Post processing images and HDR

[Tony]

By "actual" i mean unmolested, my point is, and don't get the hump or think i'm pulling teeth, is the skill in taking the perfect picture that one time opportunity or taking the picture and then modifying the results cheating.

[Rich]

By "actual" i mean unmolested, my point is, and don't get the hump or think i'm pulling teeth, is the skill in taking the perfect picture that one time opportunity or taking the picture and then modifying the results cheating.

 

But you could never take a photo like you see in a HDR with a camera as you're blending various exposures to give a dynamic look, you need to use software to create this.

[Sagitar]

I think both pictures look great..... Seems technology allows perfection at a price. without reading cynical isn't the actual image the real one.

 

Deep question Tony. Even the eye cannot cope with range light variation found in nature (that's why you need a sun visor in your Lotus). The sensors used in photography, whether film or digital, are even more limited. So the photographer has to choose which part of the dymamic range to favour. If you want detail in a bright sky, you cannot also have (in a single image) detail in dark shadow.

 

The eye plays games. When we look at the sky, the iris closes down - when we look at shadow, the iris opens up. The brain retains an impression of the both the sky detail and the shadow detail, but we don't actually see both at the same time.

 

The photo image is a one-off and sometimes disappoints because it does not show all the detail that we would expect to "see" in nature. HDR offers the opportunity to squeeze more dynamic range into a single image and hence to give an image more closely resembling what the eye and brain perceive. The danger with HDR is that it gets overdone and produces images that are artificially warm and bright, but it is a very useful tool used judiciously.

 

The computing algorithms used in compact cameras already use some aspects of HDR, to produce a pleasing image. The DSLR user is faced with an unprocessed set of signal outputs in what is known as a RAW file and has to make appropriate judgements about the way in which that file should be processed to produce an image. So there is no such thing as what you have called the "real" image.

[Rich]

What Sagitar said, great explanation

[Tony]

Ok i'm going to get duffed up here..... Isn't it better to take the perfect image first time rather then manipulate the captured image afterwords..

 

 

Standing back expecting stones..........

[Rich]

Ok i'm going to get duffed up here..... Isn't it better to take the perfect image first time rather then manipulate the captured image afterwords..

 

 

Standing back expecting stones..........

 

I think you've missed the point Sagitar was making, the camera isn't capable of capturing all of the detail so needs a little help.

[parthiban]

Interesting stuff, based on the pic of that car though, I don't know enough to know whether it's possible or not but could you not tweak the camera to take a picture that looks pretty close to that?

[Sagitar]

Ok i'm going to get duffed up here..... Isn't it better to take the perfect image first time rather then manipulate the captured image afterwords..

 

 

Standing back expecting stones..........

 

I tried not to make things too complicated, but clearly I failed to make my point clear.

 

I will try again. I shall use a digital sensor as my model, but pretty much the same applies to film.

 

The sensor in a camera is a matrix of light sensitive cells. The individual cells give off a signal that is proportional to the intensity of the light that falls upon them. Immediately, we have a need for judgement and intervention. The signal generated may not be adequate to represent the amount of light falling upon the individual cell, so it needs to be amplified, the amplifier may be linear i.e. doubling the light intensity doubles the signal strength, or it may be non-linear, so that e.g. weak signals are amplified more than strong signals. Somebody has to make a judgement about the level of amplification and what comes out of the camera depends upon that judgement. There is no right level or wrong level, there is only an appropriate level. In a basic camera, you are stuck with whatever the designer decided. In a DSLR the level of amplification can be controlled in the camera, but it can also be controlled in post processing. Again, there is no right or wrong. The judgement made by the photographer is no less valid than the judgement made by the designer.

 

The array described above is not capable of distinguishing colour, so between the lens and the matrix is placed a second matrix made up of colour filters. i.e. light of a particular wavelength passes the filter, other wavelengths do not. Again we have a need for judgement and intervention. The extent to which the colours produced by the camera match the colours of the real world will depend upon how clever the designer is in choosing filter wavelengths, in choosing the pattern of filter cells and in deciding the pattern and mode of amplification applied to the cells. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a filter matrix design that will give accurate representation of the whole visible spectrum under all lighting conditions, so the designs are a compromise. Take pictures of the same subject with two different makes of camera and you can pretty much guarantee that the colour rendition will differ. You can see this on any review site that compares cameras.

