Not my best work but an interesting exercise in Post Processing

[flamin lib]

The background is quite busy and distracting so I wanted to isolate the bloom and Lady bug.

First I used the Selection tool to outline only the bloom. Next I inverted the selection so I was only working with the background, or everything except the bloom. Using the Adjust menu I changed the Brightness and Contrast to slightly darken and mute the background. Going back I again inverted the selection so I was only modifying the bloom and slightly increased the vibrancy using the Hue and Saturation tool in the Adjust Menu. Finally I did a Save As and assigned a new name to the file so the original was preserved untouched.

At least one photographer here that knows what all that means!

[Sherman A1]

1. Looks good to me

I plan this winter to tryout some Light Room post processing. I generally don't do much beyond auto enhance on pics, so it will be a time to learn a bit.


Well Done!

[bullimiami]

2. id like to defocus the background a bit more. gives it more depth. nice.

[mitch96]

3. This is interesting on the method of post processing. I worked on a super duper whiz bang CT scanner

and I did quite a few post processing CT Angiograms. The method we used to "enhance" the images is very close to the method we used for post processing. Different terminology though.
We called it subtraction or Digital subtraction.. I would select the density of the contrast enhanced blood vessel and then subtract out the vessel. Then mute or smooth out the backround as all we really needed it for was reference. Then I would put back the blood vessels and ship them off to the radiologist. It was grand fun. No fun when the patient moved a bit.. Could not get the edge sharpness we wanted. That was about 7 years ago and I can't imagine what they (GE/Seimens) are doing now..
After I figure out what I want to do with my photography and decide which camera, post processing looks like it would be fun. I'm really leaning on Oly... Lusted after that camera years ago...
m

[flamin lib]

4. Post can make a good photo better,

but it can't make a bad one good.

I can't emphasize enough that the original has to be preserved.

[mitch96]

5. to avoid any problems losing the original we would copy it and work off the copy.

Being digital it was not a problem. Now with film that was another story. Every copy was degraded just sightly. I loved doing that stuff..
Another question.. do you have to shoot it in RAW to do post processing? Or does it come out better in RAW?

[flamin lib]

6. I usually shot in .JPG + RAW and edit in .JPG.

It depends on the camera's image processor and how it handles compressing the file (losing data). Raw stores lots more data so there is detail in the shadows and in the highlights that can be recovered in post if necessary.

When viewing RAW images they look 'flat' (a technical term for having no contrast and appearing muddy). If the brightness range is too great for the processor to reproduce in .JPG it throws away both ends. RAW allows you to decide which tonality to discard for the sake of an more pleasing image.

I shoot both just in case I get THAT image and some important details are clipped in .JPG. It's quite rare that I go to the extra effort to edit RAW both because my subject matter lends itself to softer light and I don't get many of THAT image

[alfredo]

10. If you don't mind manual lenses, get the Laowa 17mm 1.8. It's pretty good and cheap.

Its closest focus point is under 6".

[elleng]

7. It's beautiful!

Saw a ladybug here last night, inside the house, walking around a fixture.

Having problems connecting camera with computer/internet, so saving pics of birds/geese/ducks on the river for another day, so no sophisticated issues as you discuss.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Yeah, I know what all that means, lol!

Somehow the bloom seems a bit too bright for the rest of the photo.

Interesting photo nonetheless!

[alfredo]

9. I use black point to darken the background.

[Pobeka]

11. FYI: If you haven't checked out darktable you should.

All that business of selecting by hue (or a specified outline), creating masks for edits is HUGELY simplified with a darktable parametric filter.

Works like this in darktable:
-- in the exposure (or brightness,contrast,saturation) widget, you enable parametric filtering by clicking on a little icon
-- you can adjust some sliders to narrow the range of hue, grey level (... many more) for the exposure widget to work on, pixel by pixel basis
-- if you need to filter by an area, you can define a geometric shape to limit the selection even more
-- Then simply adjust the exposure (for the exposure widget) to brighten the flower/bug (or contrast,brightness,saturation adjust for that widget)

You can also "invert" the selection mask, so the widget would affect everything except what you selected.

Want to work on a different part of the image exposure?, simply create an additional exposure widget.

darktable is by default non-destructive, so your original file is never changed. Darktable stores all your edits to a "*.xmp" sidecar file so you never lose your work. To create an edited file, you "export" your edited image, which typically shows up in a "darktable_exported" subfolder.

I suspect what took you several minutes or more could be done with darktable in about 1/4 of the time (after you get through the learning curve)

darktable handles RAW image data, and about every other thing you can think of.

It's free too, there is a windows implementation, which apparently works quite well. I'm a linux user so I've never used the windows version.

darktable is about the only tool I use (sometimes GIMP)

[flamin lib]

12. All that took me about 10 minutes. If I'd taken 15 it might be an acceptable picture.

My experience is that all the editing software is essentially the same with the same tools and adjustments just labeled differently. I've been working with PSP for close to 10 years, so it's pretty intuitive for me.

I've used GIMP and it is equal to PSP or Photoshop in capability but frankly the least intuitive (easily understood) application for a newbie. Used Darktable too and it's very good.

I've also tried the 30 trial of 2 or three others but as I said, 10 years kinda makes it hard to change. Old habits die hard . . .

PSP is not the 'best' or the most intuitive but it's the one I know and am comfortable using/teaching. Plus, like most commercial apps, there are thousands of tutorials on Youtube.

[Pobeka]

13. You are well aware then, good! Everyone ends up with something that works for them.

I find the parametric selection in darktable to be extremely powerful and wanted to make sure you knew about it. As you can tell I'm sold. Also, I really like that darktable is free, and if I need to I can grab the source code and modify...

The new version (3.2.x) has made some significant strides in the GUI interface, denoise algorithms, as well as allowing arbitrary ordering of the image operations, which is often useful. There are some nice youtube videos where folks are exploring/demo-ing the new version.

I'm a quantitative science-y programmer nerd, so I have a bias in that direction already.

I used to use GIMP before I discovered darktable, but dang it's painful. I only go there if I literally want to do micro-detail-pixel edits, which is rare these days. There is a new version that does handles 16 bit color depth, but the interface is still pretty much the same 'ol GIMP.