dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I recently submitted some flowers for Easter that I had taken a couple of days ago. My photo partner uses Photoshop all the time and is very good with it. I have never used it. He downloaded my photos onto his computer so we could look at them before I went home to my own computer. While looking at this photo he, with permission of course, did some Photoshopping of my photograph. I realize the Photoshop program is capable of doing wonderful things with photographs, change the sky, add people who were never there, lighten, darken, brighten and other wondrous things my computer cannot do with just the Mac Photos program.

But my question is this: Looking at both photos, mine first and his rendition second, is there a noticeable positive difference in the two photos in your opinion?

Forgive me for putting this in the Main Photography Discussion if it is the wrong place. I saw no other topic category where it might fit.

Dennis

(Download)


(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The main thing I notice (on a somewhat poor Chromebook screen) is the second one is brighter; is that "better" for you? Personally, I would do selective editing to lighten the flower while leaving the bright greens of the background darker. IMO it is a busy background that overwhelms the subject.

Ask 25 people, you'll get 25 opinions. Unless you have a paying customer, shouldn't the result be about you, not us? 😊

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

As to your question, "is there a noticeable positive difference in the two photos in your opinion? the second one is brighter, which could be done in any software so echoing Linda's comment. Are you talking about PS or Adobe Camera Raw in PS? I do wish there was a better way to separate these two software programs. I shoot flowers often and most often do use PS, not ACR, to clean them up and there is a big difference when I do that. I process images in LrC, not ACR. I then pop a processed flower image into PS and use the clone, brush, content aware, and bandaid tools to create a more perfect flower (that always appeals to me). Processing in ARC, PS, or LrC can show the same image or something different, it's about how you use each tool. One is not necessarily better than the other for processing, but each one does something better than the other one. Your friend may be proficient in PS but this image does not show that proficiency.

maxlieberman Loc: 19027

Actually, I like the first, deeper version better. The flower looks washed out and has lost detail in the second, and the background, because it is brighter, is more distracting.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I like the original photo better. The photoshopped one is too bright

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I agree with Linda decide which on you like and go with it. Which one do I like better?

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

For the shot submitted, there isn't much difference. As others have pointed out, the 2nd version is lighter. But, I don't think we can draw any conclusions here. There apparently wasn't much post-processing done in Photoshop. In some cases, PP can materially change the results. It just didn't in this case. Had there been distractions to remove, or if you wanted to move the bee in the picture, reduce noise, or make numerous other possible edits, the difference could be more drastic.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

On my screen the thumbnail of #2 looks different from the download. The thumbnail version looks less saturated. The download version looks at least as saturated as #1 download.

In #2 download, everything has been brightened, including the background, which some will see as a bonus and others will wish that the background was less eye-catching. Personally I'd want to take the edge off of the background without leaving it flat.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You don't have to like either. The first is too dark and muted, the other is too bright and the yellow is unnatural.

A better edit would address the following, based on the edited version:

1) Darken the shadows behind the flower. Experiment and see how 'dark' to make the background, certainly not all black, but how much details should be visible in the shadows can vary between a lot and hardly any at all.

2) Revisit the noise processing and sharpening. A lot of the details of the bee have been lost in the edited version.

3) Lighten the shadows and blacks of the bee. A lot of the details of the bee have been lost too in how much darker he's become.

4) Adjust all three aspects of the yellow of the flower, the Hue, Saturation and Luminance. It looks like the edit selectively increased the Luminance of the yellow making it brighter and whiter. But, some of the 'red' of the flower (as in Hue) has been removed. Typically, when selectively working on a color to make it brighter (like the blue of the sky), you need to address all three H/S/L, not just the Luminance, to keep a natural looking color that is overall brighter.

5) Lift the shadows of the flower's center. Again, a lot of fine detail has been lost, seemingly in noise processing. But also, detail is lost in the too dark shadows.

Digital editing is an art. A powerful tool like PS (or LR, etc) has a lot of different options, and it takes years of experience with the tool to develop a 'vision' or 'conception' of the intended final result to then effective use PS to edit an image and achieve that vision of the intended improvement.

You also have to have a willingness to look critically your images at the 1:1 pixel-level details. If you just view them full-screen on your monitor, you'll never develop that 'vision' needed to use the digital editing software to their fullest extent and capabilities.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Second is brighter.

Pick one.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Hi Linda. Maybe I phrased my question wrong. I didn’t think so. I am not so much asking which is better but do you see much of a difference. I am perfectly happy with mine. But I don’t mind his if that makes sense. I am just wanting to know how great are the differences rather than good or better. Thanks for your comment.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Thank you. That is what I thought.

Dennis

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I usually post process my photos for contrast bending the light curve. I rarely, but sometimes, declutter by removing an object. I am biased against adding false skies and such but if creating an image to be appreciated as a painting, I guess I wouldn't mind.

In this case, I agree that the items in the background detract from the image and should be de-emphasized by darkening. For the given examples, I prefer the original.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I just process them until they look good to me.
No charts, no curves, no numbers,
just the way it looks.