Hangin at the Ski photo-Shop

[Let Mikey Ski It!]

Photoshop is amazing. I could easily believe that you could earn an
advanced degree in this program. When I think I have a good bag of tips, I
learn something new and it becomes my new favorite tip. I know and use
stuff now that I had no clue about 2 weeks ago, and so on.

Here are a couple of my recent favorite tips for ski photos.

First, a copy of a shot off the camera after doing basic attempts to
improve the shot with curves, then reducing size and quality significantly
for the web, and sharpening:

(WARING: Pownographic image of skiing Breckenridge)

Loading Image...

This shot has a high contrast back-lit subject on overwhelming bright snow
that the camera sensor tints bluish. Now, two of my now-favorite tricks:

1. Apply a "contrast mask" to lift the dark portions and fade the brights
(duplicate layer, desaturate, invert, Gaussian blur, Overlay mode, 50%
opacity)

2. Add a new solid color fill to simulate a photographic 81A warming filter
to get the snow back to white (new solid fill layer, color beige, blending
mode Color, about 15% opacity).

Loading Image...

Compare the skier, the snow and the trees. You can do much of this with
other programs and/or with much more tinkering with other adjustments but
Photoshop lets you record the actions and assign them F-keys. Bada-bing.
Done.

What books and tip sources have you all liked? i highly recommend "The
Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby.

My quest for Photoshop prowess continues...

Mike...

--
Littleton, Colorado (reply to msaemisch at yahoo dot com)
Visit my ski pages at: http://powderday.us
Carpe powder-diem

[The Real Bev]

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
Photoshop is amazing. I could easily believe that you could earn an
advanced degree in this program. When I think I have a good bag of tips, I
learn something new and it becomes my new favorite tip. I know and use
stuff now that I had no clue about 2 weeks ago, and so on.
Here are a couple of my recent favorite tips for ski photos.
First, a copy of a shot off the camera after doing basic attempts to
improve the shot with curves, then reducing size and quality significantly
(WARING: Pownographic image of skiing Breckenridge)
http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/Temp/DSC_2735Camera.jpg
This shot has a high contrast back-lit subject on overwhelming bright snow
1. Apply a "contrast mask" to lift the dark portions and fade the brights
(duplicate layer, desaturate, invert, Gaussian blur, Overlay mode, 50%
opacity)
2. Add a new solid color fill to simulate a photographic 81A warming filter
to get the snow back to white (new solid fill layer, color beige, blending
mode Color, about 15% opacity).
http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/Temp/DSC_2735Fixed.jpg
Compare the skier, the snow and the trees. You can do much of this with
other programs and/or with much more tinkering with other adjustments but
Photoshop lets you record the actions and assign them F-keys. Bada-bing.
Done.

I'm ashamed to say that I like the original better than the fixed one.
There's more detail and contrast in the snow, giving a more 3-dimensional
effect, and the detail in the skier's clothing is pretty irrelevant.

One bothersome thing is that each of our monitors is different. Is what I
actually see what you intended? No way to know.

I take back what I said (or implied) about being able to figure out
Photoshop. I can't deal with the Gimp either and am limited to changing
only overall brightness and color curves with XV. When I try to think
about layers my head starts to hurt.

[lal_truckee]

Post by The Real Bev
I'm ashamed to say that I like the original better than the fixed one.

I'm not. I like the original better - the photoshopped version looks
like one of those Thomas Kincaid "paniter of light" paintings - it looks
fake. Fine if you go in for that sort of thing, but it's not my cup of
tea. (But the original is a great shot.)

Post by The Real Bev
There's more detail and contrast in the snow, giving a more 3-dimensional
effect, and the detail in the skier's clothing is pretty irrelevant.

On the other hand, the unprocessed vers is too blue - common for snow
pictures, the tree wood is too dark, and the skier is washed out. I
prefer the second vers; I think the overall brightness could be reduced
(but that's probably my screen.)

I'm sure we all have a dedicated, compensated, true color display -
accurately aligned - they only go for a few grand each ...

[Let Mikey Ski It!]

Post by lal_truckee
On the other hand, the unprocessed vers is too blue - common for snow
pictures, the tree wood is too dark, and the skier is washed out. I
prefer the second vers; I think the overall brightness could be reduced
(but that's probably my screen.) ....

The pics I posted are seriously reduced to a 30% quality jpeg and then
doing some sharpening so it is hard to see what I see on my calibrated
screen. The main point was to say how incredible Photoshop is with its
infinite number of ways to improve a picture. I just keep making great
discoveries.

I took a little more care reducing this one, processed as before, backlit
skier, bluish snow. The colors still wash out a bit when I reduce and
squeeze the quality just a bit:

Loading Image...

Mike...

