Aperture Editing

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by noodle654, Jul 9, 2008.

  1. noodle654 macrumors 68020

    noodle654

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Location:
    Never Ender
    #1
    Hi everybody,

    I currently own a Nikon D80 with a 18-135mm lens. I love the camera, but I just want to see if I am doing everything right to get the most out of my camera and Aperture. I tried both LightRoom and Aperture, and I have decided to use Aperture. I am new to editing really...I have done lots of stuff in iPhoto, but I am looking to do more with my photos.

    -On my Nikon I have the pictures on RAW instead of JPEG-Fine. Is this the best quality. Also, how should I import; through the USB on the camera, or a card reader? Does it even matter?

    -When exporting my photos, what is the highest quality I can use? JPG seems to be a bit low.

    I am still learning the ropes on Aperture and I wanted to see what people thought of a picture that I took a few days ago. I have attached 2 photos, taken on different days. Tell me what you think, and if you can do better could you post your editing? Or, just tell me what you think it needs.

    Thanks a bunch MR friends!
     

    Attached Files:

  2. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #2
    RAW is the best format you can shoot, and the one you should use if you plan to edit your photos.

    As for exporting, .tiff is the best format, but file sizes are incredibly large. JPEG in quality set to 12 and 300dpi is quite the best solution I use normally.

    Your photos aren't that bad technically speaking. I tend to prefer warmer photos when they are at the ocean, it makes the and look great.

    Adding a little contrast also helps, this is one quick try I gave to one photo.

    EDIT: with the RAW file you could keep more detail and make the clouds look more real. My retouch made the clouds look rather blown-out.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #3
    One tip, always be careful to not blow out the sky. When that happens you won't be able to recover much detail and your photos would look flat.

    Another tip. Try to put the central object in the right or left side. At least in this kind of photos. In this specific photo putting the house in the right side would habe made the photo look more interesting.:)
     

    Attached Files:

  4. noodle654 thread starter macrumors 68020

    noodle654

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Location:
    Never Ender
    #4
    Thanks!! The photo looks great. May I ask what you did to bring out the sky? You just changed the contrast?
     
  5. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #5
    This is a screenshot of the changes I made.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. noodle654 thread starter macrumors 68020

    noodle654

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Location:
    Never Ender
    #6
    There is nothing attached? Is this for the first photo you edited?

    EDIT: Nevermind.
     
  7. anubis macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    #7
    I went a little "out there" with my edit ;)

    [​IMG]

    Click image for full size
     
  8. Doylem macrumors 68040

    Doylem

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wherever I hang my hat...
    #8
    If the light is dull and unrevealing - as in your pix - then no amount of tweaking in Aperture will restore what wasn't there. So maybe think less about editing and post-processing... and more about shooting when the light is more interesting. It would make a big difference with shots like these, IMO... :)
     
  9. noodle654 thread starter macrumors 68020

    noodle654

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Location:
    Never Ender
    #9
    Thank you for the suggestion...I would have loved to take the shot on a sunny day, but I was out on my boat that day and its a 30 minute drive to this lighthouse. It hasnt been sunny and calm for the past 2 weeks, its cloudy and blowing 20-30 everyday :(.
     
  10. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #10
    I see in your screen shot that you've over exposed the white clouds in the sky. This means there is no detail there and that part of the print is "paper white". Look at the histogram on the right. Many pixels are "blown". When you shoot you can look at the histogram on the back of the camera and if you've blown some highlights you just reduce the exposure by 1/2 stop or more. (use a -ev setting) These landscape type shots will wait while you take a few test shots. That's the advantage of landscape over sports photography. But even in sports you can take a random shot of the play field just to see the exposure on the histogram.

    I read your questions and I think you've got it all right. RAW (or .nef) is the best way to go if you intend to edit the image. It allows for more range of adjustment. How to export? Depends on the perpose of the image but in general jpg is the way to go. But you loose very little with JPG-Fine if you know the image will be nearly correct in the camera. Scens without tricky or a wide range of light come out just fine in jpg and the jpg files are so much smaller and easier to store and handle. I think raw is for when you think the image will require corrections or edits.

    One thing to resist is "pixel peeping". Your camera was not designed to allow for three foot wide enlargements. That's what a 100% blow up is. Judge your work at the normal viewing distance and print size.
     

Share This Page