Do you lighten or darken your images in post to meet some ideal overall illumination

[-ST-]

Technical/Artistic question
Do you lighten or darken your images in post-production to meet some ideal overall illumination
or
Do you try to maintain or recreate what you saw or felt when you pressed the shutter?

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

With animal shots I darken the surroundings and light the animal up a bit. With all other images I simply try to achieve a colourful and vibrant representation of what I seen on the day.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

The issue is not just illumination but a combination of white balance and/or exposure as it relates to individual preferences and such preference to be true to that which was observed compared to that which has an art like or other artistic slant/distortion for purposes other than true life representation.

Simple image emphasis is one thing, as pointed out by Clint, but outright image alteration for whatever reason my not be so well accepted under certain circumstances.

If for the purposes of expression of general /personal artistic ability that is fine BUT for competitive advantage, the level of acceptable image imbellishment/post processing is normally very well defined and normally dependant upon the competition organisers.

For the more serious photographic competitions,you if that is the purpose behind the post production,anything more than simple exposure correction and a degree of colour enhancement within the limits of tolerances of natural colouration would not be acceptable.

Maybe my comments have wandered off topic/theme but it is an interesting forum question to solicit forum views........

 

[pointreyes]

For theater event photography, lighten the image because I have to take the shot in harsh spotlights which would be blown out if I allow "proper" exposure. Sometimes, bringing out the details in the highlights but keeping the noise down is a delicate balance of how much of the image should be exposed to the right to allow for the story to be revealed.

 

[Gaz]

I've been trying to sort that out in the heat of the moment, using the plus-minus thingy on camera to expose the subject and/or the vibe. That's a hangover from film days I guess because working up a crook image was nearly impossible for the average joe.

Since using RAW format again, this always leads to some tweaking. The RAW info seems to be "darker" than the jpeg, but pushing info out of the depth of shadow seems pretty easy compared to jpeg.



If you are asking about art, then anything goes. Sometimes I blow a photo right out or darken it down to nearly nothing just to see how it feels. The technicians wouldn't like it.



Gaz

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Generally speaking, in manual mode, with your required shutter, aperture and ISO settings you should in theory be able to have your exposure control at 0... In an ideal world.

In practice dependant upon light conditions if you can't achieve that for the conditions you are shooting in you may need to adjust the exposure control posive or negative to achieve a fully exposed image.

The above said and with the dynamic range of cameras these days it is generally only necessary to expose for the highlights in your shooting conditions to ensure you don't blow out the whites when you should be able to recover any shadows in post processing.

This is the 2 minute explanation.

As regards Raw vs jpg images , the jpg has far more digital data whilst the jpg does not and it is the jpg you see on your monitor.

RAW images because of the much higher data level can be manipulated much more in post processing whilst in jpg if you try to post process will be more limited on recovering highlights and shadows particularly for low light situations. Again a 2 minute explanation but hope the above helps.

 

[-ST-]

Wow!
So much I hadn't considered (wildlife, competitions, theatre event photography, art vs. reality).

I often shoot before sunrise, and those pictures are dark. If I rely on what my image processing software recommends, I get a picture that looks like it was taken in daylight, and I lose the feeling of being out at that special time of day. If I keep them looking like what I saw with only slight adjustments to the exposure, I've got something that takes me back to "being there", but like a fine meal, my pictures is not much fun if you weren't really there to enjoy it the first time.

I'm still trying to figure out what to do about the low-light pictures - both outdoors and at inside events.

Outdoor shots
I do a quick adjustment to the exposure to help me decide where to crop. Then I'll take a second look and adjust the exposure to suit the cropped image.
I'll try to get a good exposure for the cropped image, and then make any adjustments to the subject. For dark subjects, I often have to recover the shadows. That sounds similar to what Clint (@Maskless Crusader) is doing to emphasize the subject of the photo.