--
Littleton, Colorado (reply to msaemisch at yahoo dot com)
See my ski photography at: http://PowderDay.us
Carpe powder-diem

[AstroPax]

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/Temp/DSC_2697.jpg

I would have to say that it looks pretty darn good...but next time,
how about if we don't cut off the tippy-top of snow-covered pines.

-Astro

[Let Mikey Ski It!]

... how about if we don't cut off the tippy-top of snow-covered pines.

Yup! Shoot and learn. I think you need to send me that new lens. Grumble
grumble.

Hey, did you upgrade your camera to firmware 2.0? If not, I can help.

Mike...

--
Littleton, Colorado (reply to msaemisch at yahoo dot com)
See my ski photography at: http://PowderDay.us
Carpe powder-diem

[AstroPax]

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
Yup! Shoot and learn. I think you need to send me that new lens. Grumble
grumble.

$1600 bucks!

It better be as good as all the reviews say it is.

What the hell. As many pics as I shoot, the savings in film cost
alone has already paid for the cam...and will probably pay for this
new lens by the end of the upcoming season.

But if doesn't snow worth a shit, I'm screwed.

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
Hey, did you upgrade your camera to firmware 2.0? If not, I can help.

Yea, I got it from a link provided on the Nikon SLR Forum.

I probably didn't really need 2.0...but I figured what the
hell...better keep up with the Jones's.

Now, if I can just get my powder breathing subjects to "STOP LOOKING
AT THE CAMERA" !!!

-Astro

---
x-Vertigo
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/02-03/index.htm
---

[Let Mikey Ski It!]

Post by AstroPax

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
Yup! Shoot and learn. I think you need to send me that new lens. Grumble
grumble.

$1600 bucks!

Where did you find it for $1,600?!? My toy gland got seriously enlarged
reading about that lens. Have you received it yet? What do you think?!?

Post by AstroPax
But if doesn't snow worth a shit, I'm screwed.

I bet it will. If it doesn't, send it to me.

Astro, have you done much tinkering with White Balance? After just reading
a few articles, it sounds like we should be experimenting with this to see
which handles snow best. I also have an 18% grey cloth but have never used
it.

Mike...

--
Littleton, Colorado (reply to msaemisch at yahoo dot com)
See my ski photography at: http://PowderDay.us
Carpe powder-diem

[AstroPax]

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!

Post by AstroPax

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
Yup! Shoot and learn. I think you need to send me that new lens. Grumble
grumble.

$1600 bucks!

Where did you find it for $1,600?!? My toy gland got seriously enlarged
reading about that lens. Have you received it yet? What do you think?!?

Mikey,

Actually, I paid exactly $1,649.95 for the USA model from B&H Photo.

I procure all of my gear from B&H because they are fast and reliable.

Obviously, I could have purchased the grey market version for less,
but if I'm gonna pay *that* much for a lens I think it's prudent to
get the 5 year Nikon USA warranty. Especially for a lens that has so
many switches, servos, gizmos, etc.

A few pics of this monster mounted on my D100, w/tripod:

Loading Image... (38k)

Loading Image... (53k)

Anyway, the thing is awesome. It's my first AF-S type lens. Talk
about a *fast* auto-focus.

Not too heavy, not too big, and it just happens to produce some rather
high quality, sharp images. Yup, I'm thoroughly convinced that half
the battle is with the glass.

However, as we well know, the real test will occur when I start
shooting during a nice Alta dump...big snowflakes, flat light, fast
movers.

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!

Post by AstroPax
But if doesn't snow worth a shit, I'm screwed.

I bet it will. If it doesn't, send it to me.

On second thought, I *will* find some snow, regardless! Even if I
have to jump on the old Tele skis. But for that to happen, I would
have to be really desperate.

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
Astro, have you done much tinkering with White Balance? After just reading
a few articles, it sounds like we should be experimenting with this to see
which handles snow best. I also have an 18% grey cloth but have never used
it.

Yea, I think you might have something there. Guess it's time to start
tinkering with the WB, but I'm not exactly sure where to start. Let
me know if you have any good ideas.

The most I've ever done is simply set it at a +3 EV.

Also, seeing how skiers sometimes move erratically, I think I'll try
Dynamic-area AF vs Single-area AF.

Man, I can't believe it. My old film Nikon is gathering dust, big
time. I feel sorry for Kodak.

-Astro

---
x-Vertigo
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/02-03/index.htm
---

[Let Mikey Ski It!]

Post by AstroPax
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/cam/70-200_1.jpg (38k)
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/cam/70-200_2.jpg (53k)

BIGGGG F SCHWINNNNNNNNG !!!!!!

You are hurting me, Astro. Must have must have. Oh baby.

I am really curious to see how that VR works for skiers where you might be
tracking the camera slowly.

