# What can i do to improve?



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

Here is a picture i took:




Original:






Lightroom edit:






My question is: what can i do to improve upon my editing skills or lack thereof according to your perception?


----------



## Designer (Jan 4, 2014)

I see very little difference between the two, and in fact, I like your original better.  

As for editing advice, I have none at this time.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 4, 2014)

To me, this is a snapshot.  You really need to isolate the subject from the background.  I find myself easily focusing on the person in the background, rather than the one in focus.  

Jake


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

Designer said:


> I see very little difference between the two, and in fact, I like your original better.
> 
> As for editing advice, I have none at this time.



So it is a good image editing wise? Or is there something more you would have done to it?


----------



## Designer (Jan 4, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > I see very little difference between the two, and in fact, I like your original better.
> ...



I am not the one to ask about editing, but I prefer a minimalist approach, in most cases.  I see that you adjusted the colors very slightly, and it looks fine to me.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

Designer said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



That is correct. I edited just about everything ever so slightly, like: contrast, clarity, colors, lens corrections, shadows and more.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2014)

My question is:  What steps did you do to the image, and why do you think it required those steps>


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

Here is the raw file if you'd like to give it a swing: raw

Is there an authority you could point me to regarding raw image editing? Right now i'm just doing things until i think its great.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

480sparky said:


> My question is:  What steps did you do to the image, and why do you think it required those steps>



I just edit it until i like how it looks.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2014)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > My question is:  What steps did you do to the image, and why do you think it required those steps>
> ...



To me, that's not really editing.... it's invoking the Infinite Monkeys Theorem.

In my book, editing an image is the last step in the entire process of creating the image.  That process started back when I picked up the camera.  Once I identified a potential image, I set the camera to capture as much of the vision I saw as possible.  Editing is only necessary to do what the camera was incapable of doing.

So, what did you want to convey with this image?  What did you want to tell us about him?  From there, what steps are needed in post to further expound on your vision?

Yes, most images can be improved with a bit of an S in the curve, a slight increase in contrast, and some sharpening.  But not all.  Editing isn't a cookie-cutter process.  Edit each image on it's own merits and needs.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



I wanted to take some nice pictures for the family, that's all the thought that went into this picture. So i'm not really sure how to respond to that? Is there a real authority on editing? Or is one man's picture as good as the next?


----------



## KmH (Jan 4, 2014)

The major goal is to learn how to do photography and getting it as close to right in the camera as possible.
The major parts of learning to do photography revolve around image composition, light quality and light direction.

Authoritative image editing resources:
Though not an Adobe employee, Jeff Schewe has been routinely involved in the evolution of Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and Lightroom.
The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop
Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5
Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition)

Martin Evening - The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers

Scott Kelby - The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Book for Digital Photographers (Voices That Matter)


Or Jon Canfield, Mark Chen, and Phillip Andrews.

Adobe evangelists - Julieanne Kost, Russel Brown, et al - Products | Photoshop | Adobe TV


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 4, 2014)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



Hamlet, I've sworn off giving C&C, but under the circumstances I will make a slight exception and a quick recommendation.  I think what Sparky is driving at here is that with this particular image you have some composition issues, and as a result the editing becomes something of a moot point.  The second person in the background is too much of a distraction from the main subject of your photo, and as a result the image itself has issues that editing really can't fix.  

On the upside you did a good job with both focus and exposure here - so it is a very nice start and something you should be happy about.  My recommendation would be a little more aware of whats in the background - for example with this photo if you had shifted to your right and rotated a bit you could have gotten the same subject but without the other person in the background.  That would have made this a much, much stronger photo to start with and you would have had something truly edit worthy.

I really hope that helps.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2014)

What I'm saying is to not edit just for editing's sake, pushing sliders back and forth, just to see if it improves the image.

The steps you take in editing an image should be determined as soon as the shutter closes.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

480sparky said:


> What I'm saying is to not edit just for editing's sake, pushing sliders back and forth, just to see if it improves the image.
> 
> The steps you take in editing an image should be determined as soon as the shutter closes.



I get what you're saying, I just don't know how to do it any other way than to edit until i like how it looks. This particular image was taken with the intent of capturing the kids playing in the backyard. To the family this image makes sense and that is fine because it's meant for them. 


