[Zig]

It may seem a truism to say this perhaps but let us suggest that how one processes a shot after it is taken, determines the final image's success.
You may then justifiably add, that in actual fact it is the combination of aperture, shutter speed, composition, ISO/noise and timing that predetermines all these: that is, if you want a good image coming out the back end, then your best chance is to get the shot right at the front end first. I would even suggest that the resulting end image should be already finished before one clicks the shutter.. adding that the press of the shutter is itself a final act of commitment. In other words, the final hard image is or should be exactly the same image that one has in one's mind's eye after looking through the viewfinder.
I stress at this point that this is my own way of working: sauce for the goose may not be sauce for the gander, this I appreciate. However, I still am of the opinion that if one "sees" the final image's potential as early on in the process as possible, then one maximises one's chances of turning that mechanical capture into as close a version as possible of one's initial "inner vision". After all, was it not Michelangelo who said that each of his sculptures already resided in the block of cold marble in front of him, and that all he did was to remove everything else in order to liberate it?
That said, of course, it is clear that how one manipulates the image between its gestation and birth, can drastically alter both the final image and what one wishes to say/suggest/symbolise to one's audience...indeed, it can decide both the nature and the presence(or otherwise) of that audience.
Sometimes I work right through from shutter to pp, ensuring the final image is merely an externalisation of the one in my head; sometimes I change this during pp. The point is, having a working knowledge of both, maximises my chances of the final shot being a purposefully- crafted good'un

I'll illustrate by a simple example, showing you one shot treated in 2 sets of ways, leaving you to decide if the 2 treatments of the same image say 2 differing final things..and if they are successful in doing so:
All the images below are treatments of the one exposure. The shot was taken, handheld, late on in an extremely cold midwinter afternoon, with slightly diffuse light behind the cloud cover temporarily just about admitting a touch of weak December sun. EXIF= Canon 50mm f1.4 at f6.3, 1/40s at ISO 200.
These are the "base" shot, representative of the conversion of the Raw file to 95MB tiff(16bit/channel, RGB).
Note the exposure favouring the sky: I have already decided to dodge in the highlights of the foreground locally later on, aiming by the time I press the shutter to have all prerequisites covered: chosen depth of field, focal plane(area in focus), point of focus, composition, retention of sky, foreground and main subject detail. Had I exposed more "correctly", some sky texture and several patches of white frost would have been "blown".
Photographers with digital savvy could advise me here to expose for highlights, given that the sensor will retain more detail in the highlights than in the shadows. True..but yet I am familar with the dynamic range and texture(noise: albeit very "emulsion-like" on the 1Ds MkII) of my sensor; my low-contrast conversion will be fine given what I already intend to do later.



Note the effect of 2 differing parameters of white balance: there is a variation in colour temperature of about 1000 degrees: the first is "warmer", the second cooler. You might decide the first is less "pure", with more of a colour caste: indeed, in filtration terms it adds about what an 81C warm-up filter would. However, though the second image is more "realistic", the amount of blues will cause me problems later on if I dodge and burn..and I had already made the decision to do both whilst framing the shot: the blues would darken considerably with burning..whilst any golden hue from the first image will become pale amber upon dodging the lighlights, thus intensifying any suggestion of late afternoon glow. If I were to proceed with the cooler-temperature conversion, the dodge/burn process will cool the flora down to the point of unattractiveness. True, the sky would be burned in more blue..but the burn tool will darken the blues anyway, also contrasting nicely with any cloud texture.

So, I proceeded with the "warmer", more attractive 1st conversion.
First I dodge: a large, soft brush; set to "highlights" with opacity slider at 3%. I have purposefully exaggerated the effect here so as to illustrate, but the idea is the same:

Notice that dodging alone can render things too pale...therefore I choose the burn tool by R-clicking on the same box as the dodge/sponge options in the tool palette. Remembering to change the dialogue to "shadows", I find a similar value of around 3% allows one to have a degree of control, keeping the speed of change manageable. See how this renders some of the foliage pleasingly silhouetted:

You can also see the added side-effects: an increase of saturation along with a shift in hue: I generally nip in and out of the saturation/hue menu, reducing as and when things become too lurid. I might also adjust overall contrast/brightness, doing such adjustments on a duplicate layer, then varying the amount of opacity before flattening the image again in the layers menu.

