Adobe LightRoom

[jmig]

A while back I had purchased a copy of Adobe's LightRoom photo editing program. I have finally started to get into and learn the program. I am amazed with what can be done in this program with a simple photo. As an example look at these two photos. They are the same shot, taken in New Mexico earlier this year. The first is the original picture out of the camera. The second is after I played around with the photo.

Granted, the second picture is not what I and the camera saw that day, but I think it is interesting what you can do.

http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/photos/1125697048_9qf9G-M.jpg (http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/Other/Posting-on-Forums/14963760_rWq4k#1125697048_9qf9G-A-LB)

http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/photos/1125697115_uTxEZ-M.jpg (http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/Other/Posting-on-Forums/14963760_rWq4k#1125697115_uTxEZ-A-LB)

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

A few questions for you John

1) Does it really matter what you saw that day?
2) Does anybody looking at the image even really care about whether it is what you saw that day?
3) When you look at somebody else's image do you even care about if what your looking at is what the photographer saw that day?
4) Do you really think that when you look at somebody else's image you are even seeing what they saw that day?
5) How do you know that if you came back on a different day that image number 2 isn't exactly what you would see?

I've actually spent a fair bit of time thinking about this and have come to the conclusion that a moment in time is gone forever - does it really matter how I choose to represent it? Early in his career Ansel Adams tried to be absolutely faithful to the scene he saw albeit in black and white. I've seen several who have studied his work say that his early work likely rendered every tone as exactly and precisely as possible - but the photos were flat, dull and lifeless - basically a lack of contrast. With respect to your two photos the first is dull, flat and lifeless the second is alive. It all comes down to context and the message you want to convey. From an artistic perspective I like the message in the second picture (even though a bit overdone) although in a different context say court for some reason or a photo-essay on the hopelessness of settling on a new land as bleak barren and dry as that area appears to be I'd probably prefer the message in number 1. I think every viewer who looks at a photo with any seriousness tries to understand or even create some context or rationale for what they are seeing. I know I do. For every image I even think about showing to the public I think about this. Maybe I just over complicate it.

You know I'm not trying to pick on you John - just using these two images as a means to make a point which I hope is worth some consideration/discussion. I really like both images but for different "reasons". I "connect" really well with a building like that because of my farm/ranch/agriculture/natural resources background - if I didn't have that background I'd probably not give number 1 a second glance.

-Ed-

An edit: Sometimes a photographer just absolutely "nails it" - Dorthea Lange and Walker Evans are two of my all-time favorites. In this case (Dorthea Lange) the land does the "work" (from a photographic perspective) of the sky in your image.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/ppmsc/00200/00232r.jpg

[Kiwikat]

Very cool!

At POTN there's a lengthy thread about Adobe Camera RAW where people post before and afters. Some of them are unbelievable, starting with completely blown out shots and ending up with a masterpiece.

I should get LR3 from school before I graduate. They only want 80 bucks for it...

[jmig]

Ed - I really enjoyed reading your thought provoking and interesting post. While, I agree with the unspoken statements behind the questions, I am a traditionalist at heart. I have no problem tweaking the picture to bring out the best, but I feel uncomfortable, almost dishonest, if I were to display that picture without stating it was modified with software.

The main difference between the two pictures is the use of a graduated filter and color saturation. This is what gives the foreboding look to the sky in the second picture.

After rereading what I wrote above, another thought occurred to me. I think part of me considers the heavy use of software to be like cheating. I have a very strong sense of fairness. Using software to super improve a picture seems cheating, in a way. The idea, in my mind, should be to bring out want your eye saw but what the camera didn't see in the picture.

I remember from my darkroom days 30-40 years ago that we used techniques to modify the printed picture from the negative. However, this is wayyyyyy beyond anything that was done in a darkroom.

Still, it is fun to play with and see what improvements you can make.

[jmig]

Very cool!

At POTN there's a lengthy thread about Adobe Camera RAW where people post before and afters. Some of them are unbelievable, starting with completely blown out shots and ending up with a masterpiece.

I should get LR3 from school before I graduate. They only want 80 bucks for it...

That is how I purchased the program. My wife, through the university, can buy software inexpensively. I was able to get both PhotoShop CS-5 and Lightroom 3 for less than $300.

