Understanding photoshop

[mcliffy2]

Thought I'd make a post that was more educational and constructive on this point, because I think many don't understand photoshop, and seem to toss it around like using it on pictures is cop-out or a cheat. So I thought I'd explain the reasons why ALL good photographers (I would not put myself in this category, just aspiring ), use some form of post-processing.

Reef photos almost never have the "real" color without post-processing (and even then, you are basically hoping to get close). Among many who aren't as experienced in photography, there seems to be a misconception that somehow, if you don't edit a photo, it will show the real color. This couldn't be further from the truth. Aquarium lighting is very blue (even 10k is very blue compared to natural light), and this fact is exaggerated when you take photos. For this reason most shoot in RAW and then edit the photos in photoshop to at least adjust the white balance. Without post-processing, the colors are usually much more fake looking. For example, photo #1 is with no post-processing, and photo #2 used post-processing to get the "real" color, see the difference?

No post-processing (other than adding border):



Post processing to bring closer to actual color:



Another point is that photoshop can be used to make actual colors stand out more. By adjusting black levels and contrast ratio, corals can be made to stand out more by de-emphasizing the background. This isn't changing the color of the coral, but rather, displaying the color in a setting where it stands out more. This is a common photographic technique and IMO quite acceptable.

I do think there are some no-nos, like bumping up the saturation and vibrancy to change colors, but honestly, most great pics I see use white balancing and adjustment of black levels/contrast ratio to really show the beautiful colors of corals. And all too often I see those who don't understand the basics of photography referring to pics as "photoshopped" as if this is some sort of derogatory term. Can photoshop be overdone? Certainly. But in most cases where I see this criticism it is not.

Monitors also make a huge difference. I generally edit on my macbook, and when I veiw pics on my 22" lcd at work, they appear much more saturated.

[mpoletti]

Good stuff Mike. The word "photoshop" has such a negative tone to it for most. The world of digital photography is not an easy one, especially when shooting a fish tank. I am just appreciative that people take the time they do to process their photos and share them with the rest of us.

[mcliffy2]

And one other point - getting the color in every part of the photo correct can be difficult at times with different portions of the tank receiving different spectrums of light (I find this especially true with T5). For example, in the second pic above, I'll admit the milli in the background is not THAT pink. But its under a fiji purple bulb, and I was aiming to get the color right on the sunset monti and undata in the foreground, which are under a different spectrum.

Here is a very obvious example that is illustrated by the color of the sandbed. This is a pic of my sunrise/sunset lighting. In the front there is a blue plus and actinic bulb. In the back a fiji purple (which is white w/ touch of pink/purple) and a blue plus. I adjusted white balance to get the back correct (i.e. make the sand white), but this means the front is still a bit blue.

Bottom line, without hours of effort to separately adjust the white balance of different portions of the pic, it will often be out of whack. This is due to the nature of light and the way its captured in photographs, not due to using photoshop.

[Logzor]

To speed things up I recommend shooting in RAW and post-process in ACDsee or Photoshop CS3+.

Shooting in RAW does not compress the image. This gives you maximum flexibility. With a JPG shot it is automatically compressed and you lose valuable information needed to tweak your photos.

I agree, most reef tank shots need post-processing to achieve accurate color. Saying that proper post-processing is wrong is like saying that using the white balance on a camera is wrong.

[HumbleLobster]

Excellent posts mcliffy! What immediately comes to my mind when a picture is said to be "photoshopped" is something like an acan or chalice where the saturation is blown up and you have neon coraline or egg crate so electric it needs a grounding probe. I think that using photoshop to adjust the white balance to better represent the color of a coral or fish is something that most photographers should use.

And as far as monitors go, you couldn't be more correct. Now that everyone is using LCDs, the contrast ratio from screen to screen is vastly different. Up until a few years ago, most serious editors I knew still used a giant CRT since it had a much higher ability to contrast between black and white. With the wide gamut of screens out there, from cheap to expensive, and uncelebrated to calibrated, it’s impossible to have a picture represent the true colors to all people all the time.

Finally, a picture never can represent what we can see with our own eyes. I've seen several corals that have subtle colors or patterns in person that when photographed turn into rather dull pieces. It’s all in the lighting, the camera, the photographer, and finally the post processing. Just wanted to share my thoughts.

[flyyyguy]

I am very much anti photoshop and NEVER post process my pics using photoshop. All of you photoshop guys suck and might as well be straight up liars































































.




but seriously.......I use Lightroom

anybody who isnt real computer literate, nor ever having any experience with photoshop should check lightroom out when they start getting into taking pics and raw files. Its photoshop for the photographer, not the computer guy and is much simpler to use.

[Gondore]

Excellent post mcliffy2. I agree that post-processing is pretty much a must when taking pictures of our aquariums. In most cases I have found this is the only way to get the pictures similar to what you see when viewing the tank in person. However, I also have seen several instances of software such as Photoshop being abused to create dramatic colors that are not realistic. I think HumbleLobster hit it on the head when he mentioned saturation or vibrance modifications that are through roof. This type of processing is what gives "Photoshop" the negative connotation.

[Mchava]

mcliffy2 nice work on explaining what some of us do. Here is an example of what you are talking from some of my pictures I posted yesterday.

icefire before whiteballance


after


German blue before


After

[Mchava]

and one more
Before


After

[ct_vol]

The misnomer extends from those that supersaturate and alter the true coloration, instead of merely sharpening and removing the blue from the lighting... It is also a useful tool in color-correcting overly yellow pictures due to flash... Not to mention removing red-eye...


Mchava~ I really like the last one... Have a name???


EDIT: Damn, I wish my Pink Jade looked as good as yours does...

[Mchava]

that is the pink jade.

[JustinReef]

This interests me because I have a very hard time taking pictures that come out anywhere close to what they should.

