What’s Your Preference?

douglas · #41 (**permalink**) 10-30-2009, 02:23 AM

A very interesting thread,as Wulf says it's not about what is best. But the various pictures show that one can do anything with the original, whether the RAW or the JPEG. It depends what YOU want.
I opened the original picture via GIMP with UFRaw, increasedthe exposure a little,clipped the highlights, accepted auto exposure, adjusted the white balance manually, and increased the gamma.
The result is not very different, but...to my eye I like it better. Just my 2 cents worth.

Murkar · #42 (**permalink**) 10-30-2009, 02:49 AM

Nice job Douglas, and everyboy else.

It's really interesting to see everybody's different takes on the exact same photo.

Footski · #43 (**permalink**) 10-30-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbarlow

Doesnt explain why Photoshop cant open it - it can deal with most Raw types. . . .

You may need to update your Camera Raw Version for Photoshop. I know I had to and then all was well..

purrdey · #44 (**permalink**) 10-30-2009, 10:03 AM

fired up your .NEF in PSE7 - saved as 3 uncompressed TIFFs -2,+2,0
opened in Photomatix Pro 3.2.6, tone-mapped with these settings:
strength 80, microcontrast 1.1, luminosity -1.1
opened resulting TIFF in PSE7 then...
Enhance>Adjust Color>Color Curves
Midtone Contrast - reduce
Adjust Shadows - reduce slightly
Midtone Brightness - increase
Enhance>Adjust Sharpness>36% radius 3 pixels
saved as JPEG - Quality=7 baseline optimized (attached)

I think this brings out some detail which is otherwise lost (tyre, wheel arch)

wulf · #45 (**permalink**) 10-30-2009, 10:04 AM

This has been a fascinating discussion. Thanks to all for taking the time to work on the image and share your results. In particular, I'd single out MrGuy's very detailed post with side by side comparisons of several different ways to approach the image but it is all very useful.

I decided it was time for me to chip in again. Below, you can see the original JPEG and what I have just produced with a couple of minutes working on it:

That is similar to some of the examples above and not so much to others but captures a final image that I am happy with, stuck somewhere between what I saw and the picture that impressed itself on my mind (I'm aiming for a graphically strong effect as much as for "realism").

To be honest, I'm still not convinced that I want to step beyond my habit of shooting in JPEG mode at the moment. I can easily get results I am very satisfied with and I don't think I have the time to push that little bit harder on any given image. I rarely view my images at full size (I was suprised how blurry this one was when I worked on it this morning... that's what trying to handhold a 90mm lens at 1/60s on an overcast day will get you!) and suspect not many other people do either. My taste is for quite intense shadows and highlights and I can generally get a suitable exposure for those in-camera without requiring the "digital negative" of the RAW file.

It is also partly due to the system I mainly process pictures on - a wonderful little Mac Mini. I think it is a great machine but it only has 1GB of memory. On a beefier machine, operations like RAW processing might not taking appreciably longer but they do with my Mac. If I had plans to make my photography pay for itself, I would probably figure in upgrades to my set up which would reduce that time cost.

Wulf

Rolograaf · #46 (**permalink**) 10-30-2009, 04:41 PM

This is my take:

It's a little HDR through the original RAW converted in ACR and sharpened a little

cr8apic · #47 (**permalink**) 10-31-2009, 03:11 AM

Hi everyone
I am new to this forum so have some patience please. Not sure how much futher this will go but I was interested to read the Wulf's last post and Rolograaf's take on the image. Wulf seemed to like the limited enhancement option and Rolograaf used HDR. To me this cries out for the grunge/saturation look of HDR. The HDR process IMHO helps to add the third dimension to images like this. If I had walked past the shot this is what I would have wanted with post exposure manipulation. After the HDR I added some highlights from the LH side in Photoshop, dulicated the layer, over sharpened the bottom layer and did some straitegic removal of some parts of the top layer to highlight the rust texture from over sharpening. The effect in my opinion emphasises the curves of the bug, adds intrigue about the registration plate that is now seen and bring life to something that isdecaying in the weather. Art is what you make it hopefully some will like it and I am sure other will not.
Cheers.
PS the preview looks a little richer than my screen.

elimb · #48 (**permalink**) 10-31-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulf

It should be a .nef file. One of the complications will be that RAW formats are often quite camera specific.

I know that editing is quite subjective. What I'm interested in is whether any of the suggested edits offer an appreciable advance on what I can get from the JPEG version. For example, I think RLucas's version is too oversaturated for my tastes but I reckon I could replicate that if I wanted (and I appreciate him taking the time to show how he would work it). However, he does seem to have a bit more detail round the headlight area.

Another thing that is potentially interesting is to see the range of results that can be drawn out from the "digital negative".

Wulf

I have the same problem, I have a Nikon and I can't open .NEF whit photoshop or any other program different that the software that comes with the camera, I try some plug ins and nothing. Which one do you use to open .NEF?

deepspring · #49 (**permalink**) 10-31-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elimb

I have the same problem, I have a Nikon and I can't open .NEF whit photoshop or any other program different that the software that comes with the camera, I try some plug ins and nothing. Which one do you use to open .NEF?

What version of Photoshop are you running? Photoshop CS4 with the latest updates (including Camera RAW 5.5) works fine with NEF files from my D5000.