 

So again, there is nothing absolutely right or wrong about what the camera produces. DSLRs allow manipulation of colour rendition so that the photographer can use skill and judgement in producing colours that are pleasing and which give a close approximation to real life, if that is what the photographer is trying to achieve. We must not forget that photography can be art and that the artist may strive for effect by altering what is seen in life.

 

I could go on and describe other features that depend upon the judgement of the designer and which in the DSLR allows license to the photographer. Probably the most important of these is the anti-aliasing filter. Without an anti-aliasing filter we get high frequency interference patterns and distortion. With an anti-aliasing filter in place the distortion is reduced, but we get a softer image. In a simple camera, the signals are then manipulated to give higher contrast at boundaries so that the image appears sharper. In DSLRs it is left to the photographer to decide whether or not to apply image sharpening and to what degree.

 

With compact, point-and-shoot cameras there is usually a considerable amount of in-camera manipulation of the image, in order to produce the sort of picture that most people will find acceptable.

 

In a high level DSLR there will be very little manipulation of the image because it is assumed that the owner of the camera will want to make his own judgements about the appearance of the completed picture. (I should say that lots of DSLRs do make provision for auto processing, but that is at the deliberate choice of the operator).

 

Without some post processing the image from a DSLR will often be flat and lacking the degree of sharpness seen in pictures from compact/point and shoot cameras.

 

I hope I have gone on for long enough to demonstrate that there is nothing intrinsically "right" about the image that first comes out of the camera. It doesn't have any kind of immutable relationship to nature, it is the result of clever technicians making judgements about the application of variable features. The photographer is at least as entitled as those technicians to decide what effect he wishes to achieve.

[Rich]

Another good explanation

 

Most compact and bridge cameras process the image 'in camera' and save it as a Jpeg for you. Every camera will process this differently to the other depending on how it has been designed, as Sagitar has said. You can take 10 cameras, line them up and shoot the same subject, each one will produce a different result. Some of these cameras will allow you to adjust the settings on how it processes the photo so it can be more suited to the individual but this is very limited. This is why I sold my bridge camera cos the results were not up to my expectations so it had to go.

 

DSLR cameras allow you to shoot in RAW, Jpeg or both. RAW can be thought of as a digital negative, so it's the image in it's unprocessed state. When I first started using mine I didn't do anything with the RAW files apart from opening and cropping where needed. As Sagitar said I found the images to be rather flat and lacking in colour and sharpness. Since I've started processing them I have been very happy with the results.

 

To take the perfect photo you need to get the focus, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, exposure and composition correct as these cannot be altered once the shot has been taken, with the exception of exposure. It's how the photographer uses these together to produce an acceptable photo that requires skill, not the post processing that is carried out.

[parthiban]

I think the point Tony's getting at is getting an image close to what the eye sees is effectively the "perfect" image, and I can see his point. It depends though what we are defining as the "perfect" image, from one perspective it is the perfect capture of a particular landscape, but from the other it could be a little more artistic like what's being done in this thread.

 

To me I'd say this sort of photo manipulation sits more towards the art end of the spectrum rather than photography but there's obviously a clear grey area between the two

[Tony]

Well said and yes that was my point.

 

Ok the camera cannot see all the fields we see in the overall spectrum but there is a distinct barrier between actual image and a manipulated image... Yes some areas are enhanced to display a more realistic perception of the image that's pleasing to the eye but at what cost?

 

I would prefer "trust" an untouched picture than a made to be perfect photo shop jobbie. Modern day detailing of images is inevitable, i just hope the core image remains real....... Off box!

[phipck]

i think there might be a conflict in conversation here.

 

I take my photos "as i see them" in so much as i try to capture a moment, colours, shade and light as i saw it. this i think is what Tony may be suggesting. But my subject matter and my photo ethic are very different from the next persons, i dont do any photo editing at all, what you see in my photos is what i took at the time. This appeals to some people and is seen as fussy to others. However there are photographers who have an equal and opposite view to their own photography and methods appropriate to achieve the images the wish to capture or create. Simply a different ethic.

 

i happen to enjoy viewing HDR images as they feel different from those i take, however i have no interest in taking them myself. What my camera captures will never be what quite what i see. What i see is only a fraction of the available visual spectrum, my eyes recieve what they can in the way they do and my brain processes it in the way it does, so its no wonder we all have very different opinions on what a "real" image may be

[Rich]

I think you've all missed the point of this thread...it was to show a HDR image that I had produced, it isn't suppose to represent the 'real' photo that I took. It's a blend of light and dark areas from multiple exposures that have been tone mapped together to create something different.

