Beginner Q: what are the different types of post processing techniques?

[dasikins]

Hi all!

I came across a great little article yesterday regarding the different types of photo effects or post processing techniques yesterday, but can not find it for the life of me!

I am new to photography, but have done photo image editing (for graphic design) for a couple of years. To learn new techniques I will research and read about different styles.

What are the different types of 'styles' out there? Anything mentioned in the top 20 GOOGLE searches I have done my research on (not that I am an expert by ANY means , but yesterday I came across very simple but types of photography such as high and low key. Duh! Why didn't I think of researching those when I was looking at these beautiful black and white photos.

Hope this makes since, if not I will clarify and here are some typical one I know about:

-HDR, Dave Hill techniques, Infrared, B&W, Vintage, Sepia, Split Toning, more of the general ones

Thanks so much! Looking forward to meeting everyone on here.

[xpatUSA]

Hi all!

I came across a great little article yesterday regarding the different types of photo effects or post processing techniques yesterday, but can not find it for the life of me!

Hello @dasikins,

Not wishing to put you off but the question is too broad for a satisfactory answer.

I would recommend you visit the websites of various Photo Editors and look up their features. Then come back to us if there is a specific feature or technique that you need help with.

Here's some, there are many more . .

http://www.gimp.org/

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

http://faststone.org/

http://www.adobe.com/

http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html

cheers,

[pnodrog]

The trouble is because of the technology you can use several different techniques or PP aproaches to achieve a particular style. There are just to many variations to define them in other than a very general way. HDR for instance covers a huge range of approaches and looks.

[Geoff F]

I would start by reading all the tutorials on this site.

Then if you want more, try everything here http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

But some of the methods you mention are rather specialised so I wouldn't get too concerned about them now.

It is probably better to find your own specific area of interest; although a brief knowledge of other options is always handy.

HDR shooting is something that may prove useful for extending the bright to shadow tone range by combining several shots with different exposures. But you do need a tripod and a static scene. And suitable editing software.

I frequently do something similar by converting Raw shot images with different conversion settings. This isn't exactly the same but will allow you to 'extend' a single shot.

Another multiple shot technique involves combining shots with different focus points to increase the area of sharp focus.

B&W does exactly what it says and many people regularly produce monochrome images from colour shots. Basically a very easy technique until you get into extending the tone range and a few other items.

The rest of your suggestions I would leave alone for now.

[Manfred M]

@dasikins - many of the things that you list are photographic techniques; for instance infrared, high-key, low-key and HDR (which is a bit of a composite; where multiple images are assembled in post-production). Sepia and B&W are really just two different monochrome outputs, as is the "vintage" look (whatever that may mean...).

Nicely said, with powerful post-processing software that allows for pixel level manipulation of a image to finish off what was started in-camera.

[dasikins]

Hello @dasikins,

Not wishing to put you off but the question is too broad for a satisfactory answer.

I would recommend you visit the websites of various Photo Editors and look up their features. Then come back to us if there is a specific feature or technique that you need help with.

Here's some, there are many more . .

http://www.gimp.org/

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

http://faststone.org/

http://www.adobe.com/

http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html

cheers,

Thanks! I will look through the ones I haven't already

[dasikins]

The trouble is because of the technology you can use several different techniques or PP aproaches to achieve a particular style. There are just to many variations to define them in other than a very general way. HDR for instance covers a huge range of approaches and looks.

Yah I figured it was going to be too broad. I will just post a link or image specifically next time when I come across something and get stuck. Thanks!

[drjuice]

Hi, dasilkins -

Just for grins, I went through my favorite image editor (not mentioned in the list above) and looked ONLY at what is called special effects, for example, making an impressionist image out of a flower that I photographed as a "normal" flower would be photographed. I had 117 different effects. My 117 effects doesn't count things like cropping, rotating, etc., which I refer to as physical manipulation of an image because I'm actually changing the size of the image, its physical orientation, etc.

Hope this helps.

virginia

[pnodrog]

Hi, dasilkins -

Just for grins, I went through my favorite image editor (not mentioned in the list above) and looked ONLY at what is called special effects, for example, making an impressionist image out of a flower that I photographed as a "normal" flower would be photographed. I had 117 different effects. My 117 effects doesn't count things like cropping, rotating, etc., which I refer to as physical manipulation of an image because I'm actually changing the size of the image, its physical orientation, etc.