[Chacha]

Thanks for sharing John,

I love the interpretation.
The first picture is by itself beautiful already!

Amazing what technology can do?
It looks like it comes alive from the frame.

[kilo delta]

Very cool!

At POTN there's a lengthy thread about Adobe Camera RAW where people post before and afters. Some of them are unbelievable, starting with completely blown out shots and ending up with a masterpiece.

I should get LR3 from school before I graduate. They only want 80 bucks for it...

Go for it...Lightroom 3's noise correction feature is well worth the $ alone! I've PS CS5 too for in depth editing, but LR3 can,and does, handle most of my editing needs. :)

[Cazzie]

Actually there is a cheap version of Lightroom for Students. For professional photographers, Lightroom is a must, they use it in lieu of Photoshop even.

I want it, but it it too expensive and I have Photoshop.

Was that done with a RAW image John? That's some fine tonal controls in the shadows and highlights, better than PS.

Caz

[jmig]

Thanks for sharing John,

I love the interpretation.
The first picture is by itself beautiful already!

Amazing what technology can do?
It looks like it comes alive from the frame.

Thank you Chacha. Yes, technology is amazing for what it can do.

[jmig]

Actually there is a cheap version of Lightroom for Students. For professional photographers, Lightroom is a must, they use it in lieu of Photoshop even.

I want it, but it it too expensive and I have Photoshop.

Was that done with a RAW image John? That's some fine tonal controls in the shadows and highlights, better than PS.

Caz

Yes, Caz it was RAW. I always shoot in RAW.

I learned the advantage of RAW with I forget to change the WB from Tungsten once and did some outdoor shooting. Everything was this lovely shade of blue. LOL Since, I had shot in RAW, it was simple matter of changing the WB to outdoor and it was instantly fixed.

[Aviator32]

I never got used to Lightroom 2. I use CaptureNX for the initial processing of my Nikon RAW files before finishing them in CS5. I haven't used version 3 but I always found Lightroom to be a bit clumsy and counter intuitive. Maybe I should give it another go.

[Cazzie]

Yes, Caz it was RAW. I always shoot in RAW.

I learned the advantage of RAW with I forget to change the WB from Tungsten once and did some outdoor shooting. Everything was this lovely shade of blue. LOL Since, I had shot in RAW, it was simple matter of changing the WB to outdoor and it was instantly fixed.

Ditto here John, though sometimes I shoot in RAW+ which saves both a RAW and a .jpeg format of the image.

It is much better to work with the raw images in getting an initial HDR image too, because they will give a true 32-bit HDR image, doing HDR images with tiff or jpeg will only give 16-bit and 8-bit HDR images respectively.

Before I work with an image that is non-HDR, I save the RAW image in an 8-bit tiff format for editing in Photoshop and then converting to jpeg after editing and resizing.

All Tone mapped HDR images that I really like are saved in full size an 8-bit tiff format for printing anything 8 X 10 ot larger. For anything smaller, a high quality jpeg will do just fine.

I really wish I had a custom print studio in my town. The nearest to me is an hour's drive away. I can still deal with them online and even FTP large formatted images in tiff to them, but I would like to first see the operation and get to know the people, that's important to me.

It is sad also that the local Danville Photography Club just died out and with all the digital cameras out there, that is a shame. They use to have some really fine juried photography shows that drew amateurs and professional from as far away as Atlanta and Washington, DC.

Caz

[EasyEd]

Hey All,


I really enjoyed reading your thought provoking and interesting post. While, I agree with the unspoken statements behind the questions, I am a traditionalist at heart. I have no problem tweaking the picture to bring out the best, but I feel uncomfortable, almost dishonest, if I were to display that picture without stating it was modified with software.

The main difference between the two pictures is the use of a graduated filter and color saturation. This is what gives the foreboding look to the sky in the second picture.

After rereading what I wrote above, another thought occurred to me. I think part of me considers the heavy use of software to be like cheating. I have a very strong sense of fairness. Using software to super improve a picture seems cheating, in a way. The idea, in my mind, should be to bring out want your eye saw but what the camera didn't see in the picture.