Post by AstroPax
Yea, I think you might have something there. Guess it's time to start
tinkering with the WB, but I'm not exactly sure where to start. Let
me know if you have any good ideas.

The article I read talked about not setting it to Auto, like I do. It said
it works well sometimes but the camera does not always guess correctly.
They talked about experimenting to see which you like best (like setting it
to flash, or tungsten) and/or setting it manually (or shoot raw where it
does not matter). I plan to experiment soon. Maybe this is a way to get rid
of the blueish snow.

Mike...

--
Littleton, Colorado (reply to msaemisch at yahoo dot com)
See my ski photography at: http://PowderDay.us
Carpe powder-diem

[Mike Yetsko]

Post by AstroPax
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/cam/70-200_1.jpg (38k)
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/cam/70-200_2.jpg (53k)

Neat!

Hmm, why the scalloped edge on the shield? Is that something new?

Geesh, I've been out of it for a while. I'm still using a Canon AE-1P

Mike

[AstroPax]

Post by Mike Yetsko

Post by AstroPax
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/cam/70-200_1.jpg (38k)
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/cam/70-200_2.jpg (53k)

Neat!
Hmm, why the scalloped edge on the shield? Is that something new?

It makes it easier to reach in with your fingers and remove the lens
cap without removing the lens hood.

But I'm still waiting for a design that works without having to take
off the ski gloves.

-Astro

[AstroPax]

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
My quest for Photoshop prowess continues...

Well, maybe if you knew what the hell you were doing in the first
place, there wouldn't be a need for you to jump through all of these
post-processing hoops!

Just kidding !!

Actually, I'm considering moving from Paintshop Pro over to Photoshop
myself...along with upgrading my D100 to a D2h ;>)

Don't know if Photoshop will be worth it though...about the most I
ever do is crop and sharpen.

BTW, I just ordered a new Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS/VR-G IF-ED lens:

http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/AFS_VR/afs_vr.html

Yea, I'm gonna get the powder shots now, baby !!

-Astro
http://www.xmission.com/users/hound/astro/02-03/index.htm

[Bruno Melli]

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
What books and tip sources have you all liked?

I just picked this one sight unseen because of a recommendation:

<httpPhotoshop Restoration & Retouching, Second Edition
by Katrin Eismann, Doug Nelson

://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735713502/103-2855580-6662232>

I'm not regretting one cent. This book rocks. It has the obvious stuff
like color and contrast correction, fixing over/under exposed pic. Basically
fixing pictures just like the one you posted.
But as the subject indicates, it is heavy on fixing pictures. Faded ones,
torn ones...
The book is full of technics. For example, one picture was so badly
damaged that part of the picture had no details left. The author
took a picture of somebody wearing the same dress and merged it back
with the original. You would think it is an original picture...

bruno.

[Bruno Melli]

And here I was thinking my next purchase would be something like Eric
Meyer on CSS. Well, maybe I'll buy two books now instead of one...

Add a third one: This one is all about color correction. I haven't
had a chance to really get into it but looking at the before/after pictures
it has everything you'd need to fix color/contrast/saturation/cast issues
with pictures:

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321124014/qid=1060728037/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-2855580-6662232>

bruno.

[Chester Bullock]

Post by Bruno Melli

And here I was thinking my next purchase would be something like Eric
Meyer on CSS. Well, maybe I'll buy two books now instead of one...

Add a third one: This one is all about color correction. I haven't
had a chance to really get into it but looking at the before/after
pictures it has everything you'd need to fix
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321124014/qid=1060728037/sr=2-
1/ref=sr_2_1/103-2855580-6662232>
bruno.

Damn you bruno... ;)

If you and Mike really want to have some fun with your cameras, take a
look at http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html and start making
'super-compositions' of your photos...

Also some good stuff at http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/index.html

I really didn't need another hobby...

[Spammer's Email - DO NOT REPLY!]

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/Temp/DSC_2735Camera.jpg
1. Apply a "contrast mask" to lift the dark portions and fade the brights
(duplicate layer, desaturate, invert, Gaussian blur, Overlay mode, 50%
opacity)
2. Add a new solid color fill to simulate a photographic 81A warming filter
to get the snow back to white (new solid fill layer, color beige, blending
mode Color, about 15% opacity).
http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/Temp/DSC_2735Fixed.jpg

