How would we process your image?

The idea

We would like to make a little experiment: You can send us a raw file and then some of us will process it, show our settings, discuss our approach and maybe compare our results.

The idea is that you can compare our results to your own processing and maybe improve on it. At the same time we can compare our results and learn something as well. So everybody benefits 🙂

How to get an image to us

The easiest way would be to leave a comment with a link to the raw file. But you can also send an E-Mail to xxxx.

Edit: Thanks to all those who contributed! We now have a good selection of images to chose from 🙂

We will use the image only for this blog post.

 

Criteria

We will probably have to select a few images. We will select those images which pose an interesting challenge and which we consider “good” images because processing can’t save a boring one.

The following two tabs change content below.
I have two hobbies: Photography and photographic gear. Both are related only to a small degree.

Latest posts by Phillip Reeve (see all)

24 thoughts on “How would we process your image?”

    1. i use LR v5.7 and because of available perpetual licenses now also C1. The output is quite different, sometimes i like the output from LR more sometimes C1…

  1. Great idea.
    I start with the first point, which probably most people dont.
    I convert my A7rii Files to lossy DNG!

  2. That sound very interesting!

    I just uploaded https://phillipreeve.gjung.com/ where I linked the download and added comparison views of each of the images, comparing my own edit to a plain raw->jpeg development that just applies the same crop and lens profile for you to get a fast overview.

    The download link contains the raw images + the two versions seen in the comparison (downloadable file by file).

  3. I don’t currently have any suitable files available to submit, but might I suggest something interesting (perhaps as a separate article), that you try processing of digitizations done of images originally taken on film: color slides, color negatives, and black & white negatives, all of which pose a different set of problems (and different from direct digital photography).

    And since high-quality film scanners are becoming increasingly unavailable and over-priced, digitizations made by the two means most likely available to the average photographer nowadays are either a moderate-cost flatbed scanner with film capability (such as Epson V500/550/600), or with a decent macro lens on a digital camera.

    Thanks. (And your blog is excellent, and much appreciated).

    1. Hi Fred,

      My method has been to use a light table and my Sony A7II setup on a tripod to shoot my 120 B&W negatives held in a digitaliza holder from lomography. I use a Vivitar series1 90mm macro at f5.6 and a 2 second release.

      It works ok but I’ve had to mask off my light table with blue painters tape to avoid stray light around the negatives but that is leaving some blue coloring in the images that I need to work around. To improve I would change my masking and make a tube or bellows around the negative to avoid stray light.

      Here’s an image of “scanning setup” before I masked off the light table
      https://photos.app.goo.gl/7Qg5AmsK9YS5x1qAA

      In Capture One I invert the luminosity curve then edit as I normally would with the one exception that all the sliders are in reverse. I don’t shoot color film so I have no experience there.

      1. Thanks, Matt.

        I plan (haven’t yet finalized) a somewhat more formal setup myself, shooting horizontally rather than vertically for a variety of reasons, most important of which are the considerable number of images I want to digitize, plus a bad back, so I want to do it seated at a table, not standing or leaning over. And to keep things within closer reach, on my full-frame Sony mirrorless I’ll almost certainly use the Sony 50mm macro, rather than a 90mm. While most of what I want to digitize is B&W, some is color, (negatives and slides). The color negatives will of course require compensation for the orange mask (which if I remember my film chemistry, is not constant over the image density range, I seem to recall there being an interaction with at least one of the dye layers). The slides, while not having that issue, have a couple of their own: greater contrast and dynamic range than negatives so control of flare will be important, plus film flatness in their mounts. For both color negatives and transparencies, since some of my stuff is quite old, there will have been differential fading of the dye layers over the years, so non-linear color balance issues.

  4. Had a processing question for your experienced minds- My current processing workflow for Nikon RAW is
    1. processing .Nef files first(white balance correction mostly) in Capture NX2 and then
    2. exporting as Tiff to process in Lightroom or Silver Efex(B/W).
    I notice occasional banding with highlight recovery and do not know if processing as Tiff in LR versus processing as DNG(Raw converter) in LR would be your recommendation.
    I do not see a difference with either approach and this is perhaps due to my workflow or setting. Workflow recommendations or steps will be highly appreciated- Thanks in advance!

  5. Damn! Already closed?

    My main subjects are people, under artificial light, with strong color casts and high ISO. This is enough challenge. 😉
    I have a special workflow to work around the skin tone issue with LR. So it would be interesting to see your solution for portraits. In my experience WB is an issue with the A7 (R3). So I spend a lot of time with finding the right ballance lately. Auto WB in LR is no help and even the picker will not solve the issue completely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *