Let Others Make Variations

[Ken Lee]

You post a photo, and others can freely make variations.

[Ari]

Here's one I haven't worked on yet; I didn't like my framing, so I would have probably just stored it on my hard drive and forgotten about it.
It's a raw scan, jpg, no adjustments at all.

Go for it!

[C. D. Keth]

Gladly. This should be fun.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8348/8275834533_7302ee0da2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8275834533/)
Architectural Abstract 3; 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8275834533/) by CKeth (http://www.flickr.com/people/cdketh/), on Flickr

[jcoldslabs]

I'm still using Photoshop 7--what is that, five generations ago?--but here is my first pass at Ari's portrait using layers and selectively applied curves adjustments. There appear to be some recompression artifacts in the new JPEG, but I'm not sure how to get around that.

Jonathan

109230

[jcoldslabs]

Since I can't sleep (it's 3 A.M.) I took a stab at Christopher's photo as well. I went for a kind of "moon landing" vibe.

J.

109231

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/tportrait.jpg

[Ari]

Jonathan, very nice treatment, it certainly sparkles.

Ken, I can tell it was you from a mile away. :)
Very soft and evenly rendered, lovely.

[DennisD]

Jonathan, very nice treatment, it certainly sparkles.

Ken, I can tell it was you from a mile away. :)
Very soft and evenly rendered, lovely.

+1 on both images above.

Ken,
Thanks for your inspired idea for this thread !

Dennis

[Nathan Potter]

Ari, yes Kens' is almost unmistakable. Very soft with a minimization of highlights and abundant midtones. I get a different feel for the subject compared to the original. I'm not sure I prefer one over the other though. Nice image Ken.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Ari]

My take on Chris' photo.
I burned in the edges, toyed with contrast and also darkened the pavement, but not the wood slat in the middle.

[DennisD]

Ken,

Would you describe the specific adjustments made to the portrait.
Your rendering is lovely.

Thanks

Dennis

[Ken Lee]

Would you describe the specific adjustments made to the portrait.
Your rendering is lovely.

Thank you. I don't really remember any more: a little of this, and a little of that.

It's often easier to explore the possible variations with someone else's image than with our own.

[Ramiro Elena]

lol... this is not what I had in mind, I'm surprised! :D
I meant, re-doing the image completely. I am going to go out to the store and buy a bottle of french wine to get my girl to do Ari's portrait of her girl :D

Okay... I had already bought the wine :P

[Sal Santamaura]

...Ken, I can tell it was you from a mile away. :)...Yup!

[jcoldslabs]

Here's a straight scan of an image I shot this afternoon. (Link for the original 16 bit TIFF file (http://tinyurl.com/kj9yf48).) The scene was low contrast to start with and despite N+2 development still seems lackluster. Anyone willing to punch it up?

Jonathan


109309

[Gary Sommer]

Is this what you had in mind?

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t243/gary2881/misc/9x12-EFKE-EI50-Industrial-Abstract-LFPF_zps665389a9.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/gary2881/media/misc/9x12-EFKE-EI50-Industrial-Abstract-LFPF_zps665389a9.jpg.html)

1. Auto levels, 97% opacity
2. Curves, Increase Contrast 75% opacity
3. Unsharp Mask, amount 15%, radius 66 pixels
4. Flatten layers
5. Image size 50%
6. Save for web

[jcoldslabs]

Gary,

That's a really interesting example of what can happen when the person processing the image is divorced from the taking of the image. I would not have gone quite so bright with it because in person the bricks and siding were darker than that. Sometimes the facts of a scene (as remembered) can limit how one approaches the final realization of an image. I appreciate your interpretation, however, not because it is how I would have done it but precisely because it is how I wouldn't have.

Below is my own first pass at the image. This is certainly not a realistic version at all, but it is closer to how I visualized it when I shot it. I thought the extra development time would have increased the contrast and detail more than it did, but since that didn't happen I brought out what grit and texture I could from the negative digitally. I may have gone too far with that; we'll see how well this version sits with me over time.


http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/9x12-EFKE-EI50-Industrial-Abstract-r5.jpg

Jonathan

[Gary Sommer]

Seeing the original scene makes a big difference. Its kind of strange working a photo that you have no connection to. I like your version much better.

