So I just ran across yet another discussion about getting it right “straight out of camera” SOOC which ignores that while we should do everything to achieve the optimum exposure that fits our purpose and vision for the photo, we should not forego the further potential the image has if we apply some judicious post-processing (PP). Here’s an example where I would have been perfectly happy with the OOC photo, yet, upon further inspection, realized I could do even better.

1. Here’s the Straight RAW-to-JPG conversion in ViewNX (with some cropping) which pretty much reflects what I would have gotten OOC:

2. Here’s a quick post-process attempt, with minor tweaks in Lightroom to correct WB (good luck nailing that in-camera — the best you can hope, as I did in the original is get “close enough), and lift shadow detail around the eyes.

3. Finally, here’s my last pass with additional _selective_ contrast and sharpening around the eye and nose in PS CS5, avoiding global sharpening which would harden (sometimes altogether ruin) the out of focus areas.

I think most of us can agree. The processing steps are minor and isolated — not at all a heroic attempt to recover or save a “missed” exposure or composition. Yet, for me, the improvements, principally better definition around the eye are significant enough to warrant the extra effort.

What could have been done SOOC to bring out only detail around the eye? Not much without affecting the rest of the image. I suppose flash could have also been used to brighten the eye, but not without overwhelming the diffused overcast lighting. Reflectors? Maybe, but at the risk of scaring the dog away.

The moral of the story here is do the best you can in-camera, then PP it to finish out your vision.

Ever see a shot on a magazine and say to yourself, “I wish I could get shots like that.” Then you probably ask yourself, “How did they get that shot?” Well, more than likely, not out-of-camera (OOC). Yes, our cameras have some terrific flexibility for settings like contrast, color and sharpness, but if you really want your photos to go up a notch, you will have to start thinking about what you can do with them after they come out of the camera — even when you take care to get the right exposure, composition, etc. in-camera.

Here are two rather simple shots — nothing terribly remarkable — that show one way the image’s full potential can be maximized in post-processing.
1. OOC version

2. Post-processed version

3. OOC version

4. Post-processed version

For these, I started in Lightroom by pushing the black point and playing with the luminescense on blue channel. Then on to CS5, where I selectively sharpened and added USM contrast (radius=50, strength=20) on high detail areas, while leaving the sky alone. This ability to selectively enhance color or detail is not available in-camera and is, along with B&W conversions, one of the biggest reasons to rely on post-processing for finishing an image. It all starts with good exposure and composition, but it doesn’t end there.

With Photoshop Black and White conversions, I decided to re-interpret two photos I captured last year while hiking the Sequoias around Hume Lake. Here are the two photos, both taken with the Nikon D700 and 17-35 f2.8 lens, as originally processed in color.

And here they are after using CS5′s Black & White adjustment layer, followed by Levels and Curves adjustments.

With all of its individual color sliders, I found CS5′s Black & White converter much more powerful and flexible than my previous channel mixer technique. I still have a lot more exploring to do with Photoshop CS5′s B&W converter tool, but after briefly considering a third party plug-in, I think I’ll save my money.

In a previous article we saw a test case that demonstrated D7000 shadow recovery for exposures at base ISO. From this and samples others around the Internet photo community have posted, we see the D7000′s remarkable ability to pack shadow detail at base ISO (100) with little noise repercusions.

A couple of days ago, while shooting some informal portraits, I ran, entirely by mistake into a situation that allowed me to see how this shadow recovery capability works out in real life. Here are the two original shots, processed through Lightroom 3.4 for sharpening and camera calibration, but without any exposure compensation or fill (LR’s “shadow recovery”).

In this shot, I left ISO at 100 by mistake, and with a shot intended with small aperture and fairly fast shutter speed to reduce the amount of ambient (see bright background), the low ISO resulted in under-exposure.
Realizing my mistake, I hurriedly raised the ISO to 320, but it should have been more like 500-800. The result is better, but still somewhat under-lit.
Here I took the first shot and raised its exposure by 1.2 and fill by 50. The result is what the intended exposure would have been had I thought a little more about what I was doing.
For the ISO 320 photo, I applied 0.3 exposure compensation and raised fill only by 30. Now you can compare this to the previous shot and see which has less noise in the shadows.

Even though the shadow recovery for the first shot yields the least noise, the payoff for the recovery method for the second shot comes in the form of the photo I captured a few seconds later. Still not the best lit shot right out of the camera, but join the D7000′s clean noise performance with the right tools and techniques, and a reward like this might come our way.

In a recent event I photographed, the first photo I took was of a gentleman, joyfully playing the piano.

On the technical side, I used my D700 and 24-120 f4 combo, bouncing a SB-900 from the wall at camera left. This created interesting, non-direct lighting. I used this technique throughout the night, but of all the photos I took, this was my favorite because it catches such a nice moment. To focus attention more clearly on the subject, I cropped more tightly in post-processing and cloned out some distracting objects.



Since I saw some interplay between shadows and light (thanks to the bounced flash), I decided to also try a B&W treatment.



The two versions show the choice we must often make between the warmth and dimension that color brings vs. the way B&W focuses on line, form and lighting. I’m not sure which I like best here, but I do enjoy the classic man at the piano feel of the B&W version.

While no photograph is without flaw, and though we should focus on great moments rather than photographic perfection, it does pay off sometimes to take a second look at a less than perfect photo to see whether post-processing can improve things. Here’s a photo I captured and processed nearly 1 year ago. The lighting, outlining a compelling subject, in contrast to the deeper shadows, makes for an effective B&W image. Unfortunately, that very light falls brightly on the jar to the left of the subject, creating a competing element that draws the eye away from where we want it to go.

Girl by the window, original

I’m not a big fan of cloning, primarily because I don’t like the time big jobs take, but in this case I thought the bright objects on the left side of the image needed to go. Some may look at cloning of this sort as too much of a departure from reality, but for me, in this image, removing those distractions actually help to focus attention more squarely on the reality of the moment: a girl lost in thought staring out the window. Other techniques or approaches, cropping those objects either in-camera on through post-processing would have destroyed the sweep of the lines and the feel of a relaxed instant that the full repose portrays.

Girl by the window, reworked

To achieve this result, I also modified the monochrome conversion to reduce the emulated IR glow, and also calmed down the amount of Sepia toning.