Hope this helps.

virginia

I am sure it helps by pointing out some of the limitless possibilities that make photography such a confusing and rewarding art... is it an art? I think so.

[William W]

I am new to photography, but have done photo image editing (for graphic design) for a couple of years. To learn new techniques I will research and read about different styles.

As well as researching Post Production Techniques, I suggest that you dedicate some time to learn the Photography side of the process too: as doing so and nailing the Photography with expertise will make the Post Production so much more easy for you.

WW

[davidedric]

Of the list xpatUSA provided, I would stay away from PWP (Picture Window Pro). Not that it is a bad product, I used it for a number of years when it was way ahead of PSE for a similar price. However, I am sure you would be better with one of the more mainstream products. (For those with long memories, PWP was originally written by the same chap who coded the Lotus123 spreadsheet)

Davce

[ajohnw]

As it has evolved I am increasingly impressed with rawtherapee. People complain about a slow complicated work flow but in real terms that relates to certain instant gratification feature in other software. Add the GIMP and local retouching becomes available along with a large number of other things. The GIMP will also do what rawtherapee can do but in many ways it's harder to use at that level. When installing rawtherapee it's best to read the manual as other software can be installed as well. It and the GIMP are available for all of the normal platforms and are free.

The best of the lot in my view is Fotoxx but it's only available for Linux. Most of the things any one would want to do to a photo can be done with it without the complication of having to use layers. If layers are a must in comes the GIMP again. If some one wants to see what sort of things can be done in PP with most packages one way or another there are a series of Fotoxx video's. There are plenty of GIMP instructional video's on youtube too. Fotoxx currently has a bit of a problem making small adjustments to brightness at the moment in my view so I'm trying to persuade the authors to do something about it - nice thing about open source they may well do. If not I suspect I will be using rawtherapee 1st. Part of the fun of using open source software. Sometimes changes cause problems but generally they sort themselves out rapidly and there are always alternative even sticking with an earlier version.

Other packages that people find of interest are Lightzone and Darktable. Also Paintshop Pro but I have no idea where that has gone these days. There are a number of Lightzone tutorial video's about. Another is Photivo but in some ways that is completely different to others. It too relies on the GIMP for local retouching. It's very feature rich and perhaps a bit ponderous.

John
-

[lukaswerth]

I by and large second the statement about rawtherapee, and I think it's a good way to learn raw development. I saw today they have a new version out, might be worth a try. It lacks for me, however, a few features which I find more user-friendly in ACR: highlight reconstruction is more straightforward, and while the sharpening tools in RT are very impressive at first, specially deconvolution sharpening, it tends to produce an ugly hatch pattern particularly in underexposed/shadow areas.

Lukas

[dasikins]

As well as researching Post Production Techniques, I suggest that you dedicate some time to learn the Photography side of the process too: as doing so and nailing the Photography with expertise will make the Post Production so much more easy for you.

WW

Yes of course!

[dasikins]

Hi, dasilkins -

Just for grins, I went through my favorite image editor (not mentioned in the list above) and looked ONLY at what is called special effects, for example, making an impressionist image out of a flower that I photographed as a "normal" flower would be photographed. I had 117 different effects. My 117 effects doesn't count things like cropping, rotating, etc., which I refer to as physical manipulation of an image because I'm actually changing the size of the image, its physical orientation, etc.

Hope this helps.

virginia

Hey thanks Virginia!

[Richard Lundberg]

Rawtherapee and other Linux apps are way too geeky for a novice. I run Ubuntu in Fusion and have some of the Linux image editors. The Rawtherapee Mac version is difficult to navigate.
Many raw IEs actually are draw inside, I think GIMP is one of them.

[ajohnw]

Rawtherapee and other Linux apps are way too geeky for a novice. I run Ubuntu in Fusion and have some of the Linux image editors. The Rawtherapee Mac version is difficult to navigate.
Many raw IEs actually are draw inside, I think GIMP is one of them.

What you actually mean is dcraw which is purely a raw conversion utility and nothing much else. If you actually want to know what it can do search man dcraw or look here

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutori...w/index_en.htm

In no way what so ever is it an image editor. Few people use it directly unless there is a need eg obtaining pixel values before the debayering process. More often people use Ufraw. That simplifies dcraw by providing a graphical user interface for it but can not make use of a number of facilities it has. It just concerns itself with generating jpg's and tiff's from raw files.along with the usual controls people would expect in a raw conversion package.