When my subject is a bird in flight against a bright sky, I'll set my exposure compensation on the camera to +1 EV or more. That helps, but usually have to do some (a lot of) shadow recovery to bring out the details in the bird. From what you've said Ray (@Deleted Member 5003), I'm probably doing too much of that, at least for competition. But I had no idea people compete with their photos - just never crossed my mind.

Inside events
I've just started taking photos of performers in an ongoing series of shows. These are done in multipurpose rooms in community facilities. The lighting is dark, but like a pizza for colour. They dim the lights, and then set up E26 Disco Lightbulbs and white mini spotlights scattered around the stage area. From the back, they've set up some very old par can lights with red, amber, and blue gels (yes, they are that old). If a performer happens to stand directly below a ceiling pot light, I can get some nasty reflections, especially if the performer has a receding hairline. And there's a good chance there will be dots and splashes of random colour across performers' faces. I don't know what to do because the pictures look terrible. I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Landshark99]

I process my images they way i see them at that moment on my computer, whether they look like the wat=y they were when I took them means little to me. I do not feel the need to be constricted to some arbitrary rules on what i do with my images, I am not at all concerned with competitions of photography. Too many years of complying with the needs of clients or subjects, at this point all I care about is if I like it, so I am in the camp of do what ever you wish to the image.

 

[Brownie]

Since using RAW format again, this always leads to some tweaking. The RAW info seems to be "darker" than the jpeg, but pushing info out of the depth of shadow seems pretty easy compared to jpeg.

This is because RAW data is just that, RAW data. It isn't even an image unless you have software to make it become one. Jpeg, on the other hand, is a fully processed image. It's your camera's attempt to process the image it thinks you took from the exact same RAW data you can upload and process yourself, usually to some degree of improvement.

As for the original question, your camera doesn't have the dynamic range that your eyes do. Your eyes can see into shadows without blowing out the bright sky, or see the clouds in a bright sky while still able to determine detail in the shadows. Cameras are getting better, but they can't do that without some help. I have no preconceived notions about processing, nor do I believe in adhering to presenting 'exactly as shot', because as described herein, what you see and what your camera sees are different.

Lastly, it's you're image. Ultimately only the photographer can say what's right.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Each to his own as above. IF for personal, friend and family use etc. agreed it does not matter what you do in post processing.....

If your images are for commercial purposes, including competitions the rules of the game change in my experience....

 

[Clix Pix]

In the darkroom days, "burning" and "dodging" were not at all uncommon. It was a way of subtly darkening or lightening an area in an image which needed it, whether for emphasis in a particular section of the image or for some other reason.

When shooting Canada Geese or Hooded Mergansers out on our small lake, when I am in the process of editing the RAW images, I frequently do add a touch of darkening in the overall image in order to bring more emphasis to and direct attention to the primary subject: i.e., the bird in the water. Occasionally I do need to lighten up an eye on a bird , too, making it more visible, as many birds have dark eyes and often a catchlight isn't enough to really make the eye noticeable.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

In the darkroom days, "burning" and "dodging" were not at all uncommon. It was a way of subtly darkening or lightening an area in an image which needed it, whether for emphasis in a particular section of the image or for some other reason.

When shooting Canada Geese or Hooded Mergansers out on our small lake, when I am in the process of editing the RAW images, I frequently do add a touch of darkening in the overall image in order to bring more emphasis to and direct attention to the primary subject: i.e., the bird in the water. Occasionally I do need to lighten up an eye on a bird , too, making it more visible, as many birds have dark eyes and often a catchlight isn't enough to really make the eye noticeable.

Yes Clix the purpose of generating Raw images is to facilitate more extensive post production processing with the benefit of all the digital data rather than the clipped data in the case of the corresponding JPG, particularily at the ends of the dynamic range. Accordingly you will see a substantial reuction in the file size(pixels) of a Raw image over its corresponding JPG.

Minor adjustments to a bird/subject image, without materially changing the overall image(such as in the case of changing backgrounds or creating composite images by combining subjects from one or more individual images etc ) are in most cases the norm, whereas for strict true life,commercial or aesthetic purposes this may not be so acceptable under certain circumstances.........

