Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Post processing on this photo
- Thread starter ericgtr12
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why not ask him/her?
I'd probably want to see the original before saying what was done to the image.
My impression was that we could discuss this sort of thing here amongst other photographers here we hang with, no?
Yes, sure, but @maflynn is correct in saying it's hard to know what was done without knowing what the SOOC looked like. I think there's a bit of a matte tone curve, but the colors could have all been done in camera.
ETA, okay, looking through the tumbler thumbnails, I'd say matte tone curve, dropping blacks in the sliders, a slight overall desaturation and an increased saturation and drop in luminance in the orange channel. That would get you started. Probably some work in the calibration panel also to tweak overall colors throughout.
Last edited:
"My impression was that we could discuss this sort of thing here amongst other photographers here we hang with, no?"
I doubt anyone here can help, because no one here knows what was DONE TO the original (unless the person who posted that image is a member of this forum, too).
I doubt anyone here can help, because no one here knows what was DONE TO the original (unless the person who posted that image is a member of this forum, too).
The only thing we'd be discussing is guesses of what he might have done. Don't get me wrong, its a great image, and I would love to learn more and improve my craft but pulling a random processed image off the internet and asking what the photographer had done, is a little fruitless - at least I think so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Okay, agreed, this is my impression as well, looks like a lot of work in the HSL section desaturating the orange (and like) colors. Some are real wizards with this stuff and it would be nice for me to learn some of the more advanced techniques in this area. There are over 19,000 comments/likes on this particular post and with a cursory look-through I didn't see the photographer responding, hence my post here for some of you more experienced Lightroomers to give some feedback.
I agree.
@ericgtr12 Possibly the right question is less “what happened after” (post processing) and more “what happened before”. The out of focus areas seem somewhat contrived (and rather “mushy”) rather than out of an optical instrument and the pocket watch seems a “separate image”. Nothing wrong with that, just that it’s important to think about what you like about the images. Is it the colors? The composition? If composition, you may be looking less at Lightroom and more at Photoshop in the case of this image. If colors, either one would work , or quite frankly any number of filters/presets as a starting point from applications like Luminar (or Photos or ...).
Regardless, I find a great way to learn is to pick an image and go to town on it with the sliders and curve tools in your editor or editors of choice. In the case of parametric editors like LR, C1, Luminar, On1, Photos you won’t whack the image: You can always reset. Working with colors, in particular with LR and C1 (I’m less familiar with the others), with all of the techniques mentioned in this thread, often comes down to personal preferences. There’s rarely a “right way”. Going to town on an image is a great way to find out what your preferences are. Run the saturation slider hard right, hard left on an image and watch how it behaves. Adjust curves and levels. Many of us start by over-saturating, for example, something that plagues me to this day
. But tweak and adjust until it’s something you are happy with. Look at what happens when desaturating on a single color channel or all channels. Or working with luminance. It’s both fun and enlightening.
Last edited:
It could well be two photo's or just well lit its hard to tell, the watch is very bright compared to the background.The photog could just of nailed the lightfall off or it could be achieved in post..either way its done very well
If you track the photo back some credit seems to be given to Megan joy for a photoshop action called.......Photoshop-action-turquoise-pastel-333948533
Unfortunately I can't find this action.....
......although on this page (and credit to her!!) she does appear to be giving way a number of actions for free...https://www.deviantart.com/meganjoy/gallery/34574995/photoshop-actions
A number of her actions feature colour fill...her soft pastel action by way of example has no less than 6 colour fill layers as well as couple of selective colour layers and three separate curve layers (each which appear to have individual colour channels altered).
I think to get a better understanding of the post process this picture went through, photoshop may be more helpful than light-room, in this particular case.
If you track the photo back some credit seems to be given to Megan joy for a photoshop action called.......Photoshop-action-turquoise-pastel-333948533
Unfortunately I can't find this action.....
......although on this page (and credit to her!!) she does appear to be giving way a number of actions for free...https://www.deviantart.com/meganjoy/gallery/34574995/photoshop-actions
A number of her actions feature colour fill...her soft pastel action by way of example has no less than 6 colour fill layers as well as couple of selective colour layers and three separate curve layers (each which appear to have individual colour channels altered).
I think to get a better understanding of the post process this picture went through, photoshop may be more helpful than light-room, in this particular case.
Excellent sleuth work here, your time in putting this together is appreciated!
I also agree with others that there is likely more than just post-processing going on here (particularly the comment about color fill), but the end result is quite spectacular IMO. Looking at this person's feed, they have a gift for it.
Great replies, as usual.
