Post Processing - How to Know When to Stop?

[Richard Lundberg]

While you're mastering all those things that these guys never screw up, you can rescue your previous work with Focus Magic, FM is a deconvolver, which means it assumes a standard blur function and reverses it with an algorithm until it doesn't improve further. It's impossible to get everything exactly right when you're taking opportunistic shots. f/11 at 1/500 is your friend.
Shoot a little wider so you can make a good crop.

[Richard Lundberg]

You can get a tack sharp focus tutorial free from David Peterson's site digital-photo-secrets.com

[suenewbie]

While you're mastering all those things that these guys never screw up, you can rescue your previous work with Focus Magic, FM is a deconvolver, which means it assumes a standard blur function and reverses it with an algorithm until it doesn't improve further. It's impossible to get everything exactly right when you're taking opportunistic shots. f/11 at 1/500 is your friend.
Shoot a little wider so you can make a good crop.

Thanks, Richard - you're very kind. When you say to "shoot wider" do you mean a wider (lower) aperture #, or were you referring to the lens zoom (backing off so I'm not at, say, 300mm, when possible)?

I took a quick look at David Peterson's site, but it wasn't clear to me what happens after you get the free tutorials...are you signing up for a "subscription" or will you begin getting lots of sales pitches to buy other tutorials?

Regarding Focus Magic; if, at the moment, I had to choose between upgrading from View NX2 to Lightroom (without Photoshop - I use the free GIMP) or purchasing the Focus Magic software, which would you advise as the best option? Eventually, I'll get both, but which first?

Thanks,

[Richard Lundberg]

Sorry loose usage I meant leave room for cropping. if you typically use zoom leave a bit more room around the subject so that you can correct composition and rotation. Electronic zoom is not good for max resolution though. I would say Lightroom for the RAW updates and your possible use of its cataloging. I only have the trial Lightroom 5 and haven't used it much. I prefer Lyn for catalog.

[Richard Lundberg]

I am not an evangelist for Focus Magic. It is not intended for fine tuning professional work. it can be used for rescue work on shots of opportunity, family heirlooms , images otherwise interesting shot by amateurs, the like. One example is a picture of my wife's father riding a garden tractor pulling a small wagonload of hay, which was out of focus and color casted. It was taken by someone unknown . Her sister found it in a pile of old stuff and gave it to us. I was able to scan it and make it quite presentable using PS and FM. That's what Focus Magic is for. I wish I could find the before and after but it would take me an hour or so and I don't have time today.
Regarding the FM algorithm itself, I'm sure it's proprietary, not FFT, and contains some typical coder shortcuts that are not rigorous, but it it's close enough for defense work, as we used to say. If CS6 can use an FFT for antishake, it can be used for several other things also. It would be a shame to waste the processing resources on just that. I've seen FFT image processing apps on line, but they weren't ready for prime time. I hope the FM people will continue to work on their product, they do Windows first and Mac when they have time. The mac ver of 4.0 lagged by more than a year.

[Colin Southern]

Regarding Focus Magic; if, at the moment, I had to choose between upgrading from View NX2 to Lightroom (without Photoshop - I use the free GIMP) or purchasing the Focus Magic software, which would you advise as the best option? Eventually, I'll get both, but which first?

Thanks,

Hi Sue,

I don't want to unduly belabor what has become somewhat of a "warm" topic, but if you find you're needing programs to assist with improving the "focus" of your images on a regular basis then something is seriously wrong "further up the chain" (either in the initial capture or the subsequent sharpening workflow).

I'm pretty sure I speak for 99.99% of photographers when I say that you'll improve your photography by orders of magnitude by addressing the underlying problem, not by trying to compensate using software.

I'm deeply concerned that you may be considering the wrong approach to this.

[suenewbie]

Hi Sue,

I don't want to unduly belabor what has become somewhat of a "warm" topic, but if you find you're needing programs to assist with improving the "focus" of your images on a regular basis then something is seriously wrong "further up the chain" (either in the initial capture or the subsequent sharpening workflow).

I'm pretty sure I speak for 99.99% of photographers when I say that you'll improve your photography by orders of magnitude by addressing the underlying problem, not by trying to compensate using software.