 

[-ST-]

Here's a raw file:
Before adjusting exposure and shadow recovery

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2)
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 160

And after

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2)
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 160

Ray - @Deleted Member 5003
Too much for commercial or competition? (not to suggest this is otherwise suitable for either).

Note: I would normally have set the exposure compensation to at least +1.0 EV shooting this dark subject against the light sky, but this fellow caught me by surprise. If I had, I wouldn't have had to lift the shadows as much, but the sky would have been blown out. Since I didn't need any detail in this bright but overcast sky, an overexposed background wouldn't have mattered.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

You might have misunderstood me ST when I said what I do earlier, my animal images are well exposed just I will darken the background a touch mainly on sliding the shadow to the left, then the animal I will bring the exposure up to around +0.20 then bring the whites up a little, something along those lines.

That top shot of yours there, that would be an instant delete. You can't pull those types of shadows out and still think you are going to get an outstanding image from it, I wouldn't be comfortable putting a lot of effort into trying to save that if I'm being honest.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I still just use the standard Lightroom, I just love the simple layout of it. I believe if someone has to rip into an image too hard on editing then it means they should be spending more time learning how to use the camera better. The RAW image has to look impressive I think. There are exceptions of course but I'm talking in general terms...

 

[-ST-]

You might have misunderstood me ST when I said what I do earlier, my animal images are well exposed just I will darken the background a touch mainly on sliding the shadow to the left, then the animal I will bring the exposure up to around +0.20 then bring the whites up a little, something along those lines.

Thanks for clarifying, Clint.

That top shot of yours there, that would be an instant delete. You can't pull those types of shadows out and still think you are going to get an outstanding image from it, I wouldn't be comfortable putting a lot of effort into trying to save that if I'm being honest.

I appreciate the input. I've got a lot to learn, hence the beginner's questions.

It probably shows, but I only put a few seconds into the changes to exposure. I was really trying to see what I could do with this distant subject with cropping.

Thanks.

 

[Landshark99]

Maybe competitions require you not to alter the image, I would not know, but I would find it strange that any commercial client would tell you that you cannot process the image they way you see it for exposure. Now if you have a job where they require you to turn over all the images in raw, then obviously you will not be doing anything to image, but I have found most times for the jobs I did they would like Tiffs more than raws, allowing you to correct exposure, color, sharpness, etc.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Thanks for clarifying, Clint.


I appreciate the input. I've got a lot to learn, hence the beginner's questions.

It probably shows, but I only put a few seconds into the changes to exposure. I was really trying to see what I could do with this distant subject with cropping.

Thanks.

One thing I admire is your desire to know the ins and outs of this stuff. As with how I am, you know you can take better photos than the average Joe, it's literally just picking new things up week after week which only comes from shooting, editing and talking to people. I've no doubt that the guys with the best images on here are still learning, that is the beauty of it really, it can always be better.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I still just use the standard Lightroom, I just love the simple layout of it. I believe if someone has to rip into an image too hard on editing then it means they should be spending more time learning how to use the camera better. The RAW image has to look impressive I think. There are exceptions of course but I'm talking in general terms... 

.
Fair point Clint.......

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Technical/Artistic question
Do you lighten or darken your images in post-production to meet some ideal overall illumination
or
Do you try to maintain or recreate what you saw or felt when you pressed the shutter?

I'm late to the topic, and underqualified to answer when you've got some great comments already, but here's my 2 cents: It depends on if I've only got one image or a series.

If its a single image, I'll agonize over it and play with dimming highlights raising exp, correcting white balance, and maybe some saturation or vibrance. I might even edit it on one pc, and preview it on multiple screens. Anything to make the final shot feel right, which I guess means my artistic interpretation?

If its a series of images, like photos at an event, my focus (no pun intended) is to make sure the white balance and exposure are the same across the entire series. I also try to make sure faces are clear without lifting the shadows too much. The last event I edited, I think my shots were over exposed, but at least they were consistent.

