Asher Kelman said:
Why not just correct levels first?
Asher,
Good question. Why not just correct levels first?
My initial answer is the
negative answer, the reason not to correct levels first is you may have
Auto Levels, if you use it, set to clip data and this could exacerbate any loss of data due to clipping caused by harsh lighting that is not corrected by your white balance (i.e, this is even more vital to JPEG shooters).
Vastly more importantly, the first thing I suggest is to look at the data. i.e., look at the red, green, and blue channels and see what data you have before changing anything. Why? Because you could have an image where you have a mostly clean green channel with clipped shadows and highlights, while the red channel has adequate highlights and no shadow detail, and while the blue channel has good shadow detail and clipped midtones and highlights. The point here is not what the data does, but
looking at and seeing what the data does before you do anything (i.e, this is like looking both ways before crossing the street to avoid being hit by a car).
In other terms, look at what you have before you change it. If the blue channel holds highlights and the green channel holds good shadow detail while the red channel holds noisy midtones, then you have some hard decisions. A good greyscale balance may entail 40% blue, 40% green, and 20% red to retain shadows and highlights while reducing noisel But, what if you could care less about shadow details? The perhaps a blend with 60% blue, 30% red (less due to noise), plus 10% green with a curves adjustment to brighten overall luminosity due to the reduction in luminosity due to the greyscale blend would be appropriate.
In short, the answer is to
not do anything before you look at the data and see what you have to work with. This is because is the only correct first step is to see what you have. Levels can clip desirable data. Curves can clip desirable data. But if you know what the data looks like, then you can appropriately judge the next step. And the desirable next step may be to clip data you want to keep to enable you to keep data you find more valuable as you can always paint in desired data later with a layer mask.
In short, I am absolutely not good at stating things in short in technical terms.
In short, focus on what you wish to create as a vision. See what you already have. Then work with that data to craft what you envision. No workflow that says to do anything but study the data you have and then work with the data you have to achieve your goal will always work. Simplfied workfows may work 90% of the time, but sadly on the 3% of your images that are truly outstanding compositionally the odds are that the simplfied workflows will fail you 90% of the time. This is where expertise/craftsmanship come in in helping one realize artistic vision. To quote:
Set aside The Rule of Thirds. It is statistical, not prescriptive...
-
Mike Spinak
In other terms, what works much of the time, does not work all of the time. And while thoughtful contemplation is what I recommend for postprocecessing, it is poor practice for dealing with a nest of wasps you just angered. I say this as someone who was stung 36 times after steping on a wasp nest as a child who nonetheless finds them absolutely beautiful creatures. In other words, evaluate every situation for what is the best course of action.
Anyway, if anyone wants example images I know of some in my archives and would be happy to provide some to illustrate my point.
enjoy your day,
Sean