My reasoning behind most of my images is to represent reality as accurately as i see it. Its why you barely see any difference in the edited file. Though the saturation is perhaps a bit too strong.


----------



## runnah (Jan 4, 2014)

Like everything you seem to be over thinking it. I edit until I have the picture I want. If that means 5 mins or 5 hours it makes no difference.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

But somehow i'm starting to think that there is no real science behind this. Everyone edits the way they think its supposed to be done, i'll read up on those adobe books and figure something out.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

runnah said:


> Like everything you seem to be over thinking it. I edit until I have the picture I want. If that means 5 mins or 5 hours it makes no difference.



I plead guilty, road blocks just bug the hell out of me. I'll figure it out.


----------



## runnah (Jan 4, 2014)

hamlet said:


> But somehow i'm starting to think that there is no real science behind this. Everyone edits the way they think its supposed to be done, i'll read up on those adobe books and figure something out.



No science at all.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 4, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Is there an authority you could point me to regarding raw image editing? Right now i'm just doing things until i think its great.



 That's not far from right. But here's an authority:  Rudolf Arnheim (1904-2007) was a perceptual psychologist, and wrote the classic text on the subject, "Art and Visual Perception" (originally in 1954, and revised in 1794).  That is certainly an interesting book, but more to your point might be an essay you can find online at www.kenb.ca/z-aakkozzll/pdf/arnheim.pdf written in 1971 titled "Entropy and Art". It's not an easy read, but it is well worth the effort.

Here is a quote from the Introduction in "Entropy and Art":

"When nothing superfluous is included and nothing indispensable left out, one can
understand the interrelation of the whole and its parts, as well as the hierarchic scale of
importance and power by which some structural features are dominant, others subordinate."

 What your purpose in editing a image should be is the adjustment of that "hierarchic scale of importance and power".  You do not want to remove anything indispensable, but you do want to eliminate what is superfluous.  Of course to do that requires that you, as the creative artist, decide just exactly what the photograph is suposed to communicate to a viewer.  Only then can you decide on what editing will have the affects of adjusting the "interrelation of the whole and its parts" to be the most effective way of visually communicating your intent to a viewer.

And there are reasonable differences in what you or the next person might decide the appropriate message is!  It is clear from coments here that there are at least two basic potential images.  Some might well want an individual portrait, and for that purpose much of the background is just wasted distraction!  Crop it, blur it, clone it...  but reduce or remove it as much as possible.   

On the other hand, some people see the potential for an environmental photograph, or even a bit of Street Photography.  A Street shot doesn't use the person as the subject, but rather as an object that helps to describe the subject.  The subject is the relationship between people and their surroundings.   That means those background objects are just as important as the center object!  How close in importance you want them is a matter of taste and style.  Blur them a little more to push them down in dominance, sharpen them up a bit to increase their importance.  (For most Street photographers, that would mean reshooting that shot, to get more DOF and a significantly sharper background; but that isn't necessarily the only way to see it.)

Hence, perhaps for your purposes right now, the steps are actually fairly obvious (though not "easy").  Decide what you want an image to communicate to a viewer, and then systematically remove distractions and add clarity to symbols that produce the strongest visual sense of your message.  Perhaps you might start by deciding what is the biggest distraction, and correcting that. Then, or perhaps first, deciding what symbals are important and how each can be enhanced.

It isn't really far from you "doing things until I think it's great", but selection of "things" has to be organized!


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

runnah said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > But somehow i'm starting to think that there is no real science behind this. Everyone edits the way they think its supposed to be done, i'll read up on those adobe books and figure something out.
> ...


----------



## KmH (Jan 4, 2014)

It's art, but there are some generally accepted things that need to be done to just about every digital photograph made.
Like setting the white point, the black point, the gray point, color correction, sharpening, mitigating geometrical lens distortion, dodging and burning to help guide the viewers eye, etc..

Some edits are dine globally - equally to the entire image - or only done locally in part of an image.
If you make a photo so it has a shallow DoF and a very blurred background, it doesn't make much sense to then globally sharpen the entire photo.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 4, 2014)

A few bits of advice: make haste slowly.