 

[-ST-]

One thing I admire is your desire to know the ins and outs of this stuff. As with how I am, you know you can take better photos than the average Joe, it's literally just picking new things up week after week which only comes from shooting, editing and talking to people. I've no doubt that the guys with the best images on here are still learning, that is the beauty of it really, it can always be better.

One of the great and fun aspects of pointing the camera at things is the camera can see things I can't. I'm always finding surprises in the photos in post.

Even though I've been walking around outside for a few years now, I see more these days because I look for those opportunities to make something wonderful. I had only a passing interest in birds in flight until I joined this community a few weeks ago.

Yesterday, I saw that eagle, and I noticed that it was different. It was so dark. Against the light sky, I couldn't see any details. I hoped the camera could see more.

It was a joy to bring up the shadows and find that it was a black eagle. I don't recall having seen one before, so that alone was worth the exercise in post.

You're right; I have a voracious appetite for the ins and outs and a high tolerance for looking naive.

Thanks for the conversation.


ST

 

[-ST-]

I'm late to the topic, and underqualified to answer when you've got some great comments already, but here's my 2 cents: It depends on if I've only got one image or a series.

If its a single image, I'll agonize over it and play with dimming highlights raising exp, correcting white balance, and maybe some saturation or vibrance. I might even edit it on one pc, and preview it on multiple screens. Anything to make the final shot feel right, which I guess means my artistic interpretation?

If its a series of images, like photos at an event, my focus (no pun intended) is to make sure the white balance and exposure are the same across the entire series. I also try to make sure faces are clear without lifting the shadows too much. The last event I edited, I think my shots were over exposed, but at least they were consistent.

Hi, Chris.
Thanks for mentioning the need for consistency across a series.
There's a relatively new feature in Capture One - Smart Adjustments, that is supposed to help with that.

I'm not photographing people much, but I found this interesting. I've been working my way through the Capture One videos.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Hi, Chris.
Thanks for mentioning the need for consistency across a series.
There's a relatively new feature in Capture One - Smart Adjustments, that is supposed to help with that.

I'm not photographing people much, but I found this interesting. I've been working my way through the Capture One videos.

Oh that's a clever feature! I have to look to see if its on the free version too.
This is one of the things that my favorite program ON1 cannot do, because it doesn't do batch processing.

 

[Clix Pix]

Yes Clix the purpose of generating Raw images is to facilitate more extensive post production processing with the benefit of all the digital data rather than the clipped data in the case of the corresponding JPG, particularily at the ends of the dynamic range. Accordingly you will see a substantial reuction in the file size(pixels) of a Raw image over its corresponding JPG.

Minor adjustments to a bird/subject image, without materially changing the overall image(such as in the case of changing backgrounds or creating composite images by combining subjects from one or more individual images etc ) are in most cases the norm, whereas for strict true life,commercial or aesthetic purposes this may not be so acceptable under certain circumstances.........

I am not a believer in swapping backgrounds, skies, or subjects' heads in images, and I've never made a composite image in my life. I have neither the skills or the interest in doing so. If the image doesn't represent the scene I originally saw at the time I was making the exposure, then if it is unsatisfactory (wrong exposure, blah sky, weird expression on subject's face, error in composition, etc.), then it gets sent to the trash bin and is not processed at all.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I have a preference for having contrasting shots, so sometimes I will alter things, and often times I drop highlights as the A7RiV does sometimes blow them a little, though overall it's metering is excellent. I will also drop shadows if the background is bright and distracting, or clone it out Ultimately it's about whatever look you are going for.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I have a preference for having contrasting shots, so sometimes I will alter things, and often times I drop highlights as the A7RiV does sometimes blow them a little, though overall it's metering is excellent. I will also drop shadows if the background is bright and distracting, or clone it out Ultimately it's about whatever look you are going for.

AGREED.....

