Saving bad photographs in Photoshop [UPDATED with how-to]

[GodlessAstronomer]

EDIT - I wrote an article about this image in response to an inquiry about how it was done.

Anyone have any good examples of bad photos made good? Whether it's a dramatic transformation or subtle effects, I find it quite satisfying to pull a photo back from the brink and make a bad photo good. Of course there's no substitute for a properly shot photograph, but still

Here's one I did this afternoon. It's a photo I took in November in Lewis Pass in the South Island of NZ. The finished product isn't one of my favourite photos but I think it's greatly improved from the original. I'm thinking I went slightly too far in the dodge/burn phase but other than that I like it. Thankfully I had the presence of mind to take two exposures when I shot the picture.

Original

Finished product

 

[shocksyde]

I don't think you went too far at all. Others won't agree with me, though. I tend to like dark images and people always complain my stuff isn't "correctly exposed." They tend to forget that it's my art and I can do whatever the hell I want to with it!

 

[angry hampster]

Looks good to me! A little noisy, but it's a nice image.


I wound up doing this with a lot of my stuff on my Australia trip in '08. I'll post a couple up when I get home later.

 

[Lemon law]

As Newbie to digital photography, I would like more step by agonizing step detail on exactly how it was done. Especially when the OP references a mystery second exposure not in evidence.

But posted photo number one has washed out clouds due to overexposure, while the foreground seems basically correctly exposed with full detail to be seen in light and dark areas.

And as we look at posted picture two, the sky seems correctly exposed with full detail
that would be normally lost beyond recovery in over exposure, while the foreground only loses some detail in the shadows. Which can be best seem by looking at the far left bottom.

But my comment is that the dynamic range of the overall picture is greatly enhanced and that is what gives it the added visual punch. Almost like some old Ansel Adams B/W
photo custom brewed to have the full dynamic range of the media.

After that, all I can say is great improvement.

 

[scott916]

Thumbs way up. It reminds me a bit of Rob Sheridan's style, it's very dramatic.

 

[msi1337]

very nice.. I am impressed

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

As Newbie to digital photography, I would like more step by agonizing step detail on exactly how it was done. Especially when the OP references a mystery second exposure not in evidence.

I have to head to work but I'm happy to write up a step-by-step on what I did this afternoon.

 

[tdawg]

Looks great to me. Nice job.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I wrote an article on how I achieved this image on my blog.

 

[Munky]

Too dark for my taste, but definitely an improvement over the original.

 

[Lemon law]

Thank you GodlessAstronomer for a good step by step write up. Now, question, can one do the same types things with a freeware program like gimp?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I'm not a GIMP expert but I believe most of that can be done with it. I'm not sure of the exact procedures though.

Edit - I always hated GIMP and laughed at the suggestion that it's a viable alternative to Photoshop. For kicks I just downloaded it because people keep telling me how powerful it is now. Well GIMP doesn't have adjustment layers, overlay layers, hard/soft light layers, basically all of the powerful layer tools that make Photoshop so useful. GIMP doesn't seem to have improved much since I last used it and it's really not a Photoshop replacement. I know it's expensive but Photoshop is really worth every penny.