Back Versions (1)
Modifications (2)
Views 109 Unique 53 Award Shortlist   

With or without LR

By Drummerdelight
The main posted photo is what I became after some LR adjustments. V1 is the original cropped to 1/1.

When opting to change the original, this is most of all for a better crop, a better colorbalance (with a slight oldschool look) where the green-yellowishwall has a more tasty, neutral and natural feel to it and a bit sharper...
I must mention that I have experianced that it is (nearly) impossible to get the colorbalance, the sharpness and the lighting perfect - this in a constant way, as the boxers are moving all over the place, so am I btw, shooting from different angles and with a variation of lenses.

What I have experianced, is that when tweeking to much in LR, the noise in the darker parts get obvious and ugly.

I have no experiance working with other programs other than lightroom.
Does anyone feel like experimenting with a different program ?
Or does anyone feel like experimenting with their own style & taste in LR?

Thank you for looking, comparing and who knows, if you feel like it and have the time, feel free to play around with the image...

Cheers,
Guy

Tags: Sport Action Boxing Modified Boxing boxer portraits Sports and action Boxing sport Lightroom CC

Comments


GrinGrinGrinGrin

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

cats_123 Plus
15 4.9k 29 Northern Ireland
24 Oct 2017 9:08AM
The lead shot just edges it....I have a plugin for Lightroom ...ON1 it's free download and has a noise reducing piece of software called Define2...works quite well. ON1 have a full blown system which I gave a brief trial, but my needs are more simplistic 😀
Somerled7 Plus
3 162 8 United Kingdom
24 Oct 2017 10:37AM
First of all, this is a super shot with lots of potential - I wish I had taken it. I also use Lightroom for my initial modifications, but it is generally suited to global changes - to make finer adjustments really needs a programme like Photoshop with it's layers and masks.

In my modifcation, I have downloaded the original into Photoshop, done an Auto Levels fix then used Google Nik collection (a free plug-in) to extact detail, do some colour cast correction (removing some red), slightly desaturate and make some contrast changes. Then, I've done some selective dodge and bun by applying lighten/darken curve layers - darkened down the roof area except for the lights, darkened the crowd and a bit of dark/light on the boxers. I've used Nik collection Dark/Lighten centre to put more light on the standing boxer (the main subject). To reduce noise, I've applied Nik Colection Define2, and finally sharpenned a bit using a High Pass filter.

A lot of this could be done in Llightroom, but it would be very hard work. The real advantage of Photoshop is the use of layers/masks, so the dodge/burn can be painted on and erased selectively (eg I've darkened the crowd and walls, but not the ropes).

Hope you like my mod, and thanks for up-loading the original.

Gordon
24 Oct 2017 11:28AM
Gordon
Thank you for all your time and effort. I see what you mean, your modification is inspiring and interesting. Let me wait just a little to react in detail, maybe there wil be more modification's following. Kind regards,
Guy
Somerled7 Plus
3 162 8 United Kingdom
24 Oct 2017 11:28AM
I should have added that the Google Nik collection (including Define2 noise reduction) also works as a plug-in for Lightroom, so no need to go to the expense of Photshop if that's all you need.
banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4045 Canada
24 Oct 2017 5:03PM
Are you shooting in RAW?
dudler Plus
16 973 1535 England
24 Oct 2017 5:09PM
I think Gordon's given a very complete answer, and it's right outside my knowledge: I don't do layers and stuff, as my background and thinking are very much film-influenced.

Given this, I tend towards the 'warts and all' approach to things: put hte ISO where it needs to be, and live with the noise, jsut as you have to with film. Fill flash has its advantages, and loads of disadvantages, too, in terms of distraction and killing hte atmosphere.

Gordon's mod shows what is possible - it has a really epic, feature-film feel to it.
24 Oct 2017 5:49PM

Quote:Are you shooting in RAW?
Hi Willie, I don't shoot RAW those occasions I confess. Nor do I in the less fast world... I do realise the (possible) benefit, but I have done more than one comparison tests and every time my conclusion is that it's not worth the hasle and extra memory space... I don't want to argue that Fuji is any better but I do feel that a lot of the time I 'm pleased with what it offers in jpg-quality.
From what I 've experianced with myself and some of my friends their results and many around the world, many are happy enough to spend more time taking photographs than converting RAW's into better looking images.
I must conclude that opting for RAW is the way to go for certain types of quality photography.
Maybe using LR for Fuji RAW's is not the best option...

Kind regards,
Guy

Somerled7 Plus
3 162 8 United Kingdom
24 Oct 2017 7:16PM
Guy - thought I'd check in on this again. There are definite advantages to shooting in RAW when working with contrasty conditions (as with your boxers). RAW images have 4096 levels of brightness compared to only 256 in JPEGS, but worse, JPEGS also distribute the levels non-linearly, assigning more levels to the bright end than the shadows. So, for a 5 stop dynamic range, the darkest two F-Stop levels have only 47 brightness levels in JPEG, compared to 4096*2/5 = 1638 levels in RAW. This is why you run into problems of noise if you try to brighten dark shadows in a JPEG - the JPEG encoding process has thrown away a lot of the shadow detail that the camera sensor has captured!

