How professionals avoid over-do on editing?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While I laugh at my own over-processing  I do not buy the argument that editing should limit to keep the picture as seen, through eyes.

I tend to edit the (non-portrait) pictures to what my mind sees or wants. Right or wrong, I often try to remove the “defect” of the environment, be it the lighting (contrast or unneutral cast), the weather (mist, haze), or simply the biased expectation of saturation ( sea has to be blue, sunset has to be orange, )  I donot blame my intention, but I do when it is too much or too less. 
 

But I do limit myself on portraits. Overdo could be insulting, and It is much easier to spot an overdo. 
 

 

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

There are a number of related parameters that I am always at risk of overdoing: sharpness, clarity/structure, contrast, saturation. These turn a picture that I decided had real punch the night before into an amateur's first encounter with all-you-can-eat photo presets. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Einst_Stein]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

There are a number of related parameters that I am always at risk of overdoing: sharpness, clarity/structure, contrast, saturation. These turn a picture that I decided had real punch the night before into an amateur's first encounter with all-you-can-eat photo presets. 

Exactly!

[verwackelt]

Most time i follow the rule "less is more" and at least my clients tell me what they want me to do with their pictures that i have to retouch…

[Stuart Richardson]

I think evikne is quite correct that the general settings are often too intense in Lightroom. The sharpening default is a bit unnatural, especially for cameras with sharp sensors and lenses, such as Leica. Same too for noise reduction and color noise reduction, which should be as close to zero as possible. Unless you are shooting high ISO, I find color noise reduction of 5 or so is more than enough to remove any sign of color noise. Beyond that and you are just desaturating fine detail. Sometimes that is fine, but in fine textiles or flower in a field etc, it can hurt.

I teach at the local photography school here, and one thing I advise my students is to work on training their sense of the natural. Pay attention to the natural world...what did the light look like? What color is that grass or those flowers really? What tone does that person have in their skin? If you know what natural looks like, then you are 80% of the way towards achieving good processing. As a general rule, I prefer not to depart from the natural in processing unless it achieves a specific goal in the image. Here in Iceland, so much of the landscape photography is incredibly over-processed, and to my eyes, it just looks jarring and unpleasant. The land is so beautiful on its own, that adding hdr, saturation, clarity etc only serve to diminish the subtly of the natural beauty.

 

In general I think the most important thing to do while editing is to keep going back to your baseline and see whether what you are doing is necessary. Turn on and off the sharpening, after you apply an adjustment, back it off again and see what you feel. You can use the before and after function in lightroom, or you can make snapshots. If you are using photoshop, either open as a smart object (which is great for the camera raw filter), or use layers that you are turn on and off.

In general, I would recommend trying to nail your tonality using as few tools as possible. If possible, stick to just the exposure/contrast/highlights/shadows/whites/blacks sliders. Clarity, texture, dehaze and vibrance are all extremely powerful tools which can take a natural photo and totally disrupt that quite quickly. The curves function is useful, but when used together with all the other sliders it can really push the tones hard.

In order to keep natural sharpening, I highly recommend using a lot of masking, lowering the radius and detail sliders, and raising the amount. This will give you sharp edges, but leave most of your grain and fine detail more natural. If you hold down the option key while adjusting, you will see what you are doing, which is crucial.

Those are the most important things to keep in mind....zero out most of the settings to start with, and add as few as possible to get you to natural. Once you achieve a natural look, if you really need to aesthetically, then you can go to the next level. More often than not, if you cannot achieve it with a natural look, the photo probably was not strong enough to begin with. (None of this applies if you using the tools to make a particular artistic choice, but that is a bit of a different discussion).

[pgk]

The questions that need to be settled before starting adjustments are whether you want to know "what can I do with the image" or "what do I want to achieve from this image". All too often it is the former which means there is no pre-conceived end in sight and this all too easily leads to over-processing. The latter has a goal in mind and reduces this tendency.

[John Robinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I started my working life as a photographic assistant in a darkoom in the 1970s, primarily monochrome with some Ektachrome and Kodachrome.  The parameters for creating and processing images were reasonably constrained compared with digital processing in the 21stC.  The key to success was to understand the effect of choices:  camera, lens, focus, exposure, film stock, developer, printing paper, further processing, drying (anyone remember hot glazing?).  There was room for experimentation but the aim was to be able to produce consistent, repeatable results and there was a considerable discipline involved:  careful control of temperature; quality of chemicals; avoidance of drying marks etc.

