At what stage should I add PP filters in my workflow?

[Paresh]

Hi - New here. I read the DIGITAL PHOTO EDITING WORKFLOW article...at what stage of the process would I add a filter for special effect? thanks.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Paresh,

Warm welcome to the CiC forums from me.

I don't use PP filters often, but when I do, I do it after the basic image editing has been done; e.g. crop, exposure, etc.

That said, I can imagine some effect filters might require image content from outside the final composition's framing, so in that case, I'd obviously crop after the filter was applied. Also, it is possible that some filters may require a change of basics after application too.

Might help if you gave us an idea of which filter(s) you had in mind.
Especially as I could not find which of our (CiC) tutorials you might be referring to.


Could you do me a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put your first name in the Real Name field
and where you are (roughly) in the Location field,
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers - thanks in advance.

Cheers, Dave

[Paresh]

Will do. Very nice forum & thanks for the advice. I'm a beginner.
I was referring to this article: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...g-workflow.htm
No particular filter in mind yet, I'm just studying & trying to learn

[Manfred M]

Paresh - there is no particular "rule" as when to apply the filters. I do agree with Dave that the "special effects" filters often work best later on in the work flow, but some of the filters I use regularly, like noise reduction and input sharpening, are filters I apply at the beginning of the process.

This is something that you will figure out as you get experience in PP work.

[pnodrog]

Cropping and final sharpening are best left until last but personal preference and the image you are working with usually dictate the order you need to adopt. Also the software, use of layers and whether you start with a jpeg or RAW file will influence the order.

[Mike Buckley]

Paresh,

Considering that you are new at this stuff, it's understandable that you may not realize that the filters mentioned in the CiC article you read are not special effect filters. Instead, they are normal post-processing filters used on a regular basis to create straightforward photos. Special effect filters are called that because they do special things such as make a photo look like a watercolor painting or a cartoon, add a starburst, or do any number of things that are generally considered special rather than standard.

So, the answer to your question about when to use the filters explained in that article is to simply follow the workflow also explained in it.

[Paresh]

Great forum...thank you all for being patient with a beginner. I'm a musician and was surprised to find some parallels with digital audio processing - noise & noise reduction, histogram (like the audio waveform except audio is in real time), clipping, compression...

[dje]

Great forum...thank you all for being patient with a beginner. I'm a musician and was surprised to find some parallels with digital audio processing - noise & noise reduction, histogram (like the audio waveform except audio is in real time), clipping, compression...

Yes Paresh there are a lot of parallels between digital cameras and digital audio/electrical signals. The audio/electrical signals vary with time whereas the digital image "signals" vary spatially. ie up and down and across the sensor. The same basic rules of digital signal processing apply in each case.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Great forum...thank you all for being patient with a beginner. I'm a musician and was surprised to find some parallels with digital audio processing - noise & noise reduction, histogram (like the audio waveform except audio is in real time), clipping, compression...

Yes, the issues are quite similar, but because music / sound has a more constrained bandwidth (roughly 20Hz to 20 kHz), the processing tends to be a bit simpler. Instead of dealing with a L and R channel (obviously this gets more complex in multi-track sound found in video work) you are dealing with three (RGB, LAB, etc.) or four (CMYK) channels.

If you understand audio processing some of the concepts are going to make sense to you a bit more quickly. On the other hand in audio you don't have some of the issues associated with colour management.

[Loose Canon]

Interesting you made this comparison Paresh!

From here in this Forum, Community Lounge, October 31, 2010:

"I particularly like this thread.

A very well-rounded and diverse interest which makes the World Go Round. I would have expected nothing less from this particular community.

But instead of me listing my musical preferences, Steve, I would like to make another comparison if I may. Perhaps of a somewhat more technical nature. Please accept my apologies if I am way off the topic here, but I find myself thinking about this thread and I can’t help but make the comparisons and I’ll try to be brief for once.

To my way of thinking, music and photography are not so very far apart.

Music is mixed in terms of highs, mids, and lows. Equalizers are utilized to mix these bands to get the optimum sound. Those in turn work as curves. When you mix the bands you end up with a sound curve. Different curves for different styles which compliment. Music can be very busy and involved in layers, or it can be very simple. Each has it’s own way of affecting us as individuals, but music is a matter of layer upon layer each relating to each other. It can be harmonious, or it can be dissonant. It can cause the ear to ease through it, or it can cause the listener to experience anxiety. A major orchestral arrangement is practically infinite in its layers. Of course levels of sound. Crescendos, Decrescendos, everything in between. Dynamics.

Music is a matter of building suspence, and resolution. It allows the listener to enjoy a gamut of response and draws the listener in to its intricacies to eventually give a feeling of completion one way or another.

Music has definite color and it can be dark and moody, or it can be light and happy. It can be delivered in major or minor keys.

Each of us can relate to a certain tune at a certain time of our lives. Music is always changing, and yet it is always music. There is nothing new, and yet every time we hear it, we hear something that we didn’t before in a different combination which compels us. As evidenced, it has a lasting and profound effect on us.

There are overtones, and sounds that are above and below our perception, yet we sense them and they are an intregal part of the overall sound. There are whole tones, half tones, and quarter tones. Modes, scales, styles, genres, keys and many different ways to interpret these and present them. There are electronic presentations and there are acoustic.

Music is Time. ¾, 4/4, 5/4, 2/2, cut, and way more to mention a few, and each has a particular and definite influence of the piece. There are modulations. Time as well as key.

Music has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

It evokes an emotional response. It is Universal. It transcends. I can read the same piece of music as the person sitting next to me though I know nothing of them and maybe cannot even communicate with them in their native language, nor they in mine. Through that one piece of music, we can communicate and relate together in a way that might not be possible in other ways.

But. As photographers?

Doesn’t this all sound kind of familiar somehow?"

[mastamak]

Each of us can relate to a certain tune at a certain time of our lives. Music is always changing, and yet it is always music. There is nothing new, and yet every time we hear it, we hear something that we didn’t before in a different combination which compels us. As evidenced, it has a lasting and profound effect on us.

Very interesting post, Terry. I seem to have missed the 2010 discussion. I would agree with the above, particularly your comment that "every time we hear it, we hear something new". It certainly applies to me if you are talking about, say, Beethoven's Emperor Concerto, or Sibelius' 7th symphony or Vaughan Williams' Variations on a Theme by Thomas Tallis. But as for Achie Breakie Heart - I don't think so. Once heard, the sooner forgotten, the better.
Grant

[Loose Canon]

But as for Achie Breakie Heart - I don't think so. Once heard, the sooner forgotten, the better.

Unfortunately Grant, there are just some things you can’t “un-hear”!

[MitchellKrog]

If it helps, my personal workflow is to first clean up the image, dust spots etc. Then start with tonal and contrast adjustments but after each adjustment you make look deep into the image (100% zoom) and look around the image to see if any of your changes have in any way become destructive to the image by introducing artifacts or anomolies that were not there before. I prefer to do tonal and contrast adjustments (and any others) using adjustment layers in Photoshop. Once all the basic edits are done then you can start applying photoshop filters one at a time but once again, if you apply a filter you need to inspect closely what that filter has done to the image, especially checking shadow areas and areas of sky where some filters can cause havoc. If you just apply filters and make an image look wow when viewed at 1200px on screen you might be quite horrified when it comes to printing it one day for somebody and you discover jpeg artifacts all over the place.

[Paresh]

Great, thanks.