DSLR Photography Forum

I should have posted these in the Showcase but I didn't want you getting the wrong idea.

These are fresh off the press but the raws were taken last year.
My "workflow" invariably was as follows:

They were all taken with the Canon 70-200mm f4 L(IS) using the IS.
The portrait and flower shots were taken wide open at f4, the building at around f8...the "normal" aperture one would use for such shots I guess.
They were all taken with a basic "focus-recompose technique: I have one button assigned via custom function to centre-point AF, the shutter button locking the exposure length with a half-press. I thus focus with the right thumb, then meter/compose with the shutter button.
I'm in aperture priority pretty much always for this, always shooting raw.
Conversion was to a "straight" colour tif(16-bit) for all, then boosting the saturation a tad. I've got a feel for the monochrome tones I'm aiming for, so adjust saturation, etc,. by feel.
The Clever Bit(?): I duplicate the image as another layer. I then apply a combination of Smart Sharpen and selective blur(the latter with a large soft brush) onto the duplicate layers...but THEN use the eraser tool to remove unwanted areas. The point and method at which I convert to mono depends on what feel I'm after.
For example, the portrait:
Firstly, remember I NEVER use flash as I've always been too lazy to learn or buy one...see that this a contrejour shot yet still with catchlights in the eyes: I dodged/burned around the eyes and face, to whiten the eyes and skin, burning in pupils and eyelashes so as to get a pleasing contrast. I Smart Sharpened the whole layer, erasing all but the eyes: result: sharper eyes.
I did similarly to get blur: blurred a whole duplicate layer, removing the blur from any areas in which I wished to retain sharpness

These last 2 points are by no means labour-intensive or difficult. Moreover, the gains in terms of tonal dynamics are well worth it, as they maximise the tonailty available to any lens: have you ever wondered why some folks have really expensive kit yet still manage to get their work to look mediocre? That'll be refusal to optimise their chances by getting control of post-processing. Of course, some people give up before they start, choosing to remain stuck in mediocrity whilst telling themselves it's their "style".

Anyway, here are the shots.
By all means feel free to ask for more in-depth info on any of them and their pp; I'll try and be as detailed as I can.

This is a very clever technique, Zig. I'm not a big flowers type of guy, but I can clearly see how #2 is greatly improved - and I like it a lot. #4 has a depth of field that would be almost impossible to obtain otherwise. I have done this technique on selections of the frame , but not by duplicating the layer and erasing the other bits.

Always a treat to read your processing hints.

Toad! Man I'm impressed that you're squeezing ST in between Chiantis!
Just wanted to hone up a bit for all on the portrait in #4, as obviously I've not created an impression of a depth of field that wasn't there in the first place(and I know Toad's not implying that). I'm not attempting to preach to the converted here but an obvious effect of shooting at wide apertures is that the "bokeh" effect increases the closer one is to the subject. In other words, depth of field decreases at a given aperture the closer one is. That is why, for instance, macros can "go" up to f32, say, as depth of field becomes a real issue at such close distances.
In the portrait therefore, I was approaching minimum focus distance so as to blur anything that was not the eyeballs. I was aware I had to shift and refocus a couple of times in any case, as the lens had bitten on the mask or even the eyelashes.
I'm also aware that in pp, when one applies any sharpening...it sharpens! So, unless one is careful, if one progressively sharpens, one can find that some of the better softening effects of depth of field can be slowly eroded as the sharpening algorithms take hold.
So, by limiting the sharpening to the those bits you wished to focus on, makes logical sense...and we're as such talking about using pp to retain all the goodness that you put in at the front end.
This I suppose can be thought of as merely using one's software to be an obedient servant, rather than finding oneself and one's shots enslaved to a software that takes inappropriate control if you allow it.
Which is why "product knowledge" is about the photographer fully claiming their photographic freedom, after all...which we all want, right?
By adding the merest tad of softening to the things that are already soft, allowing sharpening to those things that are already sharp...all we've done is retained the very thing we initially did by taking a good shot. And it makes more satisfying sense not to have to wrestle against things to try and make a shot "go", which again I'm sure we've all done!
Now, I reckon that good pp makes a difference, then. A successful image(hopefully #4 is one) is the one that can draw comments such as, "oh, that's a particularly good example of that lens":
The pp has not altered or improved the basic "drawing" quality of the lens...it is for me a "Canon" image and not, say, a Zeiss/Leica one...but it has both drawn out and accentuated(if successful) the best of what the lens can do.
And the final point: I did this particular workflow just for web output. I generally make 2 copies halfway through the pp process: I'll find that some different adjustments of sharpen, blur, even contrast, are needed depending on what size the final output is. Of course, I can always just ignore all this and go 2nd-best...yet I have a feeling that if one is blessed with good tools, it's just a bit illogical to work in a way that dulls their edges.
And the amount of stuff out there I see taken with the best of optics yet achieving mediocre results: sadly a lot of it is submitted within forums of users with the same kit..so that they can end up telling each other what lovely shots they've done, but really offering a "stroke" so their own kit can receive a compliment, choosing to be less than honest(and helpful in terms of offering anything that might help others achieve an excellence that is achievable).
Gladly, the reverse is also out there: there are many examples of people using kit that doesn't cost a fortune yet extracting the most wonderful results. There are folks, it seems, who could pull off a heart-wrencher just by sticking a jamjar over the lens mount of their £70 point and shoot.
So...the whole pp thing(I guess I might have put this in another section maybe) is just about getting the fulness out of one's tools and oneself.

Hi Zig,

Thanks a lot for your post, as always very interesting to read about your pp... What I liked the most is to see how you post processed the OOF or background areas. I have been working on some flower pictures where the OOF background plays an important role in the image. My problem was that every time I manipulate my picture whether I did it to correct exposure or to manipulate the colors, the natural gradients in the bokeh would turn out in a hard line. I really didn't like it. I tried blur the area with lens blur, but the area gets a different noise pattern maybe I didn't get the right settings.

I just learn that using blur Gaussian was the best to rebuild those areas... I agree with you that taking care of details makes a difference in a picture...

Agreed Zig. I hope you didn't feel that my remark implied that you had created a false DOF in #4. Far from it - your enhancement technique is great here.

Not at all my man
Thank you Irma. Usually, I'll just do the sharpening on another duplicated layer...then erase the bits that I don't want to be sharpened. As you rightly say, sharpening can add all sorts of unwanted artefacts to stuff we don't want to sharpen. Personally I only use localised blurring as a last resort, as it easily looks a bit naff.