# Photo touch-up [after effects]



## Arcaned (Jan 21, 2015)

I was just wondering if anyone does edits to their photos before uploading? Iv been messing around in photoshop to try and create some better looking images. They seem to be better than the originals but i'm still not 100% happy with the finish.

If anyone has any tips or help I would be very greatful. I have uploaded an image and look forward to reading the comments.

*Original*






*Photoshopped*


----------



## UrbanX (Jan 21, 2015)

This isn't a photography forum. 

The forum guideline is: 


> We would also prefer it if post-processing of photos is kept to a minimum, overly HDRd or processed photos are not an accurate representation of the building and do nothing to give the viewer an idea of the location. Subtle is ok, overboard is not. Whilst we are aware that this is a devisive point and that HDR images can be considered artistic, we need to draw the line somewhere and will remove reports containing images that look more like CGI than photos. This is after all a website dedicated to documenting buildings, not to show off your artistic work. As a rough guide, the actual subject of the photo needs to be clear and well defined. Low contrast, under exposed and desaturated photos all prevent this. If the photo is about your processing and not the actual subject, then it's not good for here.



Everyone does it differently. I personally like to do as little as possible, so it documents the site as it is. I know some people that spend hours cloning out every bit of graffiti! So I much prefer the untouched shot.


----------



## Mr beady (Jan 21, 2015)

Two pence: much prefer the first one. Other one looks awful with the rando random light bit its distracting. All I'd do with the original is maybe bring the highlights down a tad to bring the sky out


----------



## Arcaned (Jan 21, 2015)

I wasn't planning on doing every photo like this, it would take me forever. It's mainly for the first image in any sites that I visit as a sort of cover photo. I fully agree that it takes away the original effect and wouldn't look as good if all of the photos were done like this. 

Some photos look a little bland so a tad of touching up seems to give them a better appearance. Thanks for the comments and opinions and I will keep the tips in mind for further discoveries.


----------



## Slammer (Jan 21, 2015)

Arcaned said:


> I was just wondering if anyone does edits to their photos before uploading? Iv been messing around in photoshop to try and create some better looking images. They seem to be better than the originals but i'm still not 100% happy with the finish.
> 
> If anyone has any tips or help I would be very greatful. I have uploaded an image and look forward to reading the comments.
> 
> ...



Maaaybeee your touched up picccy is a tad over the top, for me it's too harsh on the HD and the tonal range seems to be shredded, I would take the vibrance down a notch on the original and give a bit in the mid-tone contrast, are you using RAW format or JPG?


----------



## Arcaned (Jan 21, 2015)

They are JPG files. Iv had a play around for a bit and seem to be getting better results now but still slightly OTT. Iv slightly changed the highlights and mid-tones, would something like this be more acceptable?


----------



## krela (Jan 21, 2015)

Filters, just say no. They are to photos what hollyoaks is to drama. 

Good post processing takes as much skill as taking a good photo in the first place, and the phrase "you can't polish a turd" is very true. If you're really interested find a good photography website, follow tutorials and find your own style.


----------



## Arcaned (Jan 22, 2015)

I'm quite new to photography and still got a lot of learning before I will produce cracking photos. I have dabbled with photoshop for years and it has it's uses I suppose. It's easy to grab your phone or camera and take a quick photo but the quality is usually terrible. I try to find the time to read up on different cameras, lenses etc but it's still quite complicated due to light levels etc. I will get the knack of it soon.


----------



## krela (Jan 22, 2015)

Arcaned said:


> I'm quite new to photography and still got a lot of learning before I will produce cracking photos. I have dabbled with photoshop for years and it has it's uses I suppose. It's easy to grab your phone or camera and take a quick photo but the quality is usually terrible. I try to find the time to read up on different cameras, lenses etc but it's still quite complicated due to light levels etc. I will get the knack of it soon.



Of course. Practice, fiddling around and reading tutorials is what is all about and it does take time. 

As far as we're concerned here we don't expect David Bailey quality photos, so long as they're in focus and properly exposed we're happy.


----------



## LittleOz (Jan 22, 2015)

Your latest version is much better. It's all too tempting to go OTT at first. Be gentle with the sliders and don't get overly 'arty' with it and you'll be fine.


----------



## HughieD (Jan 22, 2015)

Prefer the first one too (your second pic on its own is an improvement in terms of post-processing). Like Krela says...say no to filters. I also really hate over-the-top HDR too. Personally all I do is (1) crop as the picture dictates (a really fantastic tool - not all subjects are designed to go into a standard size format) (2) play with the contract - especially on days when the light is very flat (3) sharpen the images. The only other thing is to decide whether a picture you've taken will look better in black and white or colour. For me that's it.

I have to say when I first came on this site the thing that immediately struck me was the incredible standard of photography demonstrated by the forum members.


----------



## Arcaned (Jan 22, 2015)

My photography should improve once I get used to the different shooting modes and what to use in different light levels/weather conditions etc. When I take a few photos and they look blurred or grainy, I just switch to auto and let the camera figure things out. This is when I don't get the outcome I would like so end up using photoshop to bring out the colouring/vividness of the photo. Some photos look great when their dull or in b&w which I don't mind as much in them circumstances. Just amazes me when I see great quality photos on here and I can't get the same results (understand that it's to do with the camera and setup that the other members use).


----------



## UrbanX (Jan 22, 2015)

I'm still astounded by the quality of photography on here. 

Although you'll learn from every site - Strongly backlit staircases will become your new enemy...

My biggest surprise was how slow a lot of exposures are. You're eyes adjust to a dim space and you perceive it to be a lot lighter than it is. 
Some shots on here look like perfect daylight, but could be 30+ second exposures!


----------



## HughieD (Jan 22, 2015)

Yeah...low light photography is the thing you need to get your head round. Interiors of derelict buildings means long exposures means high ASA settings or, better still, a good tripod.


----------



## Steve18021991 (Jan 29, 2015)

Use lightroom, it is a quick easy tool to use.


----------



## nanook (Jan 30, 2015)

When you edit, the original is gone - which is the main problem. Let's face it - we all have Photoshop with a zillion filters if we need to do anything. 

As the great art connoisseur A.Hitler once said " If I see blue grass & green sky, I know the Artist was a madman " or words to that effect.


----------



## krela (Jan 30, 2015)

nanook said:


> When you edit, the original is gone - which is the main problem. Let's face it - we all have Photoshop with a zillion filters if we need to do anything.



No it's not. That's what the "save as" function is for.


----------



## Chopper (Jan 30, 2015)

I personally don't ever edit photo's. Maybe it's because I prefer a natural look. Maybe I own a pretty crap camera and can't be bothered learning how to HDR, etc...


----------