Gary

[Ari]

I gave Jonathan's photo a try as well.
Left side photo:
I brought down the values of the aluminum siding, added contrast and a hint of coffee tone.
Right side photo:
I burned in the brick area, adding contrast, then playing with upper and lower parts of the photo separately.
But I think I like yours best, Jonathan.

[jcoldslabs]

Ari,

Thanks for the versions. Seeing your choices (as well as Gary's) is very enlightening. As I said, I can get locked into a certain way of realizing my own work, certain habits and patterns of processing my scans. This thread is very instructive in reminding me to break out of some of those habits. It never occurred to me to adjust the upper and lower components of the photo separately like that. I tend to use global contrast tweaks more than local ones. We were headed in the same direction with our interpretations you and I, but we used different means.

J.

[djdister]

Here is my feeble version.

I duplicated the background layer and then ran Equalize on the background copy.
Blended the background copy using Multiply at 70% opacity.
Added a Curves layer and applied the Cross Process preset curve. Blended using Normal at 100% opacity.

109368

[jcoldslabs]

You guys are some kinda digital wizards! My PS knowledge is rather limited so I'm learning a lot from this exercise. Thanks.

J.


EDIT: My version was done entirely with layers and curves. I don't do any blending or opacity (%) adjustments because for some reason, on my computer at least, when I have layers at less than 100% and then flatten the image for JPEG output the image changes significantly from what I see on screen--it tends to get lighter and lose contrast for some reason. Probably user error, but so far I haven't been able to sort it out.

The bottom line seems to be that there is a lot more detail in this negative than is apparent in the straight scan, but the methods by which this is detail is accentuated are varied.

[Ari]

...I can get locked into a certain way of realizing my own work, certain habits and patterns of processing my scans. This thread is very instructive in reminding me to break out of some of those habits.


We all have those habits because we've nailed down a process that works best for us.
But it's also easy for work habits to become routine, or worse, stale.
I think participating in this thread, just like showing your book to other photographers, is a good tool for re-thinking the how and why.

[sanking]

Ken and Ari,

That is a very nice portrait!

Sandy

[lbenac]

The print of this one does not convince me. maybe it is just a composition that just does not work.

http://www.lucbenacphoto.com/img/s5/v129/p45733203-4.jpg

Thanks

Luc

[lbenac]

The print of this one does not convince me. maybe it is just a composition that just does not work.


Thanks

Luc

Good advice from Tim. Cropping square to keep only the drawers and the buttons. Works a lot better.

Cheers,

Luc

[Taija71A]

____

Very glad, that you like it now Luc. Outstanding Image!
Very 'clean and simple'... But STILL extremely 'Graphic & Bold'. :)
--
Cheers,

-Tim.
_________

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/p45.jpg

[Ramiro Elena]

The Ken Lee treatment works very well here. I found the original lacked sharpness and the tone helps too.

[Ari]

The Ken Lee treatment works very well here. I found the original lacked sharpness and the tone helps too.

Maybe there should be a "Ken Lee plug-in" for Photoshop.

[Ramiro Elena]

He could sell PS Actions! :D

[lbenac]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/p45.jpg

Hey Ken,
I did not realize that the image was soft until I had seen your adjustment. Not sure what happened there.
What sharpening technique did you use?
The one describe on your web page - sharpening three different layers for low, middle and high values?
Are you using Unsharp Mask or Smart Sharpening on the different layers?

Cheers,

Luc

[Ken Lee]

Yes, I use the sharpening method I recommend on my web site.

I also changed the tones with 1 or more curves layers and did a bit of dodging and burning. I removed some of the cob webs and spots of paint too.

I honestly can't remember because I do them all fairly quickly and don't take notes.

(As with the portrait photo, the most important step was probably cropping: Tim revealed the core of the subject and put all the parts into right relationship with one another).

[Taija71A]

____

As we are all well aware... Ken is just 'Too' Modest! :)
--
I could honestly *** NOT *** believe... What a great improvement, his removal of just one of the 'cobwebs' -- Made to this very Image!

Think... 'Night and Day' difference! :D
--

-Tim.
_________

[jcoldslabs]

There should be a "Ken Lee plug-in" for Photoshop.

+1 :)

[Darin Boville]

I don't get to admire Ken's work--the unretouched image has been removed in post #25. Bummer. Sort of kills the spirit of the tread!

