|
The open source raw converter/work flow application is darktable. Camera/lens support isn't as good as the commercial alternatives though. Adjust contrast, bring up shadows/down highlights, sharpen etc with a light hand. It is easy to over do and ruin detail, especially in skin tones. Definitely back up your raw converter's database or sidecar files along with your raw files.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
I primary use Darktable and would recommend trying it. Compatibility with new hardware for things like lens corrections is very slow in coming if at all, and I think X-Trans is the only non-Bayer supported sensor type. There is also Rawtherapee, which I haven't used but have heard recommended as a little friendlier.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
You can try applying an Lab tone curve. Try keeping the center point on the a/b curves fixed and playing with the upper and lower sections to tweak the color. Edit for example: 
Fools Infinite fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jun 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
You can take really great jpgs and a good image sticks out even before post, but I find it much more stressful and time consuming to use the in camera tools to get it right the first time. Raw files give you a lot extra to play with and if what you need is the final product it can save you. I tend to abuse the extra flexibility so I can focus more on composing than dealing with technical issues. I enjoy the extra time I spend post processing. I think part of what I enjoy about photography involves internalizing. Trying something, then putting it away, then coming back to it, and that just isn't something you can do in the moment. My experience has been that whatever extra it adds to the result really only matters to me, but I still enjoy it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
The midtones on the subject/foreground/background are all a similar color, so it looks like a lot like a drawing on gray paper. I'd guess something more than a simple adjustment. You can try checking the photographers' pages on different sites and see if they tag their images anywhere with whatever presets or filters.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Topaz labs makes ai upscaling, sharpening, and jpg to raw tools. But if it is for a painting just find a better reference image from another source. Using a different image for lighting or fine detail when the original source material doesn't have what you need isn't unusual. And if it is worth the effort do a couple studies for the lighting and sketchs for figuring out the details.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
rio posted:Thanks, I will check those out. I meant you can use reference photos of a different dog for lighting or textural detail, but keep identifying characteristics from the source you do have. Even if you intend to reproduce the supplied image faithfully you can still pull in what is missing from other sources.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
A dog looking up, appearing to smile is not a bad shot for a memento. Seeing the reference photo I probably would recreate it as is, cropping to leave the distinctive coloring on the neck/chest and frame it like a head and shoulders human portrait without the legs or body. The lighting isn't ideal, but looking at other photos of black dogs I'm not sure it gets that much better. More contrasty light seems to erase all detail in the shadows on black dogs. How you texture the fur to render the highlights will probably be more important. You could also choose a slightly different color for the highlights from left to right if you want a little more depth.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
When you pull up the shadows so heavily you are recovering/contrasting the texture there at the cost of removing overall contrast in the scene, which gives it an artificial look. HDR is more effective when two parts of your scene need different exposures and both are worth preserving, but I don't think that is the case in your images. Shooting indoors and at night tends to be more difficult because the quality (not quantity) of light is often worse, which isn't a technical problem the camera can overcome. Jpegs of night scenes are often uninteresting because exposing for the brighter/more interesting parts of a scene is a creative choice the camera can't make.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Could be worse than a couple of hard drives, my grandmother has a hall closet filled with slide reels my grandfather left behind. Kodachrome sure was a beautiful film.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
I thought it might be fun to give a try, so I did a quick edit of a raw from dpreview (original): For the dreamy look I tried turning down the contrast on the low frequency stuff, but left the fine detail. And a little bloom. Then messed around with the shadow color and added some grain. I can go into more detail if it is inline with what you had in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
More specific advice might not be too helpful, as I am mostly familiar with a different raw developer, darktable. It is freeware though, so I've uploaded the side car here. If you have darktable, download the original raw, and put the sidecar in the same folder you can see the exact edits I made. I'm not sure if there is an exact equivalent to wavelet contrast editor (called contrast equalizer in darktable) in lightroom, but I believe the clarity slider contrasts the middle frequencies, so if you turn clarity down some it should get you part of the way. You may also need to adjust the overall contrast down. The other changes I made: Raised the exposure about a stop. An rgb curve (each channel edited separately) to warm the shadows and midtones. A tone curve to raise the highlights and midtones, and lower the shadows. Desaturated yellow and green pretty heavily. Add some fake grain. Lens choice can definitely get you an interesting look that you can't really replicate in post, not just depth of field but the way the lens renders, the quality of the bokeh, color, contrast, etc. The three examples you provided have pretty smooth out of focus areas, focus/sharpness is pretty good, so they look like modern lenses/cameras to me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
I think the green to yellow/orange/brown looks good, and is definitely fitting with the style of images you posted. You went a little lower contrast than I did, but it might fit what you had in mind a little more. I think style parodies are a fun way to practice. You don't have too much latitude editing jpgs but I sometimes do it the other way and try and destyle a photo. It can give you an idea if you enjoy the photo because of the way it was edited or some inherent quality. Besides dpreview and photographyblog, who do gear focused samples, there is also this one which provides some nice raw samples with editing practice in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Are you loading the images from a fast storage medium? Is lightroom utilizing your graphics card correctly, no driver issues?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
I use darktable. There was a little bit if a learning curve, but I really like the customizability, and being able to stack adjustments with different masks lets me keep my editing nondestructive. I would definitely recommend it, but if you want light edits that look good right out of the box it definitely isn't the way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
There is a lot more latitude in editing white balance and exposure. There are typically tools available in camera to raise shadows/compress dynamic range/etc in camera, but with raw files you can adjust later instead of being stuck with what you have and a lot more fine tune control. And using masks to adjust specific areas, remove elements, correct perspective issues, crop and rotate on jpgs always means reencoding and adding another layer of jpg noise. And no in camera jpg does a great job with noise reduction and sharpening. Typically not an issue if you are sharing it on your phone, but it can certainly be obnoxious, and can leave a lot on the table in terms of detail. I find sorting, comparing, trimming to be the most intensive parts of editing, which applies to working with jpgs as well. If you set up a good workflow you can run through things in batches without much extra effort.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2021 22:58
|
|