 

As for processing digital images once they've been taken it's no different from the old film days. You take the negative and develop it to your liking, whatever that may be, there is no right or wrong way about it. A RAW file is just an undeveloped negative, which can be processed via software to your liking. Add abit of saturation, some sharpness, more or less exposure and so on...the RAW file is the image's undeveloped state, without processing it you will have a very boring bland photo!

 

As said before compacts will process the image in camera so you end up with a Jpeg that has been processed. Take 10 different cameras and shoot the same subject you will get a different looking image from each one...which one is the 'real' photo then?

[Sagitar]

Well said and yes that was my point.

 

Ok the camera cannot see all the fields we see in the overall spectrum but there is a distinct barrier between actual image and a manipulated image... Yes some areas are enhanced to display a more realistic perception of the image that's pleasing to the eye but at what cost?

 

I would prefer "trust" an untouched picture than a made to be perfect photo shop jobbie. Modern day detailing of images is inevitable, i just hope the core image remains real....... Off box!

 

I have tried to explain how photographic images are created, but you appear unwilling to accept that an image, whether film or digital, is by definition the result of manipulating physical effects and processes. I think you are trying to make an impossible distinction and I don't understand what you mean by an "actual" image or an "untouched" picture. Perhaps you could explain how you see an "actual", "untouched" image being created?

 

I wonder whether it is the term "manipulation" that is creating the difficulty? There is an interesting philosophical debate to be joined about the manipulation of the content of a picture, i.e. changing the content in order to mislead or to give a different artistic impression. For example, by taking out an obtrusive telegraph pole or some such, but that is not what we are discussing.

 

What we are discussing, I think, is how you use the medium of film or digital representation to maximise the range of tone, colour, contrast etc that is available in circumstances where the medium is essentially incapable of reproducing the full range of tone, colour, contrast etc that occurs in nature and is perceived by the eye and the brain. You appear to be saying that the levels of process manipulation built into the camera as its basic settings are somehow more natural and have more intrinsic truth that those that result from altering the camera controls. Similarly you seem to be saying that the software settings built into the camera as its standard settings are more valid than those applied subsequently in the software that converts the camera output into a visible image.

 

I must admit to having real difficulty in understanding the distinction that you are attempting, but I am willing to go on trying if you will explain.

[Rich]

Perhaps you could explain how you see an "actual", "untouched" image being created?

 

This brings us back to the compact camera doesn't it or if you only shoot in Jpeg on a DSLR...the camera does the processing instead. Most people buy compacts cos they don't want to sit down and process (develop) the images they take themselves.

 

All the photos you would've taken with your compact Tony have been processed exactly the same way as you would a RAW file with photoshop. The only difference is it's been done 'in-camera' rather than on the PC. This is why a photo taken of the same subject on different compact cameras will look differently cos it's been processed to the settings that it was created with.

 

On my DSLR I shoot RAW and Jpeg but I'm not happy with how the camera processes some of these images (the Jpegs) so have chosen to do it myself. I can tweak the settings in the camera so the Jpeg will be processed differently, maybe more to my liking maybe not, we shall see. The end result is the same though, whether you let the camera process the photo or you do it yourself, it's just done a different way. I think that you think cos the processing has been done in photoshop then it's been manipulated to look different, whereas it hasn't.

 

Feels like we're going around in circles though!

[parthiban]

Perhaps this discussion (which is quite interesting on its own) could be separated from this one to prevent messing up ER's HDR thread?

 

In any case what Tony is getting at (in my opinion) is that the perfect image is what your eye sees to a certain extent, and therefore replicating that with a camera is what most set out to do. Getting that with a single shot not requiring any adjustment afterwards is probably one of the key skills behind great photography.

 

Even when you read camera reviews, and different cameras are compared based on which provides the "truer" image, this is exactly what is being done, it's how well the camera can capture exactly what you're seeing.

 

So the point Tony is making is that with all this post-shot processing, we're tampering with the true nature of the photo. Neither view is necessarily the right one, but I feel Tony's opinion is valid. These HDR photos don't look entirely natural, but that's the whole point isn't it? It's to create contrast and lighting levels that are simply not possible under natural lighting (please tell me if I've completely missed the point).