Finally and after much care, enough is enough: I've adjusted saturation and contrast, set my white point as any bit of 100% white snow, then added a tad of smart sharpen at whatever output size is appropriate: for the web, I adjust my longest side to 780 pixels, saving as a level 9 jpeg.

The finished product then:



As you can see, the final image is crisp and with a healthy colour; it has the boosted tones and augmented colour temperature suggesting a degree of warmth and engagement. It is a purposefully vibrant, bracing image, giving clear-ish vistas along which to draw the eye and the sense of a bejewelled winter walk and exploration in the clear air.

However, let us see how a few tweaks along the processing journey, can change the feel of the shot and suggest a different pace and quality of engagement.
Exactly the same shot and conversion to the same low-contrast tiff...but now this is the end result:



It almost looks like a time-lapse shot: the frost now appears to be snow...and newly-fallen snow at that, given the soft and fluffy texture; there is even a suggestion of a mist or of the end flurries of a silent fall of blanketing snow. Visibility now seems to have closed in, giving the scene an overlay of hidden mystery, almost inviting a different, more childlike, quality of engagement. The pace of our walk, if we were to pick our way through the seemingly fresh snow, would be slow and measured: whereas the first version of the image has a feeling of crsip vitality, this one has almost a sense of quiet hibernation.
One shot, suggesting 2 quite different ones at different times: here's how:
Firstly, the saturation is pulled way down: it's not far off monochrome.
Secondly, you can use the sepia filter in the photo filter menu, duplicating the image as another layer and merely varying the opacity to suit.
Thirdly, working on duplicate layers, you can add some gaussian blur: I also made another duplicate layer, smart-sharpening, then erasing all the detail apart from the building, thus increasing the sense of bokeh in the flora relative to the building.
Fourthly(and only if converted to 8-bit...in CS2, that is, which is what I still use), duplicate the image as another layer, then add some diffuse glow: once it's back as a layer, adjust the opacity slider of the layer to suit. Be careful not to totally whiten out the sky as you sow the illusion of reduced visibility here: you can of course use the eraser brush set to an opacity of 10% or so, thus retaining some texture in the background(your original image). Finally, you'll notice the overall contrast is lower than in the crisp, vibrant "original" above, contributing to the image's apparent softness.
The camera never lies, as they say: indeed, how can it, if it is only one collection of processes between what you see before the shot and what you see at final output. Surely, the start image in your head and the final output can be identical...it's just that the more control you have over all the pp mechanisms, the more leeway you have to develop and even transform the image as you go.

[matthew]

There's a lot here that's worth serious and extended discussion. I'm on the verge of my annual holiday shutdown, but I'll have something to contribute when I get back. So sorry for the delay in my responses, and thanks for putting the time into starting this discussion.

[Toad]

I dunno, Zig. I find myself in opposition to your assertion that a picture has to be visualized before the shutter click and that processing is only in support of that pre-determined vision. That may be your process but it is not mine. The camera is a tool - nothing more. There is no *correct* way to use it - just like there is no correct way to use a pencil. This is a great tutorial - but I can't reconcile it philosophically with my own beliefs.

[Irma]

I hope you don't mind I post here my results of this technique but I think It would be better to have all information together...

Thanks Zig for your post to show this technique... I think it is very powerful, and most certainly will improve a lot my photography, so I'll take your post as my Christmas gift from you..

My results... I am so happy!!

At the beginning I didn't believe I could do it, I have tried so many times dodge/burn but it is Christmas morning, all my shopping is done, the weather is ugly out there... perfect time to play with pictures...

The pictures I take of my dead tree are normally very difficult to post process and give them a 3D feel or bring the texture and colors up. I have tried with curves, LAB color, dodge/burn with an overlay layer, but nothing really worked as I wanted. So I decided to work with a rather simple picture to see what this technique could do....

I have to add something important here. I am a step-by-step learner... 1... 2... 3... 4... you are done. To follow Zig post processing was a bit difficult, but I managed.... so for both things I am very happy...