1. As with all Photoshop operations, start with the original image at
the highest rez you have available (eg, as it came from the camera or
off the web). Never resize photos down until the very last step.
This is particularly important whenever you do any sharpening,
contrast masking, etc.
2. Convert the orig hi rez image to grey scale, invert and play with
its levels and/or curves to get a "negative" with good strong blacks
and whites. Even overdo this a bit.
2. Copy this negative to a mask layer over the original image. With
this mask in place, only the darker parts of the original image will
be modified by transformations like levels and curves that normally
operate globally.
3. Use levels or curves to seamlessly brighten up the shadows.
4. Accept and flatten / remove the mask layer. Save as a new version.
5. Do an overall levels /curves / gamma on the new image. Do this on
both the master channel to remove the slightly washed out look, and on
the blue channel to reduce the tint to the snow. Its ok to leave a
bit of blue as it looks more realistic. I prefer this approach to the
solid fill layer approach you mentioned. I think it offers finer
control and is more obvious.
6. Resize down for web use.
Loading Image...
Of course, since its mine, I like it better than the previous two
versions, but what do people think?
HTH,
Yort

I like yours best. I guess one can use the non-negative image from step 2
as a mask to tease out the highlights and then proceed with the negative
for shadows. My difficulty is, as I would guess many digicam users
experience, I lose range in the extremes of highlights and shadows.
Teasing them out requires opposing operations. I tried using the wand
before to choose highlights and play with their levels and curves and then
proceed with the shadows in the same manner. The problem has been that the
periphery of the wand's outline is pronounced by these operations and the
end result looks artificial and photoshopped. I'm guessing the result
would be similar using your masking technique. Do you have any ideas for
avoiding this issue or maybe a nice way to blend the outline back into the
picture?

Thanks.

[Let Mikey Ski It!]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 6:40 AM, Yort <mailto:***@ab.bc.de> wrote:
...
...

Of course, since its mine, I like it better than the previous two
versions, but what do people think?

Cool! Your version is the best, for sure. I am pretty amazed you could do
that with a compressed file. The sky looks awesome. Off to experiment with
yet another tip...

Thanks,


Mike...

--
Littleton, Colorado (reply to msaemisch at yahoo dot com)
See my ski photography at: http://PowderDay.us
Carpe powder-diem

[Yort]

Post by Let Mikey Ski It!
Cool! Your version is the best, for sure. I am pretty amazed you could do
that with a compressed file. The sky looks awesome. Off to experiment with
yet another tip... Thanks,
Mike...

You are quite welcome. Once you get into the routine, correcting
photos with this procedure can be done in under a couple of min and
almost with your mind in idle and the clutch in. ;)

For yucks, I quickly did the same sort of correction on your 2nd
photo:

Before:
http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/Temp/DSC_2697.jpg

After:
Loading Image...

Because I intentionally rushed to see how fast I could execute this
procedure, I'm not 100% happy with this version ... the one-piece came
out a bit too neon blue for my taste and I overcooked the highlights
in the foreground snow. OTOH, you can certainly see a lot more color
and details in the branches as well as in the pow that the skier is
kicking up.

If I had taken a few more sec, I probably would have been a bit more
careful in my final levels adjustment and not had the burnt-out snow.
Solving the problem of the overly saturated blue takes just one more
quick correction:

a) Roughly copy the skier from the original;

b) Past it (correctly aligned) into the corrected image on a new
layer. Feather the edges of this object by 4 or 5 pixels.

c) By adjusting the transparency, you can go anywhere from the
original to the 100% modified version. My guess is that somewhere
around 25% original would be pretty good to tone down the neon-blue.


Here's one of my own images (Steamboat at night) that was done in the
same general way (ie, tweaking the highlights and shadow areas
separately), but the different areas were not selected by the
procedure I described above. There was so much contrast in this scene
that I actually had to take two separate exposures (about 5 or 6
stops apart) and blend them in Photoshop. The exposure for the mtn
required something like a 4 min exposure @ f/5.6 because the moon was
only a thin sliver on this particular night.

Loading Image...

Finally, here is an image (Copper fm I-70) where the areas for
photoshop correction were selected the same way (ie, a negative mask),
but the opposite correction was used to completely darken the shadows
and give a full silhouette effect, whereas in the original, some
detail could still be seen in the shadow areas.

Loading Image...


Ain't fotons fun?

Yort

[Let Mikey Ski It!]

... You are quite welcome. Once you get into the routine, correcting
photos with this procedure can be done in under a couple of min and
almost with your mind in idle and the clutch in. ;)

Yort, I am afraid my level of Photoshop knowledge is insufficient to
recreate your process. Could you add a few more details on each menu/action
you take in each step? Thanks! (I am using PS 7).

I suppose you could set up a Photoshop action to speed things along?

For yucks, I quickly did the same sort of correction on your 2nd
photo: ...

Very nice, again. I need to learn this process.

Ain't fotons fun?

Yes!

Anyone else have some tips to share?

Thanks,

Mike...

--
Littleton, Colorado (reply to msaemisch at yahoo dot com)
See my ski photography at: http://PowderDay.us
Carpe powder-diem