 

I agree with what's being said about how a camera "creates" an image based on the light that hits the sensor, but I don't think the science of it is what Tony is talking about, it is the simple nature of seeing something, and then capturing pretty much exactly what you see with a single click of the shutter

[Rich]

Perhaps this discussion (which is quite interesting on its own) could be separated from this one to prevent messing up ER's HDR thread?

 

Good idea I will clean it up...

 

In any case what Tony is getting at (in my opinion) is that the perfect image is what your eye sees to a certain extent, and therefore replicating that with a camera is what most set out to do. Getting that with a single shot not requiring any adjustment afterwards is probably one of the key skills behind great photography.

 

Even when you read camera reviews, and different cameras are compared based on which provides the "truer" image, this is exactly what is being done, it's how well the camera can capture exactly what you're seeing.

 

I think the point that Sagitar and I are trying to get across is that no camera will be able to process images of any given subject. One camera will get it right for one subject but it won't get it right for another that a different camera might. Also cameras cannot capture all of the detail that we see with our eye, i.e. highlights and shadows.

 

You have a D90, have you ever taken a photo in RAW? From other posts you say you haven't really learnt how to use the camera so I'm guessing you just use the Jpegs that it processes? Try taking a shot of various subjects in RAW + Jpeg, then open them both up and compare the unprocessed state of the RAW data to the processed Jpeg and see what you think. Most of the time I prefer the RAW (how I took the shot) over the Jpeg so will just save that instead of using the one the camera processed.

 

These HDR photos don't look entirely natural, but that's the whole point isn't it? It's to create contrast and lighting levels that are simply not possible under natural lighting (please tell me if I've completely missed the point).

 

HDR photos allow you to show more detail in the highlights and shadows. You can make them as natural looking as you can or very OTT to create a unique photo. The camera cannot capture all of these details in one shot so you use HDR to merge them together so they all show in the one photo.

[parthiban]

have you ever taken a photo in RAW?

Yeah I always use RAW+JPEG - and then use the RAWs if a photo needs adjustment or otherwise just delete them and keep the JPEGs. You really do have to use the RAW if you want to adjust imho.

[Rich]

I take my photos "as i see them" in so much as i try to capture a moment, colours, shade and light as i saw it. this i think is what Tony may be suggesting. But my subject matter and my photo ethic are very different from the next persons, i dont do any photo editing at all, what you see in my photos is what i took at the time.

 

The photos on your flickr, are they the Jpeg's that have been processed by the camera or the RAW images?

 

If the photos we see are what you took at the time then you should be saving the RAW files as a Jpeg (without processing), that is the true photo you took. If you are using the Jpegs from the camera then you aren't showing the photo how you took it, but instead how the camera has processed it to how it thinks it should look.

[Rich]

have you ever taken a photo in RAW?

Yeah I always use RAW+JPEG - and then use the RAWs if a photo needs adjustment or otherwise just delete them and keep the JPEGs. You really do have to use the RAW if you want to adjust imho.

 

So I'm assuming you've opened the RAW data and camera processed Jpeg side-by-side to see the difference between the two? Yes all processing is done in RAW, it's alot more difficult with a Jpeg although not impossible.

[Sagitar]

have you ever taken a photo in RAW?

Yeah I always use RAW+JPEG - and then use the RAWs if a photo needs adjustment or otherwise just delete them and keep the JPEGs. You really do have to use the RAW if you want to adjust imho.

 

So I'm assuming you've opened the RAW data and camera processed Jpeg side-by-side to see the difference between the two? Yes all processing is done in RAW, it's alot more difficult with a Jpeg although not impossible.

 

We do indeed seem to be going round in circles. Part of the problem is perhaps lack of understanding of what actually goes on in producing an image. Let me throw another rock in the pool by saying that there is no such thing as a RAW image. The term RAW relates to the data produced by the camera as a result of light falling on the sensors. It is in the usual form of digital data and not visible without processing and manipulation. The RAW data produced by a particular camera (say a Canon 5D) is different from the RAW data produced by an alternate camera (say a Canon 1DIII). So, RAW is not a particular kind of file, it means just what is says, that the data are raw and unprocessed. These RAW data are filed away and unless they are deliberately deleted, they remain intact and can be used as the basis for the production of an image, over and over again. You need processing software to translate the RAW data and turn it into a visible image. Photoshop (and Lightroom) use a package called "Camera Raw" and update it regularly to enable it to handle RAW data from newly introduced cameras. There are numerous other commercial packages to do the same thing and of course the camera manufacturers produce their own RAW translation software for use with their cameras. In the context of this discussion, it is interesting to note that the images created by these various RAW translation packages may look quite different from each other because of the differences in the algorithms used. There are endless arguments about which translation packages give the most natural results and if we really want to prolong the issue let us get into the whole subject of colour management, colour gamut choice, the calibration of monitors and printers and the choice of printing paper and inks.