I thought about something rather simple... and I took this picture. The problem with this kind of pictures is that the contrast in the texture is so fine, that if you work with Shadows/Mid-tones/highlight you will burn something in some point and lose information. Ok, I can mask with Luminance in LAB but still you will get some information lost by the huge range of information you work with when you only mask shadows or highlights...

Reading and re-reading Zig's post I understood the core of my mistake in this technique was that... I normally dodged the shadows and burn the highlights... Don't know why...

Original


I started D/B in RGB... now correctly... and I started seeing things!!! and I loved it! and I saw that my contrast was very fine and my picture was getting colors, original colors and very sharp!!!! ...

D/B RGB mode



Here is the second one D/B in CMYK and the change of colors was dramatic... beautiful! I can understand why Zig says about those iridescence colors now...!! I remembered that technique Toad showed us years ago working with curve channel by channel. I found this one a bit more exact also because you can see what you are doing in the color image. Anyway here is my try...

D/B CMYK mode



Then I thought you have to challenge this technique, Irma! So I took one of my most difficult pictures. This is really very difficult because of the fine detail in the texture...


This is what I had so far with mask which was not so beautiful and some information in the dark areas were lost



and my try with D/B CMYK ... I thought... I think I love this....



Up to here all my images only have dodge and burn no other treatment was applied.

Pushing this to the extreme I thought ... Come on give it another try but now with something different.... This is my picture out of LR. It has a heavy post processing in colors and as we can see the pear was blend into the background. I had to work with mask and bring back the green of the pear, but still the colors of the background were like under the influence of a heavy toning... and I couldn't get more colors... So I gave it a try....

Treatment of colors in LR



D/B CMYK
(BTW the backdrop of this picture is a hand painted background made by 4 layers of colors acrylics in canvas... I did it for my stills.... )



All in all, I think this is a powerful technique to get really fine contrast therefore your picture gets sharp and to bring colors up

Thanks so much Zig, for the fabulous tutorial!!

I hope you don't mind me posting so many pictures, but it is Christmas and one should not be mean...

BTW, Merry Christmas everyone!!

[Zig]

I dunno, Zig. I find myself in opposition to your assertion that a picture has to be visualized before the shutter click and that processing is only in support of that pre-determined vision. That may be your process but it is not mine. The camera is a tool - nothing more. There is no *correct* way to use it - just like there is no correct way to use a pencil. This is a great tutorial - but I can't reconcile it philosophically with my own beliefs.

I've just inserted some more text that iterates again that this is often my modus operandi and equally often not, and at no time do I state it as an objective imperative. This several hours' work is an exemplar both of the way I do things and also of some useful bits that folks might use if helpful, discard if not. The fact I've included 2 final images, itself attests that I've used pp to liberate myself from any "pre-determined vision".

Irma, that's really useful feedback; I'm delighted both that bits are helpful and that you've sidestepped that which isn't.
You also mention something I had not: that the nature of these tools is inherently destructive. Both dodging and burning are not "real", or at least only a poor translation of what happens in a darkroom...and both concern more in the way of localised contrast control. I suppose you could say that this technique is really a form of "controlled loss of information"...yet I think that most pp tools also do this!
I think your images really do help explore this whole area and add practical light to an area that many find shadowy and difficult.

My problems with the technique emerge when I work on too large an image for my processor to keep up with: anything past a brush size of 1100 pixels and the effect starts to lag for me. I also find it a help to remove coffee-cups from the top of my desk, given the sweeping gestures of the mouse! I guess too that this is an area that could be augmented by a graphics tablet but that would feel a bit fiddly for me.

What does become interesting, is when one layers in a coloured grad over the sky: let's say a transparent to grey grad pulled down over the horizon and set to an opacity of, say 30%. Burning the shadow areas then, allows the development of quite richly-textured skies.
Thank you for all your work here Irma.

[Toad]

I've just inserted some more text that iterates again that this is often my modus operandi and equally often not, and at no time do I state it as an objective imperative. This several hours' work is an exemplar both of the way I do things and also of some useful bits that folks might use if helpful, discard if not. The fact I've included 2 final images, itself attests that I've used pp to liberate myself from any "pre-determined vision".