--Darin

[lbenac]

I don't get to admire Ken's work--the unretouched image has been removed in post #25. Bummer. Sort of kills the spirit of the tread!

--Darin

Sorry about that. My LR Zenfolio plugin got overenthusiastic this morning and pull that image. I should not do photographic stuff in a rush before going to work :-) but I was impatient to try to rework the image and learn Ken's tricks.......

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/p45Original.jpg

Is this it ?

[lbenac]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/p45Original.jpg

Is this it ?

Yes thank you, Ken :-)

[lbenac]

Rescan of the negative plus different sharpening than usual.

http://www.lucbenacphoto.com/img/s10/v110/p644063369-5.jpg

[Ari]

Luc, the image is not there.

[lbenac]

Luc, the image is not there.

OK I officially must have messed-up my LR plugin to upload to Zenfolio.
Mind you it was not as good as Ken's version anyway more like a work in progress until I have more time this week-end to rethink completely my sharpening work-flow and the file upload.

[Mark Stahlke]

I wanna play too!
Here is a shot from Keeneland horse racing track in Lexington, KY. Shot on HP5+ with a Caltar II-N 75/4.5 lens and Shen Hao PTB 4x5.
The first image is the raw scan, the second image is my rendition. I'd love to see what other folks can do with this. Too bad there's no way to fix the composition - Why did I cut off the top of the arch?
109453109454

[Darin Boville]

OK I officially must have messed-up my LR plugin to upload to Zenfolio.
Mind you it was not as good as Ken's version anyway more like a work in progress until I have more time this week-end to rethink completely my sharpening work-flow and the file upload.

What would be cool is if people wouldn't mind making one image with the original one one side and the variation on the other--all in one image so it loads as a single image--make it super easy to compare one to another. Would be quite educational.

--Darin

[JeRuFo]

I wanna play too!
Here is a shot from Keeneland horse racing track in Lexington, KY. Shot on HP5+ with a Caltar II-N 75/4.5 lens and Shen Hao PTB 4x5.
The first image is the raw scan, the second image is my rendition. I'd love to see what other folks can do with this. Too bad there's no way to fix the composition - Why did I cut off the top of the arch?


I think your version is a little harsh and loses a lot of the brightness of the stone. I think shooting it again is the only way to save the composition. I think the back of your camera might not have been perfectly perpendicular to the wall either, there is some distortion both the horizontals and the verticals.

109455109456

[Ari]

Here's my take on it.
Left side is Mark's original scan, right side mine.
Lots of dodging or burning of different areas, pretty obvious where, and I added sharpening, since the brick pattern was begging me to do it.
A general darkening, and I did what I could to correct perspective in PS.
The cut-off arch doesn't bother me, and I really like these kinds of symmetrical/vanishing perspective shots; they always work. :)

[lbenac]

All right see if I can get these images back as they should...

Original / Luc modified work in progress / Ken's what to shoot for image
109487 109491 109489

[jcoldslabs]

I think I've been watching a little too much American Horror Story: Asylum (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/American_Horror_Story_Asylum_Promo.jpg) lately....

Jonathan



109496 109497

[C. D. Keth]

Jonathan, I think you could go even darker down the corridor until there's just a glint on the door in blackness.

[lbenac]

Ok - try as I may I cannot get the image to get close to what Ken did. I cannot get the finesse of the wood texture. My sharpening sucks :(

I included the best I could do

109556

and another image from the same shoot that is my selection.

109557

Edit:
For the Hell of it I printed the two above and the prints came out nicely while the two JPG look like crap. Go figure.

[Ken Lee]

Ok - try as I may I cannot get the image to get close to what Ken did. I cannot get the finesse of the wood texture. My sharpening sucks :(

I didn't just sharpen the image: first I adjusted the tones and did a bunch of dodging and burning.

My 2 cents: If the high values are already light (or the low values already low) they can get blown out by sharpening. That's one reason why it can often be helpful to sharpen the high or low values separately - or not at all. Some negatives are better handled by sharpening only the mid-tones.

Dodging and burning can be a form of sharpening too, because with Photoshop we can dodge or burn just the high/middle/low tones.

Another 2-cent observation is that we tend to see more images which appear underexposed and overdeveloped than the other way around. Perhaps the negatives are underexposed and underdeveloped, or the scanner operator renders them to appear that way. It's much easier to increase the drama of a comparatively flat negative, than it is to rescue an image where the extremes of the tonal scale have been clipped.