What I noticed when re-skilling using digital tools in the 1990s and 2000s was that many of the analog processes from the 20thC are emulated in the digital workflow.  There is obviously a learning curve associated with choosing which tools to use and what they do but after that, the challenge (for a professional, semi-professional or advanced amateur photographer) is to find a digital workflow that produces consistent, repeatable results so that the focus is on outcomes rather than process.  As with chemical photography, there is a lot of experimentation required to learn the tools but, generally-speaking, the results one shows to others are not the experiments but the finished products.

In many respects it is easier coming to digital photography if one has experienced the discipline imposed by a more limited set of choices, which I suppose is why some photography schools still insist on starting their students off using film. If the challenge is to avoid "over doing it" (as suggested in the title of this thread), then I would recommend experimentation followed by the discipline of choosing a set of tools and sticking with them.  As noted elsewhere, a well-calibrated monitor and good printer profiles are essential.  I am not a fan of using Photoshop to work with raw files and treat it as an option for re-touching if nothing else works.  In my experience, Capture One produces better outcomes from raw files than Lightroom but others may take a different view, and other raw processors are available.  The key is to settle on one and stick with it.

Finally, the decision about what is "over-processed" comes down to the response of the viewer to the result.  A good print or an image displayed on a screen may require different processes but whether the image is "good" or "over-done" is really a decision for the viewer.  As a photographer, being able to take a critical view of one's own work is a key to the discipline.

 

[wda]

2 hours ago, John Robinson said:

I started my working life as a photographic assistant in a darkoom in the 1970s, primarily monochrome with some Ektachrome and Kodachrome.  The parameters for creating and processing images were reasonably constrained compared with digital processing in the 21stC.  The key to success was to understand the effect of choices:  camera, lens, focus, exposure, film stock, developer, printing paper, further processing, drying (anyone remember hot glazing?).  There was room for experimentation but the aim was to be able to produce consistent, repeatable results and there was a considerable discipline involved:  careful control of temperature; quality of chemicals; avoidance of drying marks etc.

What I noticed when re-skilling using digital tools in the 1990s and 2000s was that many of the analog processes from the 20thC are emulated in the digital workflow.  There is obviously a learning curve associated with choosing which tools to use and what they do but after that, the challenge (for a professional, semi-professional or advanced amateur photographer) is to find a digital workflow that produces consistent, repeatable results so that the focus is on outcomes rather than process.  As with chemical photography, there is a lot of experimentation required to learn the tools but, generally-speaking, the results one shows to others are not the experiments but the finished products.

In many respects it is easier coming to digital photography if one has experienced the discipline imposed by a more limited set of choices, which I suppose is why some photography schools still insist on starting their students off using film. If the challenge is to avoid "over doing it" (as suggested in the title of this thread), then I would recommend experimentation followed by the discipline of choosing a set of tools and sticking with them.  As noted elsewhere, a well-calibrated monitor and good printer profiles are essential.  I am not a fan of using Photoshop to work with raw files and treat it as an option for re-touching if nothing else works.  In my experience, Capture One produces better outcomes from raw files than Lightroom but others may take a different view, and other raw processors are available.  The key is to settle on one and stick with it.

Finally, the decision about what is "over-processed" comes down to the response of the viewer to the result.  A good print or an image displayed on a screen may require different processes but whether the image is "good" or "over-done" is really a decision for the viewer.  As a photographer, being able to take a critical view of one's own work is a key to the discipline.

 

John, this is an excellent descriptive account of essential disciplines in any professional work. It deserves being bookmarked. Thank you.

[Einst_Stein]

7 hours ago, John Robinson said:

I started my working life as a photographic assistant in a darkoom in the 1970s, primarily monochrome with some Ektachrome and Kodachrome.  The parameters for creating and processing images were reasonably constrained compared with digital processing in the 21stC.  The key to success was to understand the effect of choices:  camera, lens, focus, exposure, film stock, developer, printing paper, further processing, drying (anyone remember hot glazing?).  There was room for experimentation but the aim was to be able to produce consistent, repeatable results and there was a considerable discipline involved:  careful control of temperature; quality of chemicals; avoidance of drying marks etc.

What I noticed when re-skilling using digital tools in the 1990s and 2000s was that many of the analog processes from the 20thC are emulated in the digital workflow.  There is obviously a learning curve associated with choosing which tools to use and what they do but after that, the challenge (for a professional, semi-professional or advanced amateur photographer) is to find a digital workflow that produces consistent, repeatable results so that the focus is on outcomes rather than process.  As with chemical photography, there is a lot of experimentation required to learn the tools but, generally-speaking, the results one shows to others are not the experiments but the finished products.