 

[Landshark99]

While I do not myself like stripped in heads, skys, backgrounds or composite shots in general, most anything else is good with me. I find it interesting that some have said there are restrictions on doing those things for commercial clients, over my career I have found the opposite to be true. For a large assortment of reasons, since the widespread use of the digital darkroom, a huge number of images used by clients are composites. Even before digital, if the budget allowed a lot of images used in commercial, editorial and advertising were composite images. The only place I feel there is real push back on compositing, most of the time, is photo journalism. Here is just one example, I shot all of the different pieces for this image that was used to publicize the last season of LOST, shot in three locations over multiple days. It was done this way mainly due to actor availability and lack of studio space in Hawaii. There are somewhere between 16 and 30 different pieces to this image, I really have no idea the correct number since I only shot them and did not assemble it.

• Leaf AFi-II 7(LF13316 )/Leaf AFi
• 80.0 mm
• ƒ/14
• 1/125 sec
• ISO 100

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

All clients and organisations are not equal...it varies, but if what you are doing satisfies yours and your client needs "good on ya"

The other consideration which has not been raised in this theme string is at what point does the shot and processed image
become art rather than accurate photographic reproduction...????

The collision and integration between photographic post processing and AI alternate reality, it seems, is nearer than we thought........

 

[Landshark99]

All clients and organisations are not equal...it varies, but if what you are doing satisfies yours and your client needs "good on ya"

The other consideration which has not been raised in this theme string is at what point does the shot and processed image
become art rather than accurate photographic reproduction...????

The collision and integration between photographic post processing and AI alternate reality, it seems, is nearer than we thought........

How does one define an "accurate photographic reproduction" , when every camera if it pushes out jpegs will do it differently, raws need a processing engine, adding it's profile, the color of light altered by auto while balance, limited dof controlled by the image maker. Photography by it very nature captures an unrealistic world, turning a multi dimensional one into a two dimensional one. The introduction of color films altered the "realty" of photo journalism, because those films were so slow they needed far more light than B&W, making news images then, more of a setup shot than candid. Today's digital cameras shoot in almost total darkness creating there own photographic reality that film cameras could never achieve, which one is the accurate image. Nothing at this point can record an image the way our mind interprets what our eyes see. Now if one is recording an event, like a specific species of bird nesting in a specific environment, or recording the location in the dig of that fossil, etc, then I see the point in doing the least alteration to make a usable image. Just because I or others do not like some pp styles of image creation does not mean one should do not due what they see, too each their own vision For me most all photography is a form of art, some bad, some good,

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

One of the great and fun aspects of pointing the camera at things is the camera can see things I can't. I'm always finding surprises in the photos in post.

Even though I've been walking around outside for a few years now, I see more these days because I look for those opportunities to make something wonderful. I had only a passing interest in birds in flight until I joined this community a few weeks ago.

Yesterday, I saw that eagle, and I noticed that it was different. It was so dark. Against the light sky, I couldn't see any details. I hoped the camera could see more.

It was a joy to bring up the shadows and find that it was a black eagle. I don't recall having seen one before, so that alone was worth the exercise in post.

You're right; I have a voracious appetite for the ins and outs and a high tolerance for looking naive.

Thanks for the conversation.


ST

I'm hearing you with what you mean with how you see the world now. Before photography I never cared for Sydney city in the slightest, now I see the architecture, the heritage buildings, the gardens etc like it is the most obvious thing in the world! I raced motocross for many years and had absolutely zero regard for the scenery on my way to all these different locations, now I will travel the same roads and pull over constantly to take photos. In certain ways this has changed who I am and how I see the things around me.

One of my best mates is pretty nuts with astronomy. Every year they have their annual star party past Mudgee West of Sydney. Maybe eight years ago or so was the first one I went to, there are guys who run their telescope at night then take photos of birds during the day. I was at my wit's end looking at these guys and being quite vocal with 'why the f@ck would you take photos of birds!?', it just made no sense to me at all. Just a bird who cares! Needless to say I get reminded of this all the time.

Photography is just so amazing in many different ways. Certain things happen in your life where you think to yourself that you were led on this path for a direct reason. We were meant to be here.

I'm sure at ISO160, that eagle is probably worth saving too.