I'm deeply concerned that you may be considering the wrong approach to this.

Thanks for your concern, Colin, I appreciate it a lot! But be assured that my primary goal is to TAKE better pictures, not MAKE better pictures. However, being a beginner, I have a long way to go to reach that goal. Still, along the way if some are meaningful to me, I'd rather be able to salvage them rather than toss them.

[Richard Lundberg]

Exactly my point, suenewbie. I've saved some otherwise poor film images from long ago and others of unknown origin for my own pleasure and for family archives, whether anyone else ever sees them or not.

[dabhand]

Thanks for your concern, Colin, I appreciate it a lot! But be assured that my primary goal is to TAKE better pictures, not MAKE better pictures. However, being a beginner, I have a long way to go to reach that goal. Still, along the way if some are meaningful to me, I'd rather be able to salvage them rather than toss them.

Stick with it Sue - for many, me included, reaching a point where you are capable of perfection straight out of the camera (SOOC) is a long road to tread, but whilst making that journey (or even after in fact) I totally agree with Richard, no reason on earth why you should toss any 'sub-standard' images which have a special meaning to yourself.

[Brev00]

Sue,
I just noticed your response so sorry about the delay. How much or little you can do with post processing depends upon your software. If you like the overall saturation and color of an image but are not happy with how that effects certain areas, you are limited not because of your eye or judgment but because your software does not give you the option of selecting parts or colors. You must work within the framework of what is possible until you find a more flexible system. Until then, you are going to find out what kind of global effects result from different settings. In this case, reducing brightness and increasing contrast have a definite push on the colors. Deeper and more vibrant. People tend to like that. Look how many polarizers are sold which have a main effect of making light blue skies darker and bolder. After using one for a while, I realized I prefer my skies lighter--in general. More natural, one could say. When I reduce brightness and/or boost contrast, certain colors can change in a pleasant way one likes while certain others may get too loud and unnatural in a way that grates. When that happens to me, I will often pull back on the slider until the colors return to where I want them. In this instance, too little pp may produce an overall more appealing image. Yes, the overall color sense will not have the same jump, but those specific, 'wrong' colors will feel better. Fewer positives, perhaps, but no negatives. That is why I like certain software systems that allow for changes along specific color channels. That way, you can fine tune an image getting the best of both worlds. Until you decide to get more versatile software, I would probably go under rather than over. Subtle is good. Now, if you look at my flickr stream, you might find evidence to the contrary.

[Texas Dave]

Sue, I have the nikon software you have but I never use it. I do use photoshop though and when I laid your last image over your first I did like the increase saturation but your shadows plugged. Good contrast is cool but I prefer not to increase it to the point you start plugging up the shadows. Anyway, when I'm color correcting images it's nice to have things on layers and to be able to toggle back and fort to the original. I can see exactly what's going on then and it allows be to back up and correct my correction if need be. lol.

[Glenn NK]

In answer to the original question:

With experience comes the knowledge of when to stop - and what to do.

There is no hard and fast answer as it varies with the photographer's intentions and experience. I think attempting to define it might be classified as a fool's game.

[Richard Lundberg]

Suenewbie: After all these hints, tips, critiques, commandments, controversies, apps, and slaps, how are you doing with your images?

[suenewbie]

Suenewbie: After all these hints, tips, critiques, commandments, controversies, apps, and slaps, how are you doing with your images?

Hi, Richard,
I've been away for a bit, but just started in again with a walk on Lido Beach yesterday. I posted some of the results (some with post-processing) on my thread on this forum under photo commentary > Nature and Architecture > Working on BIF Shots. I found myself being somewhat cautious with PP, but as I revisit these photos in a few days (a habit of mine, to see how my impression of the shots and the PP change after being away a bit), we'll see if that changes.

I sure appreciate your (and everyone's) help here. The comments and suggestions keep me thinking, changing, and hopefully, growing.

[Richard Lundberg]

I think you will find valuable tips if you google "photographing birds in flight". The articles I read offered practical advice for a difficult shooting situation. You seem to have the right equipment. Good luck.