The GIMP has no facilities for handling raw files. It's purely an image editor. Ufraw is intended to handle that aspect and even has a button to export conversions to the GIMP.

Ufraw also performs as a library function. That's a little like dll's in windows. It isn't clear if Rawtherapee even uses it however the conversion code that it uses may well be based on it. Rawtherapee is a complete image editor with raw processing built in. directly along with controls in that area that are easier to use than the ones in Ufraw. In other respects Rawtherapee offers the range of controls most people would expect in an image editor and one or two others. LAB adjustments for instance but they don't have to be used. What it does lack is local retouching such as cloning, dodging and burning etc. That currently is left for the GIMP.

Fotoxx is an attempt to put the lot in one package and does that rather well and also presents all of the usual adjustments in a very understandable fashion. It will do many things that normally require the use of layers. This one does make use of either dcraw or ufraw. Currently I feel that brightness, contrast and saturation adjustments by r,g or b or all have gone a little astray as the previous straight horizontal line which ran across amd corresponded to tone level adjusted is now a tone curve currently called gamma but the name at least is due to change. It also uses 32bit floating point colour which has advantages when adjustments are being made. No info is lost so any adjustment can be reversed. This package will do a whole host of things. Best look at it's web page and watch the videos. I think rawtherapee also uses 32bit floating point. All package will one day.

Rawtherapee geeky - there is some instant gratification even with raw conversion and also auto levels but instant gratification will only get people so far. Tone curves start flat and can be left like that or altered. Sharpening and tone mapping and various types of contrast adjustment all have sensible default values but again these will only get people so far. Pass on the Mac version but I would be surprised if the tab layout was any different to other versions. The 1st is concerned with raw conversion or that type of mod to jpg's or tiff's. It also has a range of LAB adjustments on this tab as well. The 2nd tab is devoted to restoration - sharpening etc. The 3rd colour aspects. The 4th cropping and lens corrections. The 5th raw preprocessing and last but not least the 6th exif data. I doubt if anyone could come up with an arrangement that suited everybody. Maybe spot white balance should be some where else but it's also at the top of it's window. It can also work in batch mode with predefined adjustment files. Adjustment files can also be saved along with the image so that the same settings are loaded with an image or a neutral setting can be selected setting everything to defaults. It has before and after views and also what seems to be any number of detail windows that can be for instance at 100% while the main view shows the entire image or even before after views.

I was amazed by what rawtherapees noise reduction could do but I did seek guidance on the web before using it. I used advice from a web page and only used 2 of the sliders. More recently I have used 3. I posted a shot taken at ISO 25600 through it and some appeared to think I had cheated. I am using the latest verion,

LAB adjustments are a strange area. Brightness is separated from colour allowing particular colours to manipulated in the same way that human vision responds when colour is brightened. Rawtherapee is the only understandable implementation of this that I am aware of. PS users are often warned to stay away from it.

It's a fact I'm afraid that PP takes some time to master. In some ways instant gratification doesn't help with that process. I watched an instance of this recently concerning PS and tone mapping. Instant gratification produces one thing and taking control of it for oneself was far more powerful. Tone mapped images don't have to look like flat cartoon images. Looks like rawtherapee can do that if needed. Don't think Fotoxx can as it's applied according to local contrast levels. The amount at a given contrast level is adjustable. It also throws in stacking, hdr, panoramas and paint out moving objects from 2 merged images. Also saving and pasting in selections etc. Some feel that the interface is dated but as it offers rather a lot it allows it to do that without using a lot of screen space. Adjustments usually come up as separate dockable windows. These can be resized as desired which is ideal as most of the adjustments are curve based. This is why the GIMP is arranged like this as well but it can be made to look PS like.

John
-

[Richard Lundberg]

Sorry, John, I tried to fix my draw typo twice, see I did it again, I just can't put the c in there. I'll bet I've done this a dozen times. Appreciate your in depth remarks. Most people I think will find open source apps to be too difficult. RawTherapee for Mac doesn't find your raw files directly, you have to do some additional searching. I like ACDSee Pro 3 on the Mac, but I actually do almost all my raw in ACR 6.7 in PSCS5. PSE 11 has the limited version of ACR 7.4 so I could use that if needed.