Obtaining a ''sparkle'' in my photos

Gerry,

As you read and learn about post-processing, the best advice I can give is that you rigidly adhere to an image-editing workflow that is consistent with best practices. If you change your workflow from image to image, you'll never get consistent results and you'll slow your progress through your learning curve. Rather than "play" with this and that software capability, use a disciplined approach to mastering each part of a best-practice workflow in order and one part of it at a time.

Without getting into the details of an ideal workflow because some of them can be up to debate, consider the following general approach:


Global Adjustments

1. Color space
2. White balance
3. Exposure
4. Saturation
5. Levels and Curves (this is where you'll get most of the pop you asked about)
6. Capture sharpening
   
   Local Adjustments
7. Local brightness (dodging and burning)
8. Local saturation
9. Local sharpening
   
   Output Adjustments
10. Color Space
11. Image size and related details
12. Output sharpening

Thanks David, this is what I'm trying to achieve, but I am very much still an novice with PP, but now I have more of an idea what to do.

Mike, is your suggested workflow simliar to that in ACR, I normally just start at the top of the menu and work my way down.

I don't use ACR, so I don't know. You should be able to easily determine the similarities and differences. The most important aspect of the workflow prior to attending to output considerations is that you begin with the "largest" global issues and gradually work down to the "smallest" local issues.

Gerry try this in ACR more down to the blacks' slider, press "ALT", screen should go white, now move black slider to the left you should see possibly some yellow start to show up then dark blue or black. It is those areas of black that are blackest of your blacks or a reading of "00". Now move your slider back to the right until you get just a small amount of that showing, you now have an area that has a reading of "00" on your image. Now not every image requires you to do that, it is up to you how you like the image to look. Once practice it enough most of your problems that way should be solved. Now sometime depending on what you do once you take the image into Photoshop CC, you may have to make a slight adjustment with the black point again to help with the "pop", that said you may have figured out how to do that.

Cheers: Allan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegman

Manfred, thanks for the advice, I've attached a couple of my shots from yesterday, they just don't 'pop' the way I thought. My PP knowledge is very limited as I've just started with photography. Any more advice would be great.


ETTR, look it up.


#1. http://i61.tinypic.com/103vmt4.jpg

#2.http://i61.tinypic.com/5ap8i9.jpg

---

http://i58.tinypic.com/34s58pt.jpg

Thanks Colin, I didn't realise I was so talented :)

Robin, thanks for the comments, as soon as you mentioned moving I thought ''how did I miss that'' :eek:

I'm on Robin's page on this one - to be bluntly honest, may I suggest that it's not so much a matter of PP but of composition.

In my opinion, the best re-works of the image are cropped, and Robin's suggestion about moving has real merit.

Rather than spend time in PP, I'd suggest going back to the site and taking a number of shots from different angles/distances and then with a critical eye, decide which has the most merit and do PP on that one.

This isn't to imply that PP isn't important, but that composition is more important.

Glenn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn NK

This isn't to imply that PP isn't important, but that composition is more important.

---

I think they're equally important. To say that post-processing in the digital era isn't as important as composition is to say in the era of shooting with negative film that darkroom technique wasn't as important as composition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn NK

This isn't to imply that PP isn't important, but that composition is more important.

---

I agree, to a point. A poorly composed image is still a poor image regardless of how good the post processing is and a well thought out and executed image is still worth viewing SOOC. BUT, the difference is between a snapshot and a compelling image worthy of serious competition.

If all you want are snapshots, then concentrate on composition. But if you want the kind of fine images that are produced by professional photographers, then post processing is just as important as pressing the shutter button and in many cases the image may not even be a good 'snapshot' without it.

I would submit that Gerry has his basics down pretty well...referencing camera settings. So lets move on to "what are your motives/why take the shot"...do you want something to hang on your wall or are you seeking interesting/memories occupying your hard drive.

A pretty picture almost always requires a pretty subject, which is where I start, as I want the potential of a large size wall hanger. It oftentimes involves lots of practice shots, working the subject to get that "look" down pat.

Considering that photography, at it's most basic, is capturing light...working that shot in situ requires getting there during the best possible light (golden hours)...if your light is harsh, consider the possibility of creating a B&W conversion.

Composition...I defy anyone to describe it to fit the masses, it's akin to making decisions by committee when everyone has a different agenda...kinda like the government.

Mike's post-processing guidelines would work well for a beginner, but a year down the road those guidelines tend to go out the window...creating an image from the mind's visualization is often an exercise in futility and involves straying from the acceptable norms.

FWIW...as I read back over this, it seems to contain a lot of stray thoughts...blame the medication. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barclay Manor

Here is a copy of one of your photos, I just used the PS overlay function in "layers" at 55% opacity.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...9&d=1400870515

---

I've read the comments in this thread because I also want to add "sparkle" to my photos. One (of the many) things I don't understand is "layers". How do layers help - per the image you adjusted - add the sparkle? There is an obvious change but I don't understand what happens when you add layers. Thanks, Ken.

PLEASE DISREGARD, as I found a reply in another thread that provides the name of a good book for me to read.

Gerry,
Before I start fiddling around with layers and masks, my first step with a "flat" image would be to simply apply "Auto levels" or "Auto contrast" and see if I like the result (yes I know, too simple and not the "macho" thing to do..).

/Lennart Elg

Well sometimes when I'm about to start fiddling around with Curves adjustments and I'm not quite sure which way to go, I will click on the auto adjust option. I never actually use what it comes up with as my final adjustments; but it often gives me a good starting point and clears my confusion! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

I think they're equally important. To say that post-processing in the digital era isn't as important as composition is to say in the era of shooting with negative film that darkroom technique wasn't as important as composition.

---

I'm from the generation that still thinks that a silk purse can't be made from a sow's ear.

I always do some PP with every image - even those for record purposes in my business, but no amount of PP will save a dreadful or dull composition.

Composition is the starting point from which many endings can be forged in PP.