Introduction and 'why bother'

I spent a long time and a lot of money trying to understand how to adjust photos. Having used film for years, your choices were limited to dodging and burning, pushing and pulling and filters, that was about it - you get a bad shot, it stopped there.

With the maturity of digital photography, other options emerge. Dodging and burning can be achieved using tools in Photoshop (CS and Elements) and other software applications (some free), non-destructively using adjustment layers and with very fine tolerances, unlike waving hands under the enlarger hoping the outcome will be good. Pushing and pulling too is easy, ramp up the ISO on the camera, up the exposure after the shot - there are downsides, noise from the sensor for example, but it is easy and predictable (even high ISO noise is less of an issue since the Nikon D3 made ISO 6400 very useable - technology that will work it's way to cheaper cameras in time). Filters too, not a problem - polarising and grads ND still have their place today.

Suddenly shots that were 'binned' a decade ago are useable with todays technology and the digital image.

My dilemma was this, how do 'you tick the boxes' to ensure as best you can, the best outcome you can, given sensible budgets. To further explain, given I use decent optics, lenses costing hundreds not thousands, good technique without years of training and professional devotion, and subjects that don't include a trip to New Zealand to get the best light, how do I get pleasing optimum images?

I don't teach photography (even if you can?) so I can assume that you, the reader, will equip themselves with kit they are comfortable with and the ability to get images that stand a chance of being tweaked to a level of sensible perfection. You still can't turn a terrible image into an award winner...

I use Lightroom these days almost exclusively. You can apply my explanation below to most other software because the level of this piece is simple (when you know) and most 'packages' have the controls to do what I suggest. You can use any RAW editor to make this work.

I don't bother with RAW I hear you say... neither did I, and mostly still don't, it's just that the adjustments I suggest have more scope if you start with unprocessed output from the sensor. Decisions like colour temperature haven't been made for you already - the 'defaults' will offer you an image but the - 'this one's a cloudy day so make it dull' logic from the cameras processor hasn't been written to the file, saved and compressed losing data, yet.

So starting from a RAW file (or JPEG) what would you do?

Lets start by saving money and explaining something. Do I need a 'grey card' or special diffuser to get my white balance right? - No, you don't. It might help, but read on...

Step one of demystification (if that's a word), white balance is what looks right. I think calling it 'white balance' confuses. WB is the amount of yellow or blue, well shades in between. When you open the photo on the computer (on a calibrated i.e. reasonably colour-accurate screen - I use a Huey basic for this) you will notice whether the image is sunny or cold - what should it be? is it pleasing, accurate? - the two are not the same - it's decision time, do I make it right or do I make it pleasing - it's your art, you decide! I think go for pleasing!

Isn't pleasing the wrong choice? What are you tweaking for then? I draw the line at swapping skies (just) but something made you take that photo, and it wasn't 'this looks nasty'! So it's pleasing then....

So first, get the WB balance to be good, a bit more sun, a bit more cold blue, it depends but choose, the RAW file is not 'harmed', you can go back and do it a different way next time. Remember, every time you save a JPG, you loose data, even if the file appears not to get smaller. Be bold!

So we've made the WB nice...

Next up, it's exposure. This is simple, too dark or too bright. Generally most cameras tend to avoid 'blowing the highlights' - this means that overexposed bright bits (detail on white wedding dresses on sunny days) that get lost by the camera sensor for good... if you don't worry here you're not a wedding photographer...!

So, most cameras will tend to underexpose. At this point, keeping an eye on the histogram graph, push the slider to the right.

While we are here: the histogram shows quantity of light at different colours. At one end (right normally) it's white, at the other, black - face it, some details will be total black, like jet no detail nothing, some, like the sun, bright, no detail nothing, get over it!

Move the slider till you are happy!

Now the exposure is 'sort of' good...

Most sophisticated software lets you do the next bit, which is fine-tuning exposure, namely, 'recovery' and 'fill light'.

Recover is, and watch the histogram graph here, bringing back detail you've lost. This is impossible in theory, but remember, you only just - nondestructively - lost detail getting the exposure right, so the impossible is possible! Push the slider till it looks good.

Fill light is like standing in front of the image with a torch. Push this slider till this looks right. I find 'fill light' to be useless on a lot of images...

Nearly there

My favourite bit is coming! There is a slider usually called 'blacks'. it's a lot better than it sounds. It should be called 'punchy' because it adds wow. Move this subtly to the right until it looks good. If you have one, there is a triangle in the histogram black corner or there is a way of seeing 'black with no detail', take a look and decide if the black you added is too much or 'I'll live with it like this because it looks good...'

Next 'clarity' ... move this to 'good'. Save as a DNG (big) or JPG (most popular, small and lossy) or TIF (big) - keep the RAW backed-up.

Done, that's it, on a 'nearly there image' you just made it good. If you started with RAW, you can change your mind, try it in black and white, sepia, well whatever you think... enjoy!

Home