In many respects it is easier coming to digital photography if one has experienced the discipline imposed by a more limited set of choices, which I suppose is why some photography schools still insist on starting their students off using film. If the challenge is to avoid "over doing it" (as suggested in the title of this thread), then I would recommend experimentation followed by the discipline of choosing a set of tools and sticking with them.  As noted elsewhere, a well-calibrated monitor and good printer profiles are essential.  I am not a fan of using Photoshop to work with raw files and treat it as an option for re-touching if nothing else works.  In my experience, Capture One produces better outcomes from raw files than Lightroom but others may take a different view, and other raw processors are available.  The key is to settle on one and stick with it.

Finally, the decision about what is "over-processed" comes down to the response of the viewer to the result.  A good print or an image displayed on a screen may require different processes but whether the image is "good" or "over-done" is really a decision for the viewer.  As a photographer, being able to take a critical view of one's own work is a key to the discipline.

 

Could you recommend, assuming LR, what tools to start with and what to avoid (for beginners of course), Thanks.

 

///////////

I found I do the following very often, please critique and recommend alternatives:

(Default JPG setting in camera (SL): low constrast, mid high saturations, all else standard) 

LR Raw processing: 

0: Monitor: iMac all-in-one, 27". Lighting: close curtains on day time, reduced the light to about 30%.

1: 70% of the pictures: turn up shadows (increase 50-80%) 

2: 30% of the pictures: turn down highlight (decerase 50-80%)

3: re-adjust exposure after the above two steps, if needed (if wanted)

4: turn up dehaze (30-80%)

5: turn up clarify if needed (if wanted).

6: turn up vibrance/saturation (10~30% on both)

Remarks:  I usually use the rulers of shadow/highlight/dehaze/clarity to adjust contrast instead of the rule of contrast.

////////////

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Einst_Stein

[John Robinson]

The monitor is the trickiest one to get right in my experience.  I have a monitor that has a hardware setting for sRGB and I find this very accurate.  I don't change the setting when the room lighting changes.  But the monitor is unusual as it is a flat CRT, originally supplied with a high-end unix workstation.  

The iMac screen has a calibration tool in "settings" and to view images I set brightness for 100% but if I did not have the CRT monitor I would likely look into profiling the screen with a hardware dongle.  I would not adjust the monitor according the image I am viewing as the monitor is the reference.

I can't really comment on settings in the current version of Lightroom as I only have the "perpetual license" version which is quite good for cataloguing and searching for images but for raw processing I much prefer Capture One.  

As mentioned elsewhere, it can be useful to do "Auto Adjust" ("auto-tone" in LR) to see what the software comes up with and this might give a starting point, otherwise reset to original and work from there.

A quick web search reveals a number of sites where the C1 workflow is described (often in contrast with LR) so there is more than one way to approach it.

"Less is more" is a very useful rule of thumb.  Viewing the result of adjustments on a well-calibrated monitor while paying close attention to the histogram is essential.  

Unless you are looking for a special effect, the aim is for the histogram to extend across the full range from black to white with a solid middle (where much of the detail is found).

C1 does not distinguish between "library" and develop, using tabs to choose each option.  LR obviously needs to be in "develop" mode to do processing other than the "quick develop" in library mode.  As I said in the original post, the most important thing is to come up with a workflow that is consistent, reliable and repeatable.  Many tools interact with each other so getting them into the right order is also important.

My workflow in C1 goes like this (work through the same sequence each time):

- Styles and Presets (the develop menu in LR has something similar) if there is something you prepared earlier

- Lens module

- Color module

- Exposure module (this is the module where the most dramatic adjustments are made and care needs to be take not to "over do" it)

-- start with "exposure" to get a good histogram

-- I find "highlight", "shadow", "white" and "black" much more useful than "brightness" and "contrast"

C1 has a "details" module where sharpening, noise reduction film grain, spot removal are found, not sure about the LR equivalents

-- sharpening and noise reduction best left at zero unless there is something about the original raw file (eg exposed at high ISO) that needs work

-- modern cameras with little or no anti-aliasing filters on the sensor don't need sharpening in my experience and film scans can become very grainy if sharpening (as opposed to clarity) is over-used

-- spot removal can be very useful if there was dust on the sensor or spots on a film scan

-- "clarity" in my experience works much better than "sharpening"

- Output (in C1) - LR uses "export"

This is the place to decide whether to produce a TIFF file (e.g. for use in another program such as Photoshop or DxO Nik Collection) or a JPEG (for web, e-mail etc).

