Revisiting your post-processing
by eNoBlog on Jul.01, 2010, under Post-processing
If you do any sort of post-processing (PP) to your photographs, chances are you’ll sometimes second-guess how you first approached an image. You may do this several times, especially for photos that hold more potential. Given the almost infinite number of possibilities we have at our disposal, perhaps this is inevitable – unless you are really sure of yourself.
The following sample image also resulted from my recent outing to Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs, CO. With the soft, late day lighting I was able to use during the exposure, just before the sun dropped behind a nearby hill, my first take was to preserve the delicate hues, and I did very little by the way of post-processing beyond minor level adjustments and sharpening of the foreground rocks. The result is pleasing and perfectly acceptable.
But could I get a little more pop? And do so without destroying the scene’s mood? A few days after my initial PP attempt, I decided to add more contrast through Curve and Tone mapping adjustments. I also used my trick of de-noising the sky in a separate layer to achieve greater separation from the foreground, sharpened rocks. In addition, this color version now shows more of the texture and form I normally love in B&W conversions.
Speaking of B&W conversions, since I had gotten some interesting results for other scenes at the same locale, my real end-goal was to see how far I could push this particular image. Using B&W’s more representative approach, I applied even greater contrast and achieved the following result. Perhaps it’s a little over-cooked, and I may come back to tone things down in a future version. But for now, I’ll continue to let B&W impress me with its often surprising potential to bring out more in a scene by leaving out color.
What do you think?
July 22nd, 2010 on 7:28 am
I like what you’re doing with the b+w conversions, I think it is successful in getting that extra pop from the image. in this case it builds up the drama of the sky so that it compliments the bold forms in the rock.
I am often in the same boat of searching for more “pop” from my images. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, and sometimes you just have to keep playing with it, or revisit the same image a different day
August 3rd, 2010 on 1:22 pm
Thanks, John. B&W appeals most to me in its ability to represent rather than reproduce reality. Since there’s less expectation of reality, one has more freedom to push tones and contrast.
July 31st, 2010 on 10:31 am
Hi eNO.. what do you do ,with your 10-24 lens ,for landscapes …I mean do you use a CPL? (THIN?)
In case you dont use a cpl (its difficult to put it,or
damage the image) what do you sugest, to have the (almost) same effect? (p.p ?)
Thanks.
Roberto
August 3rd, 2010 on 1:26 pm
Roberto: yes, I have been known to use CPL even for my super wide angle (SWA) shots back when I used a 10-24, and even now that I use the 17-35 on a full-frame camera. The main problem with CPL and SWA comes from uniform color shifts (such as a blue sky). Here’s one example where you can see the problem.
The other problem has to do with vignetting at the widest focal length, and unfortunately with my 17-35 this means having to go to 19mm and above to avoid it, or post-process it later. Eventually I plan on getting a thin CPL to remedy this issue as well.