PICK the best frames to work on, carefully. And not immediately after making the exposures. Do not sit down and post-process 150 consecutive shots--that's usually a waste of effort and energy. DO not edit an entire day's worth of photos in one,single marathon session.

Often times, a lengthy editing session yields mixed results; edit,edit,edit and then come back a week later and you can easily review the edits you made in the earlier session, and say to yourself, "What the HELL was I thinking on that white balance!" or something similar. Really, and I mean REALLY settling on the "best" way to edit a specific, worthwhile image, is often not a one-session type of deal.

This shot of the boy with the funny hat, and the boy behind him competing terribly for attention...there's a lot of stuff going on...the kid in the background holds NO interest to me, as a disinterested third party. He is but a distraction to me; perhaps he's a nephew of yours, perhaps a pupil, or a friend's son...whatever--that shot is not worth much more than what you did...a quick, perfunctory adjustment of a handful of minor adjustments.


----------



## runnah (Jan 4, 2014)

KmH said:


> It's art, but there are some generally accepted things that need to be done to just about every digital photograph made. Like setting the white point, the black point, the gray point, color correction, sharpening, mitigating geometrical lens distortion, dodging and burning to help guide the viewers eye, etc..  Some edits are dine globally - equally to the entire image - or only done locally in part of an image. If you make a photo so it has a shallow DoF and a very blurred background, it doesn't make much sense to then globally sharpen the entire photo.



Even that is subjective.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

KmH said:


> It's art, but there are some generally accepted things that need to be done to just about every digital photograph made.
> Like setting the white point, the black point, the gray point, color correction, sharpening, mitigating geometrical lens distortion, dodging and burning to help guide the viewers eye, etc..
> 
> Some edits are dine globally - equally to the entire image - or only done locally in part of an image.
> If you make a photo so it has a shallow DoF and a very blurred background, it doesn't make much sense to then globally sharpen the entire photo.



I'm not sure if it's even possible to selectively sharpen an image in lightroom. All i can do is do are global adjustments and maybe paint with light and add digital filters, that's as far as my expiernce goes.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2014)

hamlet said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > It's art, but there are some generally accepted things that need to be done to just about every digital photograph made.
> ...


Sure it is.  I haven't used LR in a few years, but even then you could do it.  Not sure how much it's changed since I last used it, but back then, the adjustment brush would be the tool you want.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



Well thanks.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2014)

The adjustment brush, when I last used LR, could do basically all of the global edits, but selectively with a brush.  Anything you could apply globally could be applied with the brush.

I think 2.4 was the last version I used...  I went 100% Linux about the same time the next update came out.

edit
I also began shooting a lot less digital about that time, making LR less relevant.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> The adjustment brush, when I last used LR, could do basically all of the global edits, but selectively with a brush.  Anything you could apply globally could be applied with the brush.
> 
> I think 2.4 was the last version I used...  I went 100% Linux about the same time the next update came out.



Was lightroom limiting you in some way?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Was lightroom limiting you in some way?


Not even close.  I loved LR.

I just made two separate changes that combined made LR unnecessary.

I switched over completely to Linux (I was dual-booting for a long time), and I switched primarily to film.  Both at roughly the same time.  Just prior to that the next update to LR came out, and I was trying to decide if it was worth upgrading.  I ended up saying **** it and ditched Windows forever.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 4, 2014)

You most certainly can with Lightroom. (selective sharpening).

This may help.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/getting-s...troom-5-enhancing-isolated-areas-of-an-image/  you might take advantage of all her other videos while you are at it.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

Yes, you can sharpen it selectively, but there seems to be no selective masking option.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Yes, you can sharpen it selectively, but there seems to be no selective masking option.


If you're applying it with a brush, there isn't really much need to mask anything off, IMO.  Just don't brush the parts you don't want the effect applied to...

edit
Nevermind.  I think I see what you meant.  The opposite of the brush, basically.  Globally edit everything BUT 'this'.

Yeah, last time I used it, that was not possible.
(Not sure if that is still the case or not.)