- Print

-- the most important thing here is to have good color management as "managed by printer" is rarely sufficient hence a bespoke profile for your combination of printer, paper, ink 

[pgk]

Can I also suggest that it is important to make intelligent use of data which you can scrutise in an image. Dragging the cursor over the image in Photoshop (and I assume other good image editing software) allows rob clues to be viewed. So highlights, shadows, made-tones and neutrality can be checked by watching the rob values change. As far as I ca certain, these values re associated with the file not the monitor so lack of monitor neutrals which are now to be neutral by their rob values will indicate a poorly set up monitor. I'm not a fan of colour profiling to the nth degree. Closed loop systems can bevelled their characteristics learnt (by experience) as can specific systems - using one print lab for example - but open loop systems intended to supply a profile to render an image the same over any printer are difficult if not impossible in my experience because of the variables involved and the variability in how they are set up.

[Per P.]

On 9/29/2020 at 7:52 PM, Einst_Stein said:

Could you recommend, assuming LR, what tools to start with and what to avoid (for beginners of course), Thanks.

 

///////////

I found I do the following very often, please critique and recommend alternatives:

(Default JPG setting in camera (SL): low constrast, mid high saturations, all else standard) 

LR Raw processing: 

0: Monitor: iMac all-in-one, 27". Lighting: close curtains on day time, reduced the light to about 30%.

1: 70% of the pictures: turn up shadows (increase 50-80%) 

2: 30% of the pictures: turn down highlight (decerase 50-80%)

3: re-adjust exposure after the above two steps, if needed (if wanted)

4: turn up dehaze (30-80%)

5: turn up clarify if needed (if wanted).

6: turn up vibrance/saturation (10~30% on both)

Remarks:  I usually use the rulers of shadow/highlight/dehaze/clarity to adjust contrast instead of the rule of contrast.

////////////

 

I am certainly no expert. Compared to me your settings for highlights/shadows are high, but sometimes needed. Maybe 0-30% is my most used range but I can go higher. 

Dehaze, vibrance and saturation all strike me as very high. I tend to have 0-5% dehaze, 0-10% vibrance, 0 to minus 5% saturation. Then 0-25% vibrance and/or texture. Oh, and contrast +/-5% but mostly zero. But, as stated, this is very personal and my settings change a little up or down from time to time.

[pedaes]

Suggest. you watch the Jeff Schewe LR video added to the PXL site yesterday. Sorry can,t provide link as posting from phone 

Edited October 6, 2020 by pedaes

[Guest BlackBarn]

Firstly I concur with the comments which relate to your eye and sensitivity has to be the judge.  Secondly I would be interested if it is even possible  for any landscape artist working away later in post production refining towards the ‘Natural’ look can remember the  true colour and play of light of the moment. I suspect many who believe they are obtaining that might be surprised. The only way to achieve that is to do the post production on site although of course the light will have changed. In effect we all post towards what we consider to be the ‘true’ image accepting of course that only ten percent of what we see comes from the eye...the rest is configured in the brain. 

I’m not a photographer I’m an artist who uses a camera and post production software as tools to produce what I see but more importantly what was felt at the moment. The objective of my tools is that they become invisible and until they do they are like walking around with a stone in your shoe. The way they become invisible is to use and understand the full range of their capability by practicing technical range and capability of the tools you select to use. That means putting in a lot of messing about time where the photo doesn’t matter but the learning does. 

In the training for realistic art they set up a Still Life under fix lighting conditions which can be in place for up to a year. The light and colour of the objects do not change.  They then try and copy that exactly and it is the only effective training for colour, form, ,line and tonal training. The same training could be applied for those photographers who want to learn the matching  technique through post production software if the space and intent is available.

 

 

[Per P.]

3 hours ago, pedaes said:

Suggest. you watch the Jeff Schewe LR video added to the PXL site yesterday. Sorry can,t provide link as posting from phone 

That is a very long video (1H45) but super interesting. He certainly demonstrates that my suggestions may be way too conservative  Part two will be published this week.

[Einst_Stein]

I do not think photography as a form of art needs to be faithful to the nature. It can be an echo of what we see in the mind. 

It should be fine or even should be required to put the expression or reaction of the photographer both in terms of choosing the angle of view, controlling the mood of the light,  but how to it elegantly and seemingly is what matters.  So, at least for the sake of learning, there could be some rule of thumb. But eventually no rule should be left. 

I am a learner. 

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, pedaes said:

Sorry can,t provide link as posting from phone 

My phone can post links...

https://photopxl.com/lightroom-edits-with-jeff-schewe-part-one/
 

Jeff

[pedaes]

46 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

My phone can post links...

Good for you, 

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Good for you, 

And for mankind.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Per P.]

One point that Jeff Schewe makes a couple of times in the video is important. Pictures that may look overprocessed on screen may be just right when printed. In other words, if the final output is a print then you may want to go a few steps further on e.g. contrast, clarity or vibrance than if the picture is intended for screen display. I have heard the same message from professional printers.