 

The camera manufacturers put their version of the translation software into the camera so that it is capable of processing and translating the RAW data to produce the visible image that you see on the viewing screen. The files that result are stored in memory. Often, a choice is allowed between more than one kind of file e.g. JPEG or (in the case of Canon) a CR file or something similar. Colloquially we refer to the CR file as a RAW file, but it is actually a file containing the RAW data plus the translation information. If I look at my processed RAW files they all comprise a .CR2 file (the RAW part plus the in-camera translation element) plus a small .XMP file containing all the amendments to the in-camera manipulation elements.

 

There are several differences between these two kinds of file, the JPEG compresses the data for example so it can be stored in a smaller file, but the key difference is that processing to JPEG alone is destructive of the RAW data. Once you have output the information in JPEG form you cannot recover the original RAW data from the processed file. To claim that a picture is the "real" one because it has been output from the camera in JPEG is, to me, very strange. What has been done is to accept the built-in processing criteria, which may or may not be the most appropriate ones, rather than choosing ones own based upon knowledge of the circumstances in which the picture was taken. Additionally, cameras will offer a range of levels of compression in JPEG and achieving this compression damages the image. I would never save an original image in JPEG or indeed manipulate it in that format. I would always output to a format such as TIF or PNG that does not require compression and does not damage the image in manipulating or saving it. If you want a measure of this issue, consider this. The TIF files that I save as originals are 40 to 50MB. Producing a JPEG with medium compression from those files will reduce the file size to 1MB - that's a awful lot of lost data.

 

The CR file is non-destructive. You can think of the CR file as being in two separate boxes, one containing the RAW data, one containing a range of criterion based factors that translate the RAW data without altering it. (*I give just one example below of the way this works.) This means that you can take the file outside the camera and modify the criterion based factors at will while leaving the RAW data intact. And this is the crux of the matter and where I begin to repeat myself. The factors put into box two by the manufacturer are simply his best guess as to what will produce a good result in most circumstances. It is not possible for him to design to cover every contingency, though the algorithms get cleverer by the day. The photographer is in a much better position to judge what will give the best result and what he puts into box two can be based upon a much better informed assessment of the situation. I say again, that there is nothing more natural about what the manufacturer puts into box two than there is about what the photographer puts in there. It is all a question of judgement and perception.

 

*Example: When a specific intensity of light falls upon one of the sensors in the camera, a signal of a particular magnitude is generated and recorded as raw digital data. Given the same amount of light, the signal magnitude is always the same. These signal values are the RAW data. If we want this amount of light to have a particular effect in the finished image we write a processing algorithm that translates the signal value into an image output value. By building an exposure variable into the algorithm, we can vary the effect in the finished image even though the light value remains constant. Since the variable is in the processing software and not in the relationship between the light value and the signal generated, we can choose an exposure value even after the exposure has been made. There are limits to the values that can be used. Too much light will overload the sensor, too little will not generate a usable signal. So, the manufacturer judges a default value that maximises the chances of all the light values in a scene falling within the limits of the sensor. But the range of light values in nature is greater than a sensor can deal with and so from time to time the photographer needs to modify the manufacturers value to avoid burning out highlights or saturating shadows.

 

HDR plays a different game. The RAW data in box one results from using sensors that are incapable of covering the whole of the visible range. So HDR starts by taking more than one exposure, selecting for a different part of the range in each exposure and then combining the exposures to obtain a more complete range of values. It is not a single technique and I suggest a google if you want to find out more about the various methods. Photographers have always done such things in an attempt to get closer to what the eye sees. I spent many hours in the dark room producing test strips in order to match printing paper grade to the degree of contrast in the negative and "dodging and burning" selectively to get detail in highlight and shadow. Graduated filters go in the same direction and there have been processes that used more than one negative to produce wider dynamic range. The problem with HDR is that it is easy to overcook it and finish with an image that looks artificial, but lots of cameras do that anyway and anyone who has used Velvia in a film camera will know how artificial that can look. I remember well the endless debates that went on in the days when transparency film was my main medