ShortScale.org

I was looking at this guys photos earlier: http://www.samhurdphotography.com/
His photos are all digital but through post processing have a great analog feel to them, without looking like the cheesy iPhone app stuff.
Usually I like to do as little processing as possible but sometimes they come out of the camera looking really crap so I'm trying to improve my processing skills.

This is one I just did:

Bigger (click it): It was taken out of a window (mountain train!) so there are reflections which are a bit annoying, but I think it looks cool. A million times better.
A bit of detail lost in the lowest clouds. Right now its a bit of a random process, using the curves and color balance. And a bit of grain. hmm. Hopefully it will become a more controlled process.

Anyone like using Photoshop and stuff with there photos? Got any before/after images?

ii hardly notice the reflection in the second pic, and probably wouldn't if i hadn't had the first as reference

Yeah it's not too noticable. I didn't try removing it at all. Maybe with the clone tool in photoshop i could get rid of it.

DanHeron wrote: Usually I like to do as little processing as possible but sometimes they come out of the camera looking really crap so I'm trying to improve my processing skills.

That's where I am... though less on the trying to improve my skills part.

We've got an informal camera club thing goin on in my area that I attend from time to time. Last time I was there we set up a little task for the next meeting: we randomly chose other members to send an unprocessed photo to, then we'd do the post on whoever's shot we received, print it out and talk about them at the next meeting. Should give me a little more experience with post once I get my shot to manipulate.

I have Photoshop and Lightroom.

Hardly know how to use either of them -- ha. Just got a DSLR and have it shooting RAW so would very much like to know more about post processing.

Basically I am useless at post-processing.\

But I still use film.

And Film does two things. Either A) raises contrast artificially, or B) Lowers contrast and introduces grain.

Both look so much better then digital.

cobascis wrote:

► Show Spoiler

These look cool.
Personally I think a bit too much contrast, but it's a big imrovement over the original image.

It's weird when you make changes to a photo then look back at the original and realise how low the saturation was and stuff.

Lucamo wrote:Basically I am useless at post-processing.\

But I still use film.

And Film does two things. Either A) raises contrast artificially, or B) Lowers contrast and introduces grain.

Both look so much better then digital.

Yeah, I still use film. Both for the image results and the cameras. They are more fun to use than digital cameras, and you can get some amazing second hand bargains with film cameras. I recently got an Olympus 35 RC - a 35mm compact rangefinder. Almost as small as a point and shoot digi cam, and came with a flash and leather case. All for like £50.

The only problem is I've noticed developing/printing getting a lot more expensive.

Original are hidden*


Very subtle but I added some film like grain/noise in photoshop.

Very over the top gimmicky, but it was fun!

Last one is cool! Works well with that image.

Took a pic with my cell phone at a concert the other night. Crappy phone pic, but wanted to print the pic due to it's content. So did a little water color filter and tinkering to my liking and came up with this.



That is Rob Schneider of Apples in Stereo playing my brothers Apples in Stereo painted Danelectro guitar through my amp. So I was able to get a nice 16" by 20" print to give to my brother out of the deal. Printed up nice.