Editing

The exercise this week was about editing - something I have been doing what I now realise to be in a very disorderly fashion for a while. The exercise also prompted me to look again at the editing and workflow tools available in Elements (I'm using version 9) which I had played with once before but in a bit of a hurry and not really making the most of it.

I took a number of images - just over sixty - last weekend up on the Sussex Downs and as part of a walk with Sue. My theme was Sue and trying to get some decent portraits of her which I am really keen to do.

Using Photoshop Elements, I loaded them up and used the five star rating method that is included in the package with one star = delete, three star = review again and four star = definite keep. I left the five star rating empty as I wanted to use this for my final selection. I then proceeded to rate them but messed it up a little when I started to use the two star rating because I could'nt exactly make my mind up! (Some learning there was perhaps to stick to the script!!!)

I then started on the technical edit deleting all one star images which were either blurred, Sue's eyes closed because of the bright sun , hair in her eyes or the light shining from behind was too bright.

From the remaining set of images, I reviewed my two and three star ratings to see if I wanted to upgrade them to a four star (which now became defined as a 'possible definite'!) or to delete them.

The 'first selects' then became those that were rated four star which I regrouped so that I had what I considered were absolute definites in the five star grouping and the seconds in the four star. I reviewed these again and once again deleted out those that I was not so keen on. Interestingly, I had decided at this point which two images I definitely wanted to keep although I had six images now rated five star.

As required in the exercise, I reviewed these one more time and chose only two which are below.

This was an interesting exercise as I realised that it created a level of discipline that I probably have not adhered to before as well as helping the whole editing process to become far more organised.

I've decided that I will now use this method when I take larger groups of images like these in the future.

Mark

Histograms - Exercise

This week I have been looking at histograms. I've often looked at them on the camera after taking a shot but, to be honest, I have tended to rely more on what I see on the screen in terms of my perception of the quality of the image rather than if the histogram is in the right place etc.

Having said that, I found this exercise interesting not least because of the comparisons between low and high contrast lighting and the way that this is demonstrated on the histogram both on the camera and also in Photoshop.

I took three sets of three images over a number of days, all outside and all weather dependent. The first set was on a bright sunny day, the second set on a day when the light was reasonably diffused by cloud but still felt brighter ( I suppose what we would consider is a typical English day) and the third set was taken on a wet overcast day when the sky was very flat and washed out.

The impact on the lighting was obvious in terms of the histograms and what they showed.

One thing I realised when I uploaded the images was that I should have taken the photographs in Raw - that way, I would have automatically got the histogram when I first looked at the image on Photoshop. Fortunately, all was not lost and there is a histogram menu as well as the histogram also appearing on the right hand side of the screen under Levels. It was the latter that I used to take my screen shots and which are below.

The first set of images were taken in an average contrast situation - plenty of light but no deep shadows . As set out in the instructions, one image was taken at normal exposure, one that was one f-stop darker and another that was one f-stop brighter. The screen shots together with the histograms are below:

Average contrast - average exposure



 Average contrast - one f-stop darker
Average contrast - one f-stop brighter

The highlighting and the way that the histogram swings from the left on the under-exposed to the right on the over-exposed is very noticable. I also observed how 'flat' the average exposure was on the histogram. In terms of personal preference, I much preferred the image that was one f stop darker.

The second set of shots were taken in a very high contrast situation - lots of bright sunlight and deep shadows. I deliberately shot into a dark area but with the foreground lit up by the sun. These are below:

 High contrast - average exposure

 High contrast - one f-stop darker
High contrast - one f-stop brighter

The difference in histograms at each stage was not so noticeable - in each case, the pixel brightness recording is highest on the left each time with only a slight variance particularly for the image that was one f-stop brighter.. This was not what I was expecting as I had imagined that with a high contrast image, it would be spread right across the histogram (and I suppose that to some extent it still is although the bulk of the reading is more emphasised on the left). I'm not sure if this means that I have misinterpreted what I thought constituted a 'high contrast' image but will look on this further as I go through the course.

The final set of images were taken on a what I considered to be a low contrast situation where the day was very overcast and there was virtually no colour in the sky (other than a milky grey). The images are as follows:

Low contrast - average exposure 

Low contrast - one f-stop darker

Low contrast - one f-stop brighter

Similar to the 'high contrast' images above, there was little to show in the histograms with mostof the values squeezed together to the right this time. With the exposure one f stop darker, there is some recording on the left side which is what I would have expected.

This has been an interesting exercise and has led me to ask more questions rather than actually answer them - as well as encourage me to have a look at the histogram a little more closely (which I guess was the intention all along). I'll come back to this again as I continue through the course.

Anyway, I'm writing this on a bright sunny day - I really should be outside with my camera!

Mark

DPP: Part One Workflow

Gosh!

Its been a while since I've been doing my photography course but I'm here and ready to go!

I've started the Digital Photographic Practice course and really looking forward to getting the best of my images through the use of my computer.

Part One is about Workflow and these last few weeks I have undertaken the first two exercises around my own workflow.

The first exercise was around a short portrait assignment and I agreed with Sue, my wife, that she would model for me. I drafted the workflow process for this and this is below.

I had chosen part of my garden which, despite being February, was very green and I thought would provide a good location which met the criteria which was attractive but unobtrusive. 

The first problem which I had not considered was the weather! It was raining on the day that we had chosen and I had to quickly rethink what Sue would wear as well as take into account her concerns around her hair! I prepared the camera in accordance with my flow chart and found this part of the workflow easy to follow as I was accustomed to doing this.

I had intended on only taking around 20 images - in reality, I took in excess of 50 which put pressure on the next phase which was around loading and editing down the images. However, I had also put into the workflow a routine that would involve reviewing, editing down, reviewing, editing down etc etc  until I reached five images that I was happy with and which I then subsequently processed using Photoshop.

My favorite of these is below.

In terms of adapting the workflow, I need to add in some form of contingency especially around weather (but it also occurred to me what if my model was suddenly not available as well as other potential risks that needed mitigating against) and I also need to be more disciplined in terms of the numbers of images taken on the shoot so that the post shoot processing could be quicker and smarter.

The second, less structured workflow, was considerably easier to apply (although involved more time to both take and edit images as well as process them afterwards) and as as below.

This coincided with a trip to Canada.  I found it easier to group the images into sections based on locations that we had visited and then enabled me to process them in manageable chunks. I had anticipated this prior to the trip and when I had drafted the workflow diagram and this worked extremely well.

Again, I took large numbers of images which took a long time to edit down and process not least because I had missed out on one issue which was to set the camera to take images both in JPEG and RAW formats. I had set the camera to take in RAW only which added time to review, process and edit. As a result, a change I would make to the workflow would be at the camera preparation stage which was to check the format settings as well as White Balance, ISO etc etc.

These were interesting exercises which helped me think through how I go about the whole process of planning, processing and organising my photography.

Mark (March 2012)