I often find myself slipping into detective mode when I see photos done by other photographers (museums, advertisements, internet forums, etc.). How did they do that? What were they seeing before them at the time of capture? How and why did they choose their particular composition? How did they expose the photo and what exposure choices did they make and why? What focal length lens did they use and what was their shooting position relative to subject? Why did they choose their particular focal length and shooting position? Was it an available light shot or did they use flash (or multiple flashes)? Reflectors? How did they set up their lighting? What did they do with the image in post? How would I shoot it differently or process it differently?
Usually I can't answer all or most of these questions, but the thought experiment is valuable. At times I've even gone through the motions in an attempt to reproduce an image, starting at the time of capture and working through post. Even if I can't successfully reproduce the image, I usually learn something along the way....
It's also interesting to me when I have the chance to see how a particular image was made, from start to finish, because the artist shares the details. Either in books, on the internet, or even here on this forum.
This extends to other forms of art as well. While I am not a musician (or musically inclined at all), the recent releases of the anniversary sets of some of the Beatles albums (Sgt. Pepper's, the White Album, Abbey Road) have been amazing. Getting a glimpse into how the songs developed is awesome. The creative process that ultimately resulted in the final versions is inspiring to me as a photographer. In some ways it reminds me of "working" a subject. In other ways it reminds me of what can be done in post.
The also applies to paintings/drawings. Picasso is my favorite artist. I first appreciated him after seeing an exhibit that showcased his work over his lifetime. He was an incredibly accomplished painter in a classical sense at an early age. Some of his later work appears very simplistic and I've heard people say that a "five year old" could do that. But his style was a conscious choice (during all of his phases) that for me is a stroke of genius. One of my favorite series that showcases this process is his Bull lithographs from 1945.
While not directly applicable to photography, I think there are parallels. In any art form (music, literature, the visual arts, etc.), the artist makes choices. What to include and what to exclude. Building up and adding to a base or reducing a subject to its most basic form. Each art form has its own tools to accomplish this task. It's all very subjective. But when it works--wow, the results can be amazing and strike a chord in many people.
The creative process is a process. The end result is what matters, though the journey can be fulfilling. There is no "right" or "wrong". But the first step is always learning your craft. Become technically proficient at what you want to do, so that you can then explore, create, and consciously break the rules.
I often find myself slipping into detective mode when I see photos done by other photographers (museums, advertisements, internet forums, etc.). How did they do that? What were they seeing before them at the time of capture? How and why did they choose their particular composition? How did they expose the photo and what exposure choices did they make and why? What focal length lens did they use and what was their shooting position relative to subject? Why did they choose their particular focal length and shooting position? Was it an available light shot or did they use flash (or multiple flashes)? Reflectors? How did they set up their lighting? What did they do with the image in post? How would I shoot it differently or process it differently?
Usually I can't answer all or most of these questions, but the thought experiment is valuable. At times I've even gone through the motions in an attempt to reproduce an image, starting at the time of capture and working through post. Even if I can't successfully reproduce the image, I usually learn something along the way....
It's also interesting to me when I have the chance to see how a particular image was made, from start to finish, because the artist shares the details. Either in books, on the internet, or even here on this forum.
This extends to other forms of art as well. While I am not a musician (or musically inclined at all), the recent releases of the anniversary sets of some of the Beatles albums (Sgt. Pepper's, the White Album, Abbey Road) have been amazing. Getting a glimpse into how the songs developed is awesome. The creative process that ultimately resulted in the final versions is inspiring to me as a photographer. In some ways it reminds me of "working" a subject. In other ways it reminds me of what can be done in post.
The also applies to paintings/drawings. Picasso is my favorite artist. I first appreciated him after seeing an exhibit that showcased his work over his lifetime. He was an incredibly accomplished painter in a classical sense at an early age. Some of his later work appears very simplistic and I've heard people say that a "five year old" could do that. But his style was a conscious choice (during all of his phases) that for me is a stroke of genius. One of my favorite series that showcases this process is his Bull lithographs from 1945.
While not directly applicable to photography, I think there are parallels. In any art form (music, literature, the visual arts, etc.), the artist makes choices. What to include and what to exclude. Building up and adding to a base or reducing a subject to its most basic form. Each art form has its own tools to accomplish this task. It's all very subjective. But when it works--wow, the results can be amazing and strike a chord in many people.
The creative process is a process. The end result is what matters, though the journey can be fulfilling. There is no "right" or "wrong". But the first step is always learning your craft. Become technically proficient at what you want to do, so that you can then explore, create, and consciously break the rules
.
Last edited: