Processing Tank Photos

[tigrtraps]

I saw the post talking about what it takes to be TOTM, photography was something that often came up. The easy part of photography to focus on is the hardware, a good DSLR equals good pictures right? I wanted to display what many of us already do, and some of us don't know to do, post processing.

 

I'd like to throw out these are just my normal tank photos, and my normal process to quickly fix up the photos to my liking. They are only intended to show how much of a difference the post processing can have. *Click each photo to see the larger image, the thumbnails don't make a big difference*

 

1. JPEG out of Sony A57, slightly modified Jpeg profile used (saturates reds only slightly, everything else neutral)

2. Auto Tone used - Photoshop CS6

3. Color enhancement of my own formula used

4. Vignette and very light sharpening added. The vignette is nice to have for publicly displayed photos, but not always necessary or recommended.

Please share your own process/tips/methods for treating your photos. Or post up a photo from your tank and I can process it quickly for the heck of it.

[Withers]

For one, I'd start out in RAW so you can actually edit it efficiently.

 

 

First, I make sure my pictures are in sharp focus before worrying about editing them. I'm extremely harsh on this aspect. If the photo is even slightly off at a 100% crop I send it to the trash. This is what will make or break a good photo IMO.

 

Once that's taken care of, the very first item on the list should be a white balance adjustment.

 

Then fix the exposure.

 

Then add some contrast if needed. I typically boost highlights some and darken the shadowed areas just a hair.

 

Then sharpen if absolutely needed.

 

 

I haven't had a reef tank in a little over 2 years, so I won't post off-topic examples of before and afters.

[markalot]

If you doubt how important RAW is take a photo in your best JPEG setting, then take the same shot in RAW. View full size and note the huge difference in quality.

[tigrtraps]

For one, I'd start out in RAW so you can actually edit it efficiently.

 

 

First, I make sure my pictures are in sharp focus before worrying about editing them. I'm extremely harsh on this aspect. If the photo is even slightly off at a 100% crop I send it to the trash. This is what will make or break a good photo IMO.

 

Once that's taken care of, the very first item on the list should be a white balance adjustment.

 

Then fix the exposure.

 

Then add some contrast if needed. I typically boost highlights some and darken the shadowed areas just a hair.

 

Then sharpen if absolutely needed.

 

 

I haven't had a reef tank in a little over 2 years, so I won't post off-topic examples of before and afters.

 

Raw is the best way to control and preserve quality for sure. I'll still use Jpeg for the majority of my tank photos. They are quicker and easier, and I jump between 3 computers every day and one of them can't handle the Raw's. By quicker, there are times I just don't get to editing photos and dump them into the fish tank folder. If they were all raw I'd have to go put some work into them whether I had the time or not.

 

Anyone have a jpeg and raw comparison? Long as it's fish related it is on topic enough .

[Trogdor447]

I wish i had a current jpeg/raw comparrison. The difference between the two was extremely noticeable on older cameras 5megapixel and less. This was when I used to sell cameras. However in recent years you can get away with the JPEG for 2 reasons. Image processors have gotten better, and shooting a 16 megapixel in raw is pretty obnoxious for most users.

My canon sx30is shoots specifically in JPEG and i couldnt be more angry about it. I never put any effort into researching that end of it. Expecting that I had just spent 400+ on the camera I assumed it shot in RAW. It can put beautiful daylight pictures out.. But when it comes into low light situations it is less than desirable.

 

here is an outside shot - not on a tripod but i was resting on a rock.

 

and zoomed in on the bridge (main reason i got the 30is - it has a 30x optical zoom)

 

Unedited somewhat lower light - you can tell the edges start losing crispness..

 

Now get to indoor pictures... Well this is as in door as I have an example.

 

 

So what am I trying to say.. JPEG is suitable in higher resolution, the quality is plenty enough for online prints and when you shrink the image down to a reasonable size... your distortion gets hidden. When you shoot in raw that picture is crystal clear from a 1x1 inch to a 60x60inch (however large your megapixel is). My jpeg might be able to print a 24x24 without distortion where.

[Withers]

The quality of a JPEG is fine, the issue is when you try to edit them. Every adjustment you make degrades the image, and the level of adjustments you can make to a JPEG are far inferior to that of a RAW image. That's why shooting in JPEG is great if you have no intention of editing the photo (you trust the camera to do the editing for you), and shooting in RAW is the only way to go if you plan to edit it yourself.

 

I'll try to post an example tonight that shows the kind of degradation I'm talking about.

[Withers]

ok here we go.

 

first, edited as a jpeg

 

edited as RAW

 

 

I didn't perfectly line up exactly what I edited, the jpeg was a quick 2 minute job, but you can see the degradation of detail, right?

[Acielot]

I didn't perfectly line up exactly what I edited, the jpeg was a quick 2 minute job, but you can see the degradation of detail, right?

I'm not sure if it is the monitor but is is much more obvious (in the clouds) in the jpeg although I can still see it in the RAW. If what I see is what you are talking about.

 

A macro of SPS polyps would make any changes evident but if you don't plan on editing it then I would stay with jpeg.

[Withers]

look at the leaves on the trees, especially the evergreens.

 

This was the original image. You can see the details are still intact here even though it's too dark.

[Zer0]

Holy shit dude, that picture edited as raw is incredible! The difference is so drastic....

[Acielot]

Alright I see what you mean now.

[tigrtraps]

Glad you posted a comparison shot, hell of a picture too .

 

Anyone else do something different for photo processing? Turns out photoshop on Iphone isn't too bad at cleaning up the Iphone photos, even allows the use of layers and brushes.

[markalot]

I just purchased a Nikon 3100 so take this as a newbie opinion ...

 

The software that comes with the Nikon's works every well for editing the raw images. It doesn't have all of the tools a good piece of image editing software would have but I don't own photoshop so it works for me.