I remember from my darkroom days 30-40 years ago that we used techniques to modify the printed picture from the negative. However, this is wayyyyyy beyond anything that was done in a darkroom.

Still, it is fun to play with and see what improvements you can make.Interesting I understand what your saying I guess I think in terms of the use of colour and composition as a means to express what I'm trying to say. To me HDR then becomes very "freeing" and how far you might want to take it all depends. I don't think in terms of this is what I saw unless I'm doing a talk on a research project or something - and even then I commonly up the saturation or something so an image doesn't look as much like a flat mid-day image.

When I think about it further I think just the act of taking an image in black and white is about as radical as most any HDR when it comes to representing reality. The real world happens to be in colour. The absence of colour is not reality but art as a means to express other attributes of a scene. By your standard taking a picture in black and white must be cheating - unless of course your colourblind. (I just noticed I've been in Canada long enough to spell color wrong)

Anyway I'm the type that likes to think about stuff and lately I been looking into some of the history of landscape photography themes, movements, directions, etc - stuff like early western landscapes, group f/64, new topographics and now conservation photography as described by Frans Lanting in the Dec Outdoor Photographer. I'm trying to develop sort of a "blackbook" of ideas for images that I can then try to create as sort of a means of giving purpose and direction to my photography rather than just running outside saying "oooh that would be a pretty picture". Expect I'll do the same with "street/human (not portrait - I'm no Yousuf Karsh)" photography at some point.

Anyway I did process the shed you took a picture of in Artizen HDR - got this and I like it. Delete it if you feel you need to
.
-Ed-

[jmig]

Hey All,

Interesting I understand what your saying I guess I think in terms of the use of colour and composition as a means to express what I'm trying to say. To me HDR then becomes very "freeing" and how far you might want to take it all depends. ...

...The absence of colour is not reality but art as a means to express other attributes of a scene. By your standard taking a picture in black and white must be cheating - unless of course your colourblind. (I just noticed I've been in Canada long enough to spell color wrong)

...I'm trying to develop sort of a "blackbook" of ideas for images that I can then try to create as sort of a means of giving purpose and direction to my photography rather than just running outside saying "oooh that would be a pretty picture"....

Anyway I did process the shed you took a picture of in Artizen HDR - got this and I like it. Delete it if you feel you need to
.
-Ed-

Ed - What you are talking about is a form of "artistic license." What you and I are discussing is a matter of degrees. If I understand you correctly, you and I can take an image of the same scene at the same time. Within our artistic and technical abilities you would want to represent the scene as your artistic eye sees it. I on the other hand would attempt to portray the moment in time and space as faithfully as possible.

This is not to say, I wouldn't attempt to get the light where it best shows the scene. This may mean getting up early in the morning or being late for dinner, in order to get the perfect light. I will also adjust the color and saturation, etc. to represent the scene as I remember. You, in your desire to paint a picture you see in your mind, may do the same. However, you will then feel free to saturate or change the colors, if it better fits your inner image. I think we are talking mostly about degrees here.

Maybe an analogy will better explain my thoughts? Most women will use makeup to enhance their beauty. The majority of them will carefully use the makeup that fits with their face and natural color, so the makeup disappears and the woman stands out. A Goth woman will use makeup that obscures her natural beauty and presents to the world an image of how she wants the world to see her.

The use of B&W images is a universally accepted technique. As you said, it frees the artist to express the form and composition of the scene without the distraction of color. B&W often provokes an emotion of nostalgia which harkens back to an earlier time. It is also used well to show stark contrast, such as in the Dorthea Lange and Walker Evans pictures you mentioned.

Falling back on analogy, B&W is like a blind person's hearing becoming more attuned to the world around the individual.

I have been working with a friend on a weekly photography theme. We take turns selecting the theme. All that week we focus on the theme and then select a favorite of the week, which we show the other. It is a good way of practicing. If several of us would be interested in doing that here, I would be willing to join in. We could all post our weekly favorite in a new thread each week.

[jmig]

Ed - In my long windiness, I forgot to mention your modifications to the picture. I actually do like it. The building stands out better, The small spot of sunlight on the roof adds a nice touch. However, it wasn't there at the time. ;)