I know there is no one answer to this but what settings are you generally taking these pictures with? I know most are shot in RAW but even doing that, I can't get any kind of depth or color to show up in my pictures.

I have a Canon Rebel XT with stock lens which I know isn't the best but I think I should still be able to get some decent pictures.

Any help would be appreciated! Sorry if this is off topic but I see these amazing photos and really would love to be able to take some even half as good!

Thanks.

[Mchava]

JustinReef, here is how I take my shots. I set the camera to M mode(now you can also use AV mode but I like M better). From there I use the cameras metering system to see how bright the light is. ( -2••-1••0••+1••+2 ) I like to keep mine from 0 to -1 and shoot at F7-9. Take a few pictures moving the exposure compensation left or right to get the most amount of light with out overexposing the picture. On to the computer. I use Photoshops Raw conversion/editor to adjust white balance and re size. I use the EyeDroplet tool on the top left menu and select an object that is suppose to be white(sandbed, fragplug or even the lr). If the picture is to dark I use "Fill light" and increase the exposure. Then save as jpeg. That its nothing else, now you do need to take a good picture or nothing will look good. Biggest tip I can give you is to try try and try. Oh and I use a Canon XTi with the cheap stock lens.

[JustinReef]

Originally posted by Mchava
JustinReef, here is how I take my shots. I set the camera to M mode(now you can also use AV mode but I like M better). From there I use the cameras metering system to see how bright the light is. ( -2••-1••0••+1••+2 ) I like to keep mine from 0 to -1 and shoot at F7-9. Take a few pictures moving the exposure compensation left or right to get the most amount of light with out overexposing the picture. On to the computer. I use Photoshops Raw conversion/editor to adjust white balance and re size. I use the EyeDroplet tool on the top left menu and select an object that is suppose to be white(sandbed, fragplug or even the lr). If the picture is to dark I use "Fill light" and increase the exposure. Then save as jpeg. That its nothing else, now you do need to take a good picture or nothing will look good. Biggest tip I can give you is to try try and try. Oh and I use a Canon XTi with the cheap stock lens.

Thanks! This should help a lot. When I am in M mode I can't seem to change from 5.6 to 7 or 9 though. Still have to figure that out. Im kind of slow with this camera

Can't find the manual either

[Mchava]

if that the case then use the AV mode. Much easier then M mode.

[capture]

Nice post. Photoshop is a tool... an amazing, powerful, tool, that many of us will never get to use to its full capabilities. It can, however, be used too much.

I thinks its perfectly fine to correct the color of photos to accurately depict what the subject looks like to you but that can be very subjective. Being a photojournalist, there are times when what you capture in-camera is nothing like what the scene looked like when you took the photo.

At heart, I'm sort of an archivist as well as a photographer, you should see my library of images... I'm at about 85,000. My point being, the photos we take now can and will be a reference in the years to come for future reefers, so the better the depiction, the better off it is in the long run.

I see an abuse of PS when people try to sell things and try to get rich quick. That's when I've seen the flourescent corrline algae and funny looking rocks and such.

Cameras are very specific and minute changes in settings can have many different affects in an image's outcome. Our eyes are just as incredible. They do an amazing job of balancing out light and making sense of what it is we are looking at... unlike a camera. A camera captures the scene as it is, our brains and eyes comprehend a scene to make everything look appealing. mccliffy's different light example show that perfectly.

Sorry for being all over the place... lots of coffee.

[JustinReef]

Originally posted by Mchava
if that the case then use the AV mode. Much easier then M mode.

In AV mode it's much easier for me to adjust the Fstop and get good pictures. They still just don't come out all that great. Need to keep trying I guess.

Thanks for your help!

Oh and another basic question...Photoshops Raw conversion/editor, how do you adjust the whitebalance?

[Mchava]

when you open your raw file photoshop will open a mini program from there all I use is the "white balance tool" in a mac the shortcut key is (I) dont know on a PC. Then I just click on the whites part of the picture I can find. If its to bright it will tell you.

[flyyyguy]

Originally posted by ct_vol


EDIT: Damn, I wish my Pink Jade looked as good as yours does...

you and me both

Im not sure I could intentionally misrepresent mine enough to make it look quite that good

[Denadai]

I think is a good idea to use photoshop if you are trying to reach the real colors that your eye can see, because we know that is not easy to take a good photo

Best Regards

[usfpaul82]

If you open a RAW file in photoshop you should get a RAW editor before you actually open the image in photshop itself. From there you want to use the Temperature slider to adjust to the proper white balance. I do not use the droper on white objest as I find just sliding the temp slider to be much easier. I am using CS4

[JustinReef]

Originally posted by Denadai
I think is a good idea to use photoshop if you are trying to reach the real colors that your eye can see, because we know that is not easy to take a good photo

Best Regards

Then why do you get so upset when people do this?

[Denadai]

Originally posted by JustinReef


Then why do you get so upset when people do this?

I´m not upset

I just did a warning. Even when you use photoshop to try to get the reals colors, you can change a lot and never get close to the real. I saw a lot of people saying WOWWWW to some pics that I know that´s is not the same if you see with your own eyes

I know that because I love to take pictures to compare before and after for example

Later I will post some pictures to describe what I trying to talk about, now I can´t because I´m working

Best Regards

[Denadai]

sorry, double post

[JustinReef]

Originally posted by Denadai
I´m not upset

I just did a warning. Even when you use photoshop to try to get the reals colors, you can change a lot and never get close to the real. I saw a lot of people saying WOWWWW to some pics that I know that´s is not the same if you see with your own eyes

I know that because I love to take pictures to compare before and after for example

Later I will post some pictures to describe what I trying to talk about, now I can´t because I´m working

Best Regards

Ok, fair enough