobe product instead (Elements or one of the Photoshop versions) you can probably find a similar book. I like Paint Shop Pro because it will do almost everything that Photoshop will do, but it costs about one-fourth the price of Photoshop.
  
  With Paint Shop Pro XII having just been released, this book is slightly out of date. But most of it is still useful and relevant. If you check out the "What's New" information that comes with the Paint Shop Pro release, you shouldn't have any issues.
  
  
• "The Creative Digital Darkroom" by Katrin Eismann and Sean Duggan (O'Reilly Media)
  
  This book covers some of the same territory as the first one, but then goes much further. Its introductory information is much more cursory, as it assumes the audience is starting at a higher level. This book provides a lot of examples and illustrations of advanced techniques. Although this book introduces me to the world that is beyond where I see myself going, there is still much in the book that I will use regularly. For example, it has great information on selective dodging and burning and has already shown me some easier and more effective ways to make some of the enhancements I've already been attempting with only limited success. Where it addresses the same topics as the first book it often shows more ways of accomplishing the same thing or illustrates more ways a particular tool can be deployed.
  
  This book is considerably more packed with information. It takes me about five times as long to cover 10 pages in this book as compared with the McMahon's Paint Shop Pro book. That's not because the book is dry - it just provides a lot more technical content.
  
  It also has a good discussion of why what you see on a monitor isn't the same as what you will get from a print. That has been a vexing issue for me, when I put effort into creating something that looks good on a monitor, but looks crummy in print.

So I can recommend these, and I'm sure that if you poke around and ask friends you can find comparable references.

If you want to do more with your photos, start with a book such as the first one. If you're not doing anything at all with your photos now, a very small amount of effort can lead to dramatic improvements in the quality of your images. After the initial easy adjustments, diminishing returns kick in quickly - additional improvements require significantly more work.

But every now and then you may grab an image that really captivates you and you can see that with some additional work it could be really special For me it's nice to know that I can do that extra work to get something I enjoy instead of looking at a print and telling myself "if only ...".

 

[BevL]

We just spent 2 weeks in Hawaii and we shot over 3600 RAW format photos..

That's mind boggling to me. We just got back from two weeks in Hawaii and we took five photographs.

But my hat is off to all of you - it's too artistic for me.