Our Great Photo Processing Shootout!

I agree with most/all of the above comments about No2 being way too blue. There also seems to be less detail than in No 1.

If you copy both of these into Photoshop (or PSE8 in my case) and then simply save them as JEPGs without any processing at best quality, the file size for No 1 is 161kB and for No 2 is 153kB. The greater JPEG compression for No 2 suggests that there is greater duplication in the image and hence less detail.

Andrew

OK then, all is revealed! Yes indeed - image 1 was processed by myself with initial RAW conversion and 'development' in PCU 4, output to 16bit tiff, then into Sagelight 4, where I do most of the colour toning, highlight / shadow and contrast control.

I use Sagelights sophisticated sharpening and definition controls (on its Powerbox panel) for global detailing, but then in Elements (which allows selections) for 16 bit work using the Topaz Details plugin - this provided the fine cloud detailing, while the Topaz DeNoise plugin provided targeted noise reduction.

Many thanks to David for providing such a challenging photo to work on. I don't get the chance to travel to take shots, so I relished this opportunity to put my different software through its paces with this image.

I very much hope we have stimulated ongoing interest, and I'm up for any further challenges step up all you Lightroom users!

I'm with David though concerning the differing abilities of software. If there can be any success to this exercise, then I hope it might stimulate further interest in exploring the different products out there - personally I advocate PCU4 for the RAW conversion, but there are other programs that can work wonders in specific areas - we just have to explore and pick and choose. I have found I am learning about general photo presentation in the process

I thought I'd have a go at working on No 2, not too easy as there's such a blue cast, so not a good place to start from, but this is what I did:

John - your effort (above) is more aesthetically pleasing on the eye as the "original" image 2, which I found to be so blue as to be perceived as "unnatural". The purple mist just behind the boat is a bit too strong, but given what you were working from, it is (IMO) a reasonable "trade-off".

That's a very interesting observation as both images are exactly the same pixel dimensions. It suggest that Photoshop is applying more compression than the software that Nigel used, either when re-sizing images or during the 'save to jpeg' process, even when maximum quality is selected.

Regards
David

Having been there on the day John, I have to say that your image is completely off the mark in terms of how the scene looked in real life. Please don't read this as a criticism as it is not intended to be, it's just an observation that whether it looks more natural to most people or not, the reality is that the scene was nothing like this.

I think the trap that everyone is falling into here is trying to make it look what your mind thisnks is 'Natural', but this is impossible if you weren't there. As I said in an earlier post, even though most will feel that image 2 looks unnatural, it is actually much closer to how the scene was in real life than image 1 is. The light at the time was indeed very blue; to most people that will not be familiar and therefore does not look natural.

I hope this makes some sense.

Regards
David

Actually what I was trying to do was to make v2 look more like v1, using Photoshop CS5. I think given the original it could be made to look that way quite easily.

What this suggests is that the difference between the two images has much less to do with using a different program, but much more to do with how the photographer interprets the image.

I don't believe that the original premise was proved by the first two images produced, rather the opposite possibly.

OK - all has been revealed! Yes, I processed Image 1, starting in PCU4. Here, apart from standard exposure and shadow / highlight contrast adjustments, I applied the lens corrections, but I boosted the amber and green WB tones, and used the Colour Fine Tune wheel to lower the blue intensity while holding onto more greens yellows and magentas. Within the Custom Image settings I set some sharpness, extra saturation and contrast.

This was outputted to 16bit TIFF, then into Sagelight 4. Here I carried global brightness & contrast control using the Powerbox sliders, a collection of 10 'EQ' type sliders that can be grouped to work automatically - they work in hidden layers on the highlight areas and shadow areas in two different actions. Also here are definition controls applied globally. I colour balanced also, and applied the extra vibrance to the weaker colours.

Finally this was saved in 16 bit and opened in PS elements 8, where using selections, I applied the Topaz Detail and DeNoise plugins to provide the localised sharpness, (such as the clouds and reeds), and targeted noise reductions.

A Big Thanks to David for allowing me to work with his lovely image! I have enjoyed it very much, and I too am finding the comments and ideas from you all very informative. As you know, I personally favour an approach that uses the most effective, or easily attained, adjustments you can get from different software.I believe that using any single program must involve some compromise at some stage.

Lightroom users, is anyone up for a challenge?

I'm up for it
Matt

No, I don't think so. Both photos are the same size in memory. The difference in file size results from the operation of the JPEG compression algorithm in Photoshop Elements 8, which I used to save the photos onto disk. Compression algorithms work on the basis of eliminating redundancy in a file. The greater the number of different byte values in the file, the less it will be possible to compress it. As Image 2 is smaller on disk than Image 1, it must have had greater redundancy (repeated similar values) in the original image and hence less detail.

Andrew

Well, there's two ways of going about this. We can stick with this one photo, if David is willing to allow his original DNG to be used by another person. Then you could take it and use either Photoshop or Lightroom and see if either program can produce the same look and qualities (Noise levels, cleanliness, clarity and definition etc).

Johns work above can't really be representative of what could be possible, he'd need the DNG for that - but I don't think he could achieve the same with only Photoshop

Or we start from scratch on a new image.

It might be worth considering using one of the freebies too - such as RawTherapee. It is reputed to be at least as good a RAW file developer/converter as any commercial software.

Andrew

We've not failed totally - its been successful in getting many people involved and thinking about image processing One of my points is exactly that you CAN'T do precisely the same things in different softwares! Each program has its own strengths and weaknesses. I want people to think about what are the particular strengths and take full advantage of those.

Yes, I agree with that, providing that you insert the words "most obvious" before "difference". It is true also that there are noticeable differences in detail between the two images, which could result either from the inherent capability of the software - or alternatively from the skill of its user.

I must admit, that I am generally in the camp that believes that there are several photo editing software programs than can, if used skillfully, produce (almost?) visually indistinguishable results - especially when viewed as such a small image on a computer monitor.

Andrew

Image processing software comes and goes. Like many here I merely dabble with processing. Learning new tools requires commitment and I do not have time to master all the programs I play with. Naturally some skills are transferable, but in the past it would have been valuable to see side by side comparisons:- should I stump up the cash for photoshop, persevere with GIMP or seek other alternatives to invest my time in?

Good fortune and a friend's generosity has resolved my dilemma. I have Photoshop CS6 extended to commit to, although it is not the only string to my bow.

I accept this and this is what I would like to have seen compared. However the two images have not been processed by code purporting to do the same thing. Further more the self imposed remit for the two images appears to have been very different. David processing to produce the most faithful record and Nigel processing for taste and recovering as much as possible from the file.