[lbenac]

I didn't just sharpen the image: first I adjusted the tones and did a bunch of dodging and burning.

My 2 cents: If the high values are already light (or the low values already low) they can get blown out by sharpening. That's one reason why it can often be helpful to sharpen the high or low values separately - or not at all. Some negatives are better handled by sharpening only the mid-tones.

Dodging and burning can be a form of sharpening too, because with Photoshop we can dodge or burn just the high/middle/low tones.

Another 2-cent observation is that we tend to see more images which appear underexposed and overdeveloped than the other way around. Perhaps the negatives are underexposed and underdeveloped, or the scanner operator renders them to appear that way. It's much easier to increase the drama of a comparatively flat negative, than it is to rescue an image where the extremes of the tonal scale have been clipped.

Hello Ken,

My routine for sharpening uses Photokit Sharpener (PKS) as follows:

Master File (PSD)
1) Capture Sharpening (4x5 negative auto)
2) Mid-tone Enhancement (= clarity in LR) (should address your remark regarding highlight getting blown)
3) Depth of Field or High Pass Sharpening to taste with mask and different level of sharpening on Dark and Light (should address your remark regarding highlight getting blown)

Print File (TIFF)
1) resize to size
2) Output sharpening for Inkjet

Web File (JPG)
1) Resize to size by steps (to 3000 px then 2000 px then 800 px)
2) Output sharpening for Web
3) Toning in PS with Fill layer or in LR

I usually do not use the Dodging or Burning tools in PS. I use layers - can't remember now the details

Cheers,

Luc

[jcoldslabs]

I need help! (Yeah, that kind, too.)

While this isn't my most inspired composition, the negative itself looks really good. It was spot metered to ensure shadow detail, shot on 8x10 T-Max that is relatively fresh (2009) and processed in HC-110. The tonal range, confirmed by both visual inspection and the scanner's histogram, is broad and full, and the contrast looks good, too.

My problem is I can't seem to massage the scan in such a way as to bring out the subtlety and nuance inherent in the negative. My scanner isn't the greatest, which may be part of the problem, but if anyone else would like to take a stab at bringing this scan to life I would much appreciate it. Nothing has been done to it except dust removal. No sharpening, no curves applied, nada. It was scanned as a positive and inverted, so there were no contrast adjustments made at the time of scanning, either. Just black and white points set.

You can download the 100MB TIFF file here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13943677/8x10-TMY2-Tree%20and%20Puddle-LFPF.tif).

Thanks for the help,

Jonathan

[Gary Sommer]

Jonatan, I played around with your scan. When I opened the file and selected the Levels tool, the black was already cliped, and the white was close to max also. I don't let my scanner (Canon 9950f) set the black and white points. I make sure that there is room between the ends of the histogram and the sides of the box. This gives a very flat scan that I adjust the black and white points in Photoshop. If I don't do it this way, I get low blacks that I can't do anything with.

Anyway, this is what I came up with. I am sure this is not what you are looking for. I would have liked to see a little more texture in the tree especially. Try another scan with more room to adjust the black and white points in PS.

Gary

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t243/gary2881/misc/8x10-TMY2-Tree-and-Puddle-LFPFJohnathans_zps11f5bdc6.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/gary2881/media/misc/8x10-TMY2-Tree-and-Puddle-LFPFJohnathans_zps11f5bdc6.jpg.html)

I adjusted, Levels, curves, brightness, and a tiny bit of sharpening.

PS please check your messages.

[DennisD]

Try another scan with more room to adjust the black and white points in PS.


Jonathan,

Gary is right about the scan. It should be pretty flat - just make sure you have the detail that you want in the low values and shadows. Leave room for adjustment at both ends of the histogram. Much better to set your black and white points when editing. A flat scan may require a bit more work and adjustment, but I find the results can be really satisfying.

Dennis

[jcoldslabs]

I worked on the scan a bit more today and posted the result in the "Trees" thread. (I didn't include the image here to avoid double posting.) It comes closer to my previsualization of the scene, although I still think it could be improved. I prefer it cropped horizontally; I should have shot it that way in the first place.

My thanks to Glen for his interpretation. It is always very instructive to see a version drastically different from one's own.

Jonathan