This missive is great work. Thanks for posting it. I suppose the only sentence that I am having any issue with (or failing to understand) is:

"I would even suggest that the resulting end image should be already finished before one clicks the shutter.. adding that the press of the shutter is itself a final act of commitment. In other words, the final hard image is or should be exactly the same image that one has in one's mind's eye after looking through the viewfinder."

Either way, my quibble is merely splitting hairs over one opinion in a great post. Please disregard it.

Merry Christmas!

[Toad]

Great work, Irma. Nice to see these techniques used immediately like this and some more variations on it.

[Zig]

Ta Rob; yes, that sentence of mine does read a bit emphatically. (I also forget that I'm quite odd in that I can "will myself" to see a black and white shot in my head split into 12 zones, complete with effects of different filtration, when looking through a viewfinder. My head is indeed a strange place sometimes.)

[matthew]

An interesting discussion, both for the technique, which I'll be investigating further on my own, and for the philosophy, which is what I'm more able to address. Being able to see the two different versions of the processing is quite powerful, and both can stand alone as excellent and convincing images.

I stress at this point that this is my own way of working: sauce for the goose may not be sauce for the gander, this I appreciate. However, I still am of the opinion that if one "sees" the final image's potential as early on in the process as possible, then one maximises one's chances of turning that mechanical capture into as close a version as possible of one's initial "inner vision". After all, was it not Michelangelo who said that each of his sculptures already resided in the block of cold marble in front of him, and that all he did was to remove everything else in order to liberate it?
That said, of course, it is clear that how one manipulates the image between its gestation and birth, can drastically alter both the final image and what one wishes to say/suggest/symbolise to one's audience...indeed, it can decide both the nature and the presence(or otherwise) of that audience.

I myself have never been - or am seldom - a 'creative' photographer, so it's very interesting to hear your ideas and processes. My own best compositions are reductive, my processing redactive; my expression is done through the job of visual simplification and choice of subject, but my preference is for the final image to look the way it was rather than some different way that I would like it to be. (I speak generally, of course, and any number of specific images can be held aloft as exceptions.) So it's very interesting to see your process and how you bring about your final results, which are so different from what my own would be, and yet when I think about it we're both following the same process. See what's appealing and make it so: it's just that what appeals to us is different. The fidelity to our own personal vision remains unvaried. The difference, I suppose, is that my sculpture would remain a squared-off block of cold marble - I've always found comfort in modern art.

The camera never lies, as they say: indeed, how can it, if it is only one collection of processes between what you see before the shot and what you see at final output. Surely, the start image in your head and the final output can be identical...it's just that the more control you have over all the pp mechanisms, the more leeway you have to develop and even transform the image as you go.

That also goes the other way - the more control there is, the more restraints can be used. For me the control of digital is the equivalent of hospital corners on a properly made bed: visually neat, square, and confined. It's demanding in the same way that studio photography is demanding, because when everything is an option and it can all be controlled, there's no leeway for things that are wrong. (Irma's mastery of this is what makes her still life work stand apart, and is your strength 'in the field' as well.) Perhaps I just have a much less fun view of what can be done with phenomenal cosmic powers - I get hung up in the itty-bitty living space.

For me, when I want to play, I leave digital behind and use film. It's my way of surrendering to the powers of chance and organic processes, of giving up (some, but not all; philosophically if not practically) the malleability of digital processing. But don't get me wrong, I'm neither a file-the-negative-carrier purist, or a lo-fi use-the-film-backwards type. If the opposite of fanaticism can involve a laissez-faire attitude, that's where I'll be with a film camera. After all, if I wanted to get everything exactly so, I'd use digital.

Yes, I know I shouldn't write late at night, and if anyone else had any doubts about my coherence on little sleep, this should silence them. So please forgive my ramble; I appreciate hearing your point of view and seeing your methods illustrated; this has been my effort to show just how much they differ from my own and give some idea of why it's so useful to me to hear yours expressed. Thanks.

[Zig]

Brill, Matthew; thank you so much for such a considered and full response there mate.