r/postprocessing • u/Rexmaxx_30 • 19h ago
Did I do good here [After/Before]
I wanted a slightly matty and dramatic look. Is there anything more I can do do make it pop more?
r/postprocessing • u/cameronrad • Aug 11 '16
So the last post I made (“How do I get this look?”) got buried pretty deep, so I thought I’d make this thread rounding up some videos/resources/techniques I’ve found.
I mentioned in the last thread that “post processing is more about theory than the tools/plugins/tricks/secrets/etc.” I may have misspoke a bit. I’m not saying neglect learning the tools, or stop searching for secrets, or stop using plugins; but rather use them in a more educational way. Knowing how all the tools work will help you apply them better and know when to apply them. Using plugins can be a great tool, but should never be a crutch. My feeling is anything a plugin can do, I want to know how to do for my own knowledge.
What if you’re an avid VSCO, Replichrome, Alien Skins, etc user and one day you’re working on a job with a fast turnaround time and your plugin fails, or it wasn’t on that computer, or it’s no longer compatible with Photoshop/Lightroom? What happens if your look was defined by a plugin, that you can’t recreate? Meanwhile you have a client waiting on their images. This is why having a vast knowledge of the tools/techniques is extremely valuable.
If you like a plugin, try reverse-engineering it. I’m not saying you have to use the reverse-engineered technique and stop using the plugin, but it sure helps when you know how the plugin is working. Heck you could even improve upon it ;)
Chasing “secrets” is also a great way to learn. It’s not necessarily that a “secret” exists but what you may learn along the way to “finding one”.
Anyways, what I’m saying is there’s no shame or problem with using plugin/preset/filters as tools in your kit; however like any tool you should have an understanding of how it works so you know when to use it, how to use it properly, or what to do if something goes wrong and you can’t use it. The better you get at editing, the more you may realize you need to improve as a photographer. You’ll come to a point where the quality of photo/editing has reached a cap due to the quality of the base image.
If anyone has any techniques/articles/tutorials that should be included, please comment or send me a message and I’ll add it in.
I’m not up to date on my tutorials. From what I’ve found Ben Secret and Michael Woloszynowicz have some of the most powerful techniques in their videos.
Like it or not, these are part of the landscape now. Worth knowing what's out there.
-Cameron Rad
How many people actually check out this thread? If you have gotten any help from it , shoot me a PM :)
r/postprocessing • u/Rexmaxx_30 • 19h ago
I wanted a slightly matty and dramatic look. Is there anything more I can do do make it pop more?
r/postprocessing • u/Accurate_Lab_6732 • 2h ago
Gave this little guy a cinematic look with LR and bit of AI
What do you think? 🫣
r/postprocessing • u/EstablishmentFew9149 • 2h ago
Hey guys, this is my best image of a nuthatch. I would like feedback mainly on the backdrop of the image. There’s something about the background colors that doesnt sit 100% right with me I think. Dont think I like the tutti frutti ice cream colors 😂 it pulls attention from the subject
r/postprocessing • u/ROCKGaurav • 3h ago
After / Before
Pune, India
Edited within iPhone Photos App.
Used Apple Clean Up to remove cables and left side building.
r/postprocessing • u/Paul_S_Moran • 9h ago
r/postprocessing • u/Abject_Good1321 • 22h ago
This is a complex post. Because the sky image was tracked with an equatorial mount, and the foreground was not, the foreground appears smeared in the sky exposure. So it is obligatory for one to clone stamp some stars around the telescopes if you want a clean foreground without artifacts. This was one of the most complex foregrounds I've had to edit because of the intricate details of the telescope complex. How you do so is the important part, because you have to draw a line between art and "scientific documentation".
You can't merge two images and expect everything to line up. But you do so as scientifically accurate as possible. In the third image you can see the exact position of the Milky Way compared to the telescopes because that's a single exposure. The second image ("before") is still the stacked result of 7 individual 60-second subframes, plus the merged foreground.
When you blend a sky and a foreground where the sky is accurately portrayed compared to the foreground, we call it a BLEND. If the sky position is altered in such a way compared to the foreground that is not considered "realistic" anymore, we call it a COMPOSITE.
This is a way for us astrophotographers to experience photography in a way which is artistic, but we recognize the immeasurable value of accurate scientific documentation. This line is a fine one to walk across when editing.
I don't feel comfortable clone stamping a bunch of nebula detail but I feel like I can draw the line at some blinky stars on the horizon like I did here.
The sky in La Palma is so dark that a foreground exposure, to have an acceptable amount of signal, has to be at least 3 to 4 minutes long, because the only thing illuminating the scenery is starlight itself (I could see the shadow from starlight of my rental car on the ground, truly spectacular).
The resulting image ("After") is the edit of said foreground + sky stack in Adobe Photoshop + light use of a tool called GraXpert for gradient removal. I also edited out the red streaks reflection from the back of a car that passed by shortly before the image.
What you are seeing is the MAGIC/LST complex in Roque de Los Muchachos Observatory, on the island of La Palma. It is one of the most pristine dark skies in the world, and I believe the images speak for themselves.
I used a Canon 6D that has been astromodified for increased H-Alpha response (red nebulae) with a Samyang 24mm f/1.4 lens used at f/2.8 to minimize artifacts. A Fornax Lightrack II star tracker was used to track the stars.
[EDIT] Also, I have to make this pretty clear. Saturation and how much you push the data is totally a subjective value. The night sky has no "default". Your single RAW is the night sky detail plus whatever the atmospheric conditions are that night. I like my Milky Way bright, colorful, vibrant and full of detail. You might not agree and that's absolutely fine! I just want to welcome feedback and comparisons, but criticism is very nuanced and biased in this hobby, usually. Everyone is right and wrong.
Hope you like the process!
r/postprocessing • u/jesuscheetahnipples • 19h ago
Went for a bit of a cyberpunk vibe
Probably gonna get roasted again
r/postprocessing • u/EquivalentVisual9306 • 12h ago
r/postprocessing • u/h311cat19 • 9h ago
r/postprocessing • u/tsarkov • 22h ago
r/postprocessing • u/DapperGuarantee6100 • 2h ago
r/postprocessing • u/DapperGuarantee6100 • 1d ago
r/postprocessing • u/shotsbyliam_ • 1d ago
r/postprocessing • u/Difficult_Doubt7301 • 7h ago
r/postprocessing • u/us_er_n_a_m_e • 18h ago
Continuing on from my previous posts, I'm trying to get better with colouring (colour harmonies and colour psychology) and decided to focus on the colour orange. I have a few images but I'm unsure how they look vs the originals.
I wanted to try and see what the difference was with a less saturated palette vs a more saturated one to see what the difference in feel was.
I would love to get some advice in things I did well and where I may have slipped in my editing
r/postprocessing • u/DapperGuarantee6100 • 1d ago