So, for bright sunny pictures on the beach, JPEGs are fine, but for fast moving boxers in a dark boxing hall when you have to use ISO 4000, I would suggest shooting RAW to give yourself the best possible control over the difficult conditions. (Or shoot both - storage is cheap nowadays!)

Regards
Gordon
banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4045 Canada
24 Oct 2017 10:34PM
A word re Fujis RAW.

Fuji have never released a satisfactory RAW converter, or complete technical details to Adobe that fully takes advantage of their RAW files. This is one reason I abandoned Fuji a few years back; it was impossible to extract a lot more from RAW than was already in JPEG. Ap0art from being able to get correct colour.The reason so many Fuji users use the JPEG is the challenge they have with extracting anything better from raw, which is entirely down to Fujis reluctance to release details on the de-mosaic algorithms used for the non-bayer pattern colour filter.

In fact, Fuji have announced they will release their own, fuji branded raw converter so they can continue to keep their poker cards close to their chests.

Anyway, the reason for asking is that its easier to get a good colour balance (which I am referring to as white balance) using RAW that JPEG. JPEG has already decided what is good for you!

So, in your original shot, the usual approach to establishing "accurate" white balance is to use the Camera Raw colour balance tool and click on an area you know is a actually white. Using your original, I obtained white balance from 5 different areas and averaged the 5, and thats how my mod has the colour set.

Colour balance, - as distinct from accurate white balance is a matter of personal choice. When Fuji do release their RAW converter, be prepared to see just how much youve been missing! Auto White Balance from Fuji is just as bad as any other brand, - BUT in artificial, mixed light, I would tend to stick with the AWB. BTW, the difference in the white balance and green.magenta range is that yellow os reduced significantly (meaning more blue). and magenta is also reduced a lot, meaning more green.

Hope this helps.


Regards


Willie
dark_lord Plus
15 2.4k 598 England
24 Oct 2017 10:51PM
I feel restricted with a jpg compared tp RAW and to behonest most jpgs require some tweaks and my RAW adjustments would take little or no longer to do with a better result. Perhaps I'm just used to it and it's second nature.
Though I do take the point that if there's no decent RAW converter for the Fuji the go with their jpgs.
Thankfully LR can be used just as effectively to get the best out of ajpg.

And while LR doesn't have layers it does have the Gradient filter and Adjustment Brush which can be used for local adjustments so it's as flexible as Photoshop.
dudler Plus
16 973 1535 England
25 Oct 2017 11:26AM
It woudl be interesting, in the light of Willie's commetns about processing Fuji RAW files, to hear from someone who uses them regularly...

Certainly, with Sony cameras, I have found real benefits in shooting RAW - simply, more flexibility, more quality available when I need it - though, very often, i am entirely happy to post the JPG with relatively little editing.
25 Oct 2017 5:28PM
Guy - V1 original, as it is works for me.

The problem with digital is that very often if you stare too long at the screen you get sucked into changing areas of the image which doesnt need altering in the first place. Walk away from the image on the screen for 10 minutes after initial altering and you will have a fresher eye .

I also find basic tweaks in Lightroom - contrast, black and white points and a bit of vibrance will work 90% of the time , but then thatís just me , each to their own!
dark_lord Plus
15 2.4k 598 England
25 Oct 2017 7:25PM
Tha's a good point Andy, not to spend too much time on an image, be it RAW, jpg, tif or playing around in for example Nik (once you're familiar with what the software can do of course).
25 Oct 2017 8:56PM

Quote:Tha's a good point Andy, not to spend too much time on an image, be it RAW, jpg, tif or playing around in for example Nik (once you're familiar with what the software can do of course).
Yes indeed Keith - shame to waste time on the tweaaking side of it all - and we don't want to overdo it so it 's too obvious the image has been modified (to much)
25 Oct 2017 8:59PM

Quote:It woudl be interesting, in the light of Willie's commetns about processing Fuji RAW files, to hear from someone who uses them regularly...

Certainly, with Sony cameras, I have found real benefits in shooting RAW - simply, more flexibility, more quality available when I need it - though, very often, i am entirely happy to post the JPG with relatively little editing.

yes John, I look forward to hear toughts and learn from others their experiance too.
I try not to modify too much but as I feel I 'm stil in the learning faze (aren't we all?), I do tend to experiment with different types of modification so I get feedback here or from 'the subjects' themselfs. Wink
25 Oct 2017 9:05PM

Quote:Guy - V1 original, as it is works for me.

The problem with digital is that very often if you stare too long at the screen you get sucked into changing areas of the image which doesnt need altering in the first place. Walk away from the image on the screen for 10 minutes after initial altering and you will have a fresher eye .

I also find basic tweaks in Lightroom - contrast, black and white points and a bit of vibrance will work 90% of the time , but then thatís just me , each to their own!

Yes Andy, very true - we are tempted to much to fidle around to get it better, but is it better.... hmmm, not always (and a waiste of time indeed)
Must add that some should at least do the effort to crop accordingly to the subject and layout AND straighten their (the) horizon at least.... if you know what I meanWink
Stunning set of images.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.