----------



## hamlet (Jan 4, 2014)

I think that global masking will work on a selectively sharpened image. The unsharp parts don't really matter anyway and it will not be noticeable.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 4, 2014)

This one works well too.  Lightroom 5 - Radial Filter | What?s New in Lightroom 5 | Adobe TV


----------



## lanyemichelle (Jan 7, 2014)

Here's the quick and dirty version of what I would do. This doesn't make the composition better, but it does help to draw the eye to the boy more than the guy in the background. The most distracting thing in the original was the red thing in the background, specifically at the top. 




Before converting from RAW format I brought the white balance temperature more towards yellow to normalize the boy's skin tone a bit. It may be a little too yellow honestly, but again it's the quick and dirty version. Then I brought the darks/shadows down to reduce the under eye shadow, brought the highlights down just a tiny bit to bring a little more balance to the face and keep the chairs in the background from being so glaringly bright, and then opened in photoshop. I used the healing brush to remove the red spots and the scar on the boy's face (this literally took 10 seconds), sharpened the subject and saved for web. 

You could go a lot more advanced with the retouching, but honestly this photo probably isn't one that's really worth the time. It's probably not one you would ever use for marketing and the parents most likely won't order it from you.


----------



## lanyemichelle (Jan 7, 2014)

After seeing it up on the web, I definitely think the skin is probably a tad too yellow, just one or two bumps on the white balance scale...

Oh, and if you wanted to get really picky with it you could select the distracting red part at the top and bring the saturation down. You can also select the part of the boy's face that is in shadow and bring the brightness up a bit on the RGB curve. I'm not super familiar with lightroom but it's fairly simple in photoshop.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 7, 2014)

Thank you, that is really the type of advice i was looking for. I'm glad some good came out of this thread after all and thanks again to the other few who also contributed, my editing skills will certainly only improve after this.


----------



## lanyemichelle (Jan 7, 2014)

I spend way too much time playing with photoshop. It doesn't fix certain things, but in a pinch its great. Let me know if you need anything!


----------



## hamlet (Jan 7, 2014)

That is a pretty big part of photography, people forget that photography doesn't stop when you've taken the  picture, it's why people complain about my composition when it wasn't  really my question however justified they were in pointing it out. This was just a random snapshot i took that had different enough colours and things in it so i could dissect as much information out of it as i could.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 7, 2014)

hamlet said:


> That is a pretty big part of photography, people forget that photography doesn't stop when you've taken the  picture, it's why people complain about my composition when it wasn't  really my question however justified they were in pointing it out. This was just a random snapshot i took that had different enough colours and things in it so i could dissect as much information out of it as i could.




Your original question was what can be done to improve on how you've edited the image.  Comments on composition are a very necessary response to that, because composition to a degree can be changed with editing and it certainly affects what editing is necessary.

 My approach to any image starts with how to frame it.  I almost always crop to a 5:4 aspect ratio rather than the camera's 3:2.  I shoot a little wide to start with, full well knowing that will allow very precise framing later when I can view the image full size on a good monitor.  Of course that also requires that first one has to decide exactly what the image is intended to be.  

As I noted in a previous post this shot could be a straight portrait, could be and environmental portrait,  or it could be one of at least a couple different styles of Street Photography.  When I look at it, what I like is the Street angle, but not one of purist "Straight Photography" and instead something that leans back towards an environmental portrait.  So that is the way I crop the framing...  

  I only want background showing the relationship between the central object and the surroundings.  The excess dead space to the left is not needed, and for that matter neither is the detail around the fellow on the left.  The red dress of the girl is grossly distracting and there isn't enough of her there to make it useful.  She gets cloned out.  Then the fellow on the right has to be "adjusted" to be less significant than the fellow on the left in all ways.  We have no choice about that because he is already blurred.  The trick is to make sure that what detail is there is not lost, but that none of it is distracting from the dominance of the right hand guy. Just the right brightness and contrast were needed.  And that brought up an interesting problem because there is a blob of lighter area right on the bridge of his nose that becomes excessively distracting.  Because it is blurred I can't tell if it is something he is wearing or something behind him.  Regardless, it was cloned out.

 The fellow on the left exhibits something not everyone will like, but I happen to favor unequal eyes.  I always try to unbalance them to some degree, and this is a great case.  I left the right eye as it was, but very carefully applied Unsharp Mask to the eye on the left.

 This is the result:


----------

