Night shots

[RTK]

I was hoping for a mini-tutorial that sort of covered something we didn't know already...

John, Mikes example was just a quickie one... Also, I still like the original dark one the best.

Granted, tools are only as good as the people that swing them (and as much time you put in)... As has been mentioned before - by just adding a curves tool to XPE would add some punch.

Note that I'm a not a real Photoshop user. So this is just a quick look at what mere three nodes on each channel does when using curves. And why XPE needs that feature... Yes, I do realize that a real Photoshop user would do much, much better (especially when using more than just curves ) but do realize I only spent less than 60 seconds "working" at it.

Risto

[Mike S]

hope ya dont mind gave a shot at bring the detail and keeping it dark also done in adobe lightroom
settings used
exposure +1.55
recovery 100
fill light 54
blacks 8
brightness +30
clarity 66
noise reduction 100

[steve.ledger]

Now this thread has given me a great idea for a future challenge! - stay tuned.

Meanwhile - Mikes thread is really interesting as it goes further than merely showing off nice photos. It's been showing how we all have different goals & preferrences when it comes to dealing with our digital photo shots.

I must admit, Xara isn't my choice for this task, but hey - if it works for others - then that's great.

Meanwhile - Mikes night shot has been a good example of how to get the best out of a not so good scene with only a pns digital cam.

I like what Mikes has done in post #12 - the neons are a bit blown out as has been mentioned.
Mikes selective brightening in post #14 compensates nicely and adds some balance with only a little clarity and contrast lost.

Problem is cameras don't capture what the eye see's in terms of variable light, so there's always a compromise.

In my version of Mikes photo below, I saved a copy of both examples in post #12 and dumped them into 'PhotoMatix' then used the Exposure Blending mode to combine the highlights and shadows from both pics and give a nicely balanced result with good contrast and detail without introducing lot's of noise and showing up jpg artifacts.
This is basic stuff for PhotoMatix which is capable of much more, but it was fast for this example ( just a few seconds )

Personaly I prefer to use Lightroom for my RAW developing, but PhotoMatix has proven handy for those really underexposed shots that need a bit more punch.

Edit: Thanks Mike S for taking the time to show what Lightroom can do.

[raynerj1]

Personally.. I would have tossed the shot... There is not really much you can do with it. The Neon is almost max'd and the rest is really dark... I am more familiar with using PS to adjust levels. It is much easier to lighten a dark shot than it is to darken a bright one. One can usually bring it in if you are within +-1. This shot is like -+6... bad in both extremes...

[geminiguy]

Take the neon signs from Risto's top pic, and combine with the last one Sledger did... and you've got it perfect!!!!
For me, if I were as into the whole photography/vectors thing, I would take the time (ardious I know) to literally, do each of the light sources in the entire pic, enhance them the way it looks in Risto's top pic, and then overlay it onto Sledger's last rendition.....
I have no idea if it would be possible.... but that's what I feel would give the ultimate effect in the end.
I feel like simply (even though it may bot be simple) croping the entire "area" around the lights, changes the building walls with it, etc. (but just in that area) Is there any way to do "each light individually"???
Hopefully Im explaining myself good??

[RTK]

Personally.. I would have tossed the shot...

Me, I would have loved to have used a Leica in Paris instead... But that wasn't the point of the thread... The point was the cigarette pack-sized snapshooter that Mike keeps in his pocket together with his cellphone when riding his Harley - and what can be squeezed out it from less than perfect shots.

Risto

[handrawn]

I'll say what I've said before - I'm no photographer - but I'm impressed with what you guys have got from the original.
Sure reinforces the point: "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there"

[geminiguy]

Thank you HandDrawn.... I apologize if I was seeming to get off the point guys. I was merely stating that... even with the style cam Mike uses, he seems to get pics with plenty of potential, and it also seems that no matter which software you use.... my point is, the more time put into getting the most out of it, the better the results would be... and the potential for better and better quality and details seems endless given even just these few example above.... with not that much time involved....

(What Risto is thinking at this moment.... "Oh my God, he just keeps babbling.....")

[geminiguy]

Sure reinforces the point: "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there"

That's what I keep tellin my bank!!!!!

[steve.ledger]

Personally.. I would have tossed the shot... There is not really much you can do with it.

I actually think everyone has shown that there is always something that can be done with an otherwise less than perfect shot.
Sometimes, you only have one chance at a picture, one 'shot' at capturing a memory, so I think it's worth the effort to try and improve it.
Just like film cameras, all that dcams do is to capture light and just like film cameras the result needs to be developed to bring out the best from that captured light. All Digital cameras have built-in jpeg (some use tiff) processing which can produce reasonable & often acceptable results for everyday snapshots, but mostly we are relying on the manufactures processesing choices here which isn't always ideal, this is where our beloved computers and software comes in
RAW is of course the better choice, but that's a whole new rave