There are numerous reasons to post-produce an image. At its most moderate it's a process of tidying up minor problems (e.g. dust spots), maybe adding a touch more contrast, and so on. Tweaking reality, if you like. At the other extreme, as I discussed in relation to the structure of light, it's a case of pre-visualising the final image and then shooting a deliberately mundane exposure in order to create a more dramatic image in post. In this case the post-production is more about creating a new reality rather than tweaking an existing one. And if you're interested, 'the structure of light' is the image I'll be discussing in my next Creative Workflow tutorial, due out before the end of this month.
Between these two extremes though are images such as this one: where the shift between the original and final image is clearly significant, but not quite as dramatic. If you take a look at the original you will see what I mean:
For me, the important thing here is not how a particular change was made, but why. So, for example, you could ask me about the technical changes I made to this image, and I could tell you about the Channel Mixer layer I used to desaturate the sea, and the Curves I used to selectively adjust both the contrast and tone, but those questions wouldn't get you any closer to understanding why I made those changes.
To put this another way, one of the things I'm often asked is "how do you know when to stop post-producing an image?", and there isn't an easy answer to this question, at least not one that can be phrased in technical terms. The problem here is that the question can only be answered from an aesthetic point of view: it's finished when you're happy with it, when it says what you want it to say.
From a technical point of view, this can be problematic, as there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence between a specific technical change and a desired aesthetic outcome. For example, if you are aiming to produce a moody, emotively 'dark' image, then it may be the case that a large increase in contrast will help, or a vignette, or a black and white conversion, and so on. For some images these changes will work. For other images though, you will need to take a different approach.
Anyway, I'm waffling – mostly because it's a topic that I find fascinating – but also because it's a round about way of introducing the changes that I made to this image. In this instance, my aim was a simple one: to capture the feeling of being there. The visual reality, as you will have seen if you have taken a look at the original, wasn't anything special, but the feeling of being there – listening to the gentle sounds of the sea, while watching the contrail dissipate towards a bright and distant horizon – was a lot more profound. I felt at home there. Whether my edited version manages to convey any of that to you though is a different question entirely :)
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped?
comment bymartin at 08:09 AM (GMT) on 27 March, 2010
Fleetwood at its best, love the pp on this , must get back there soon, been too long since my last visit..
comment by April Pinsonneault at 08:11 AM (GMT) on 27 March, 2010
Hi Dave,
I enjoyed reading about your relationship to this photo. I am curious how a more saturated, rather than a "deliberately mundane", original would effect post production.
comment byCarlos Garcia at 12:38 PM (GMT) on 27 March, 2010
Dave,
Thanks so much for these images - I feel like it's "shore week @ chromasia"! Thanks, too, for your thoughtful comments. I cannot agree with you more. I would say that your images sing, becasue that is the analogy that makes sense to me, as a singer. The voice is hard wired to your emotions, much in the same way your art is hard wired to yours. So... the processed image makes me pause and wonder at the mystery and power of the sea... I just want to sit and stay awhile...
C.
comment byAdrian Park at 04:11 PM (GMT) on 27 March, 2010
Any chance of a Mini-PSD of this image? I'm curious to see what it was that transformed the sky so deliciously!
comment by Al at 08:47 PM (GMT) on 27 March, 2010
This gets another vote for a future Mini-PSD Dave. Technically, I would like to see what you did to desaturate the sea from the sky as well as toning and contrasting the rest of the image.
There's nothing wrong about creating a new reality. In terms of the image, I would much rather prefer this one : )
comment bydjn1 at 06:30 AM (GMT) on 28 March, 2010
martin: yes, it is a great location. I'll be heading back there in April on my next trip back to the UK.
April: thanks.
Carlos: when I visit the beach, that's how I feel too. I just want to be still, not really thinking, feeling like I'm a part of something much larger and powerful than me.
Adrian and Al: OK, you've talked me into it - I'll add this one as my next PSD - not least because I'll be referencing this image as a part of the next creative workflow tutorial.
Wonderful transition of blues in the sky. The beach looks a little like it's been through one of the Topaz detail/contrast filters.
Looks like a beautiful day.
comment bydjn1 at 11:25 AM (GMT) on 28 March, 2010
Tom: thanks. As for the beach: no, I didn't use Topaz Detail on this one, but did sharpen it a bit more than usual to bring out the detail in the contrail. I probably should have softened this off a bit in the foreground.
comment bysimonGman at 10:05 PM (GMT) on 31 March, 2010
As always Dave a fine final image. Great comment on the way you work. It is all about responding to what is in front of you. In the first instance you react to what you see through the lens. The creative process kicks in when you work with the "raw" material you have taken. Experience allows consistency in final outcome.
comment byJustin at 03:43 PM (GMT) on 1 April, 2010
That is an interesting topic... About what percentage of your post-work do you think you have a picture/goal in your head (and work towards it) than from exploring/creating till you find something great? Do you have examples that might be the other way around (no goal, just creativity guiding you to an end)?
Justin: I think there are two ways I look at an image: one as I take the shot, the other when I post produce it. Typically, when I'm taking a shot, I'm thinking about contrast and tonal range: about which areas of the image will need to be brighter, which darker, which will need a boost in contrast and so on. During post-production though, once I've addressed those issues, I then think about mood. This is when I'll alter the tone of an image: make it warmer, more uniform, and so on.
