Post by Romy Ocon on Apr 30, 2010 2:11:10 GMT
Dear folks,
In response to a query at DP Review as regards my approach to post processing, I gave the following response. I'm pasting the same here hoping that it can be useful info too for some birdnuts.
My approach to PP depends on the output size and media.
1. When processing for web display, I'd apply NR on the BG, as noise grains can be easily seen in LCD displays. I'd sharpen to the point of advent of artifacts on some detail, then back off a bit. If necessary, I'd erase partially the effect of the sharpening on the darker areas to reduce perceived noise (by using a brush of small opacity). I often use several mild passes of USM on a luminosity layer, with varying amount and radius. This is to optimize the sharpening to various sizes of detail, akin to a sculptor using various chisel sizes to carve out large to fine detail.
I usually process a bit darker and more saturated for web display, as monitors are backlit and also have the capacity to show a wider gamut than typical prints. I also keep in mind that most viewers of my online photos don't have calibrated displays, and often, their monitors are set too bright.
2. For prints, I often do not apply NR on any portion of the photo at all. I prefer some fine grains in the OOF areas because this avoids the plastic look of too clean BGs. Also, fine grained noise works well in enhancing detail at in-focus areas (I sometimes actually add noise to ISO 200 shots to get this effect!). I never came to like the appearance in print of heavily NR'ed photos, they just look too fake and not close to natural history type of captures which is ideal for birds.
I usually process a bit brighter for prints because of the passive nature of the lighting. I also note the smaller gamut of my media, and adjust levels and saturation accordingly.
Link to the DPR post:
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=35190592
Link to the whole DPR thread on "A few recent birds with the 400 2.8 IS."
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=35167311
In response to a query at DP Review as regards my approach to post processing, I gave the following response. I'm pasting the same here hoping that it can be useful info too for some birdnuts.
My approach to PP depends on the output size and media.
1. When processing for web display, I'd apply NR on the BG, as noise grains can be easily seen in LCD displays. I'd sharpen to the point of advent of artifacts on some detail, then back off a bit. If necessary, I'd erase partially the effect of the sharpening on the darker areas to reduce perceived noise (by using a brush of small opacity). I often use several mild passes of USM on a luminosity layer, with varying amount and radius. This is to optimize the sharpening to various sizes of detail, akin to a sculptor using various chisel sizes to carve out large to fine detail.
I usually process a bit darker and more saturated for web display, as monitors are backlit and also have the capacity to show a wider gamut than typical prints. I also keep in mind that most viewers of my online photos don't have calibrated displays, and often, their monitors are set too bright.
2. For prints, I often do not apply NR on any portion of the photo at all. I prefer some fine grains in the OOF areas because this avoids the plastic look of too clean BGs. Also, fine grained noise works well in enhancing detail at in-focus areas (I sometimes actually add noise to ISO 200 shots to get this effect!). I never came to like the appearance in print of heavily NR'ed photos, they just look too fake and not close to natural history type of captures which is ideal for birds.
I usually process a bit brighter for prints because of the passive nature of the lighting. I also note the smaller gamut of my media, and adjust levels and saturation accordingly.
Link to the DPR post:
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=35190592
Link to the whole DPR thread on "A few recent birds with the 400 2.8 IS."
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=35167311
