Intuition is developed by exposing oneself to mistakes and aberrations. You have formulated it beautifully here:
This is much more important than holding on to guidelines without thinking, according to the motto: “10 steps to achieve professional results” which you then blindly follow.
This works for simple tasks. The problem is that photo processing can’t be reduced to a couple of steps, because many variables play a role (colors, composition, subjects, exposure, etc.) which is a complex undertaking that can only be learned over time. Mastering the tool is only part of the process, which must be understood in its entirety in order to achieve good results. There is no “linear” way to achieve this. It is always a combination of creative and technical skills that need to be developed.
Hi’ @s7habo
Thank you for yet another inspiring tutorial/demonstration. It’s interesting that you use only a handful of modules over and over again creating great results.
Why not create a style (or use automatically applied presets) setting filmic rgb, color balance rgb, diffuse or sharpen, exposure, lens correction, denoise profiled, highlight reconstruction to your “standard” settings demonstrated in the video? Most photos would then only need further corrections using exposure and maybe tone equalizer and some other minor twists.
When I arrive home after an “event”, my wife wants to see my photos immediately as a supplement to her Iphone photos. Therefore, it’s not possible for me to spend 1 or 2 minutes to edit each photo. So I automatically apply local contrast, filmic rgb, color balance rgb, contrast equalizer (sharpening), lens correction, denoise profile (if high iso) and highlight reconstruction when opening a photo and most photos look reasonable “out of the box”. I have to wait and do the fine-tuning afterwards.
A question inspired by your video: can you explain/demonstrate the benefit of using diffuse or sharpen instead of local contrast and contrast equalizer?
Some of this is for demonstration… the video are to show users how to edit. I am sure where appropriate that Boris has and uses some styles… that would be my guess.
…and, to get “reasonable” results use camera JPEGs.
Real time saving.
For me, the mystery is why someone would abandon camera Jpeg and then automate the processing of raw files in such a way as to give all photos the same uniform look as camera does.
By the way, jpegs can also be touched up.
I hope she pays you very well for the pressure she puts on you.
I also have a recommendation for that. Shoot in JPG and in raw format. Send JPEGs to her immediately.
That said, I do use the presets. But only when it makes sense in my opinion. In the video you can also see that I occasionally even transfer the entire history of one photo to another.
The fact that I use presets very sparingly has several reasons:
I don’t like a one-size-fits-all approach unless it’s meant to serve a specific purpose. It leads directly to producing boring, predictable results.
I actually see the raw file as “raw material”. The subject then dictates the direction of processing rather than a pre-made template. That doesn’t mean that every now and then, you can’t use a preset, it just means that the presets shouldn’t dominate the work. Breaking the routines also opens up the possibilities for new interpretations.
in many cases, the subsequent corrections made after using a preset can take much more time than starting from scratch.
Because I can work much more precisely with diffuse or sharpen and also have much better control over possible artifacts that typically occur when increasing local contrast or sharpening.
The downside can be that - depending on the settings - the module can be very computationally intensive.
Contrast equalizer is also a great module and I like to use it.
I think there are a great number of people that view or at least have the mindset that the raw image as merely the same image just not compressed into a jpg, so free of compression aritfacts and dynamic range issues of the 8 bit format.
There is then great disappointment when a program like DT that does little to the image out of the gate offers up something that is not a jpg clone with tonnes of dynamic range to play with and wb not baked in…
Many people always using LR as the standard I feel believe this is what they get but I can’t really say as I have never used LR. I have also heard many people complain about the LR look also so as with all of this often beauty is in the eye of the beholder…
I think the path for people that truly need this for what they are doing with an to their images is to use the manufacturers software and then save it out with the most data possible for further editing… be that a TIFF or whatever and then proceed to do further edits in whatever software has the tools to make the further changes that they are looking for…
You have taken great lengths in a few videos to demonstrate matching but really like you I feel when I just start out I often end up at a more interesting image. But I am not trying to match a car or sporting event or some other subject matter that might be really important for some others…
I guess its really all about matching expectation with reality of what the raw developing process involves and selecting tools and workflows to support that wherever and whatever that might look like… keeping in mind that DT is not created with a design focus to give you a jpg clone with its current defaults. Even with that you can still fall back on the basecurve and often be fairly close and with the new module order so using it is not a major transgression or handicap IMO esp if the user needs something closer to the jpg to edit and doesn’t want to directly touchup the jpg itself…
Thank you for all your comments
You can of course edit a raw photo so the result is superior to the out-of-camera jpg especially if the recording conditions were bad. However, it takes an effort (time and experiments) to achieve this improved image. Maybe it’s not worthwhile or you haven’t got the time to edit all photos from scratch (if you really want to start from scratch every time then filmic rgb should also be turned off). I think that my basic presets applied automatically produces a better result than the default jpg. Therefore, there is no need to shoot a jpg and a raw. See examples below.
The preset-result gives me a good indication of the quality and possibilities of the photo if I want to spend the effort to improve it. And I can show it to my wife immediately.
I appreciate the method demonstrated in the video. It is simple and powerful. Thank you for an excellent demonstration.
If you are a beginner and you haven’t watched this video then I think it can be really challenging to start with a flat raw photo and 60+ modules to choose from.
In the end I think it comes down to workflows…the good thing about DT is that you get a real sense of the raw without too much intervention and then there are all the tools and many ways to come up with a workflow that gets results and at the same time suits the style of the user…For some this works the other way and is overwhelming and the learning curve to get to a workflow is too daunting.
You seem to have found yours…
Your example is a nice edit but also its a starting image that maybe you could easily get by with the jpg… for example using the old dehaze preset and shadows and highlights on your screen shot jpg give me an image on quick review that is equal or maybe even better in some spots …but it becomes this vs that… I think some images can only be saved by editing the raw for sure but many esp if they are just going to be posted on a screen for sharing could easily be done using touched up jpg files… This is another element that often isn’t mentioned ie what is the intended use of the edit… Just some random thoughts from me…
@s7habo: Dear Boris, thanks for making all these very nice tutorials! I actually wonder, why you are using brilliance of highlights and shadows to increase contrast. Is there a technical difference to the contrast slider of the same module in preserving the hue or is it just about a finer control?
This is why we’ve got a section in the manual to cover a basic processing workflow. Of course I can’t make people read the manual but it really should be the first port of call for someone who’s finding it a challenge.