As for examples where creativity guiding the whole process: this one would be a good example:
There are numerous reasons to post-produce an image. At its most moderate it's a process of tidying up minor problems (e.g. dust spots), maybe adding a touch more contrast, and so on. Tweaking reality, if you like. At the other extreme, as I discussed in relation to the structure of light, it's a case of pre-visualising the final image and then shooting a deliberately mundane exposure in order to create a more dramatic image in post. In this case the post-production is more about creating a new reality rather than tweaking an existing one. And if you're interested, 'the structure of light' is the image I'll be discussing in my next Creative Workflow tutorial, due out before the end of this month.
Between these two extremes though are images such as this one: where the shift between the original and final image is clearly significant, but not quite as dramatic. If you take a look at the original you will see what I mean:
.../archives/seeing_the_light.php
For me, the important thing here is not how a particular change was made, but why. So, for example, you could ask me about the technical changes I made to this image, and I could tell you about the Channel Mixer layer I used to desaturate the sea, and the Curves I used to selectively adjust both the contrast and tone, but those questions wouldn't get you any closer to understanding why I made those changes.
To put this another way, one of the things I'm often asked is "how do you know when to stop post-producing an image?", and there isn't an easy answer to this question, at least not one that can be phrased in technical terms. The problem here is that the question can only be answered from an aesthetic point of view: it's finished when you're happy with it, when it says what you want it to say.
From a technical point of view, this can be problematic, as there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence between a specific technical change and a desired aesthetic outcome. For example, if you are aiming to produce a moody, emotively 'dark' image, then it may be the case that a large increase in contrast will help, or a vignette, or a black and white conversion, and so on. For some images these changes will work. For other images though, you will need to take a different approach.
Anyway, I'm waffling – mostly because it's a topic that I find fascinating – but also because it's a round about way of introducing the changes that I made to this image. In this instance, my aim was a simple one: to capture the feeling of being there. The visual reality, as you will have seen if you have taken a look at the original, wasn't anything special, but the feeling of being there – listening to the gentle sounds of the sea, while watching the contrail dissipate towards a bright and distant horizon – was a lot more profound. I felt at home there. Whether my edited version manages to convey any of that to you though is a different question entirely :)
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 5D Mark II
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
30mm
f/5.6
1/60
aperture priority
+1
evaluative
100
no
RAW
ACR
16x9
Fleetwood at its best, love the pp on this , must get back there soon, been too long since my last visit..
Hi Dave,
I enjoyed reading about your relationship to this photo. I am curious how a more saturated, rather than a "deliberately mundane", original would effect post production.
Dave,
Thanks so much for these images - I feel like it's "shore week @ chromasia"! Thanks, too, for your thoughtful comments. I cannot agree with you more. I would say that your images sing, becasue that is the analogy that makes sense to me, as a singer. The voice is hard wired to your emotions, much in the same way your art is hard wired to yours. So... the processed image makes me pause and wonder at the mystery and power of the sea... I just want to sit and stay awhile...
C.
Being a person who also likes to massage my personal impression of the scene out of the raw pixels, I very much appreciate what you do post click. But, I don't think I get it right as consistently as you do! I'm regularly surprised by some of the creative choices you make and yet they usually just make sense. Desaturate the sea? I probably wouldn't have considered it but it works so well in this image. Thanks for another insightful exposé of your thinking.
Any chance of a Mini-PSD of this image? I'm curious to see what it was that transformed the sky so deliciously!
This gets another vote for a future Mini-PSD Dave. Technically, I would like to see what you did to desaturate the sea from the sky as well as toning and contrasting the rest of the image.
There's nothing wrong about creating a new reality. In terms of the image, I would much rather prefer this one : )
martin: yes, it is a great location. I'll be heading back there in April on my next trip back to the UK.
April: thanks.
Carlos: when I visit the beach, that's how I feel too. I just want to be still, not really thinking, feeling like I'm a part of something much larger and powerful than me.
Adrian and Al: OK, you've talked me into it - I'll add this one as my next PSD - not least because I'll be referencing this image as a part of the next creative workflow tutorial.
Wonderful transition of blues in the sky. The beach looks a little like it's been through one of the Topaz detail/contrast filters.
Looks like a beautiful day.
Tom: thanks. As for the beach: no, I didn't use Topaz Detail on this one, but did sharpen it a bit more than usual to bring out the detail in the contrail. I probably should have softened this off a bit in the foreground.
As always Dave a fine final image. Great comment on the way you work. It is all about responding to what is in front of you. In the first instance you react to what you see through the lens. The creative process kicks in when you work with the "raw" material you have taken. Experience allows consistency in final outcome.
That is an interesting topic... About what percentage of your post-work do you think you have a picture/goal in your head (and work towards it) than from exploring/creating till you find something great? Do you have examples that might be the other way around (no goal, just creativity guiding you to an end)?
Justin: I think there are two ways I look at an image: one as I take the shot, the other when I post produce it. Typically, when I'm taking a shot, I'm thinking about contrast and tonal range: about which areas of the image will need to be brighter, which darker, which will need a boost in contrast and so on. During post-production though, once I've addressed those issues, I then think about mood. This is when I'll alter the tone of an image: make it warmer, more uniform, and so on.
As for examples where creativity guiding the whole process: this one would be a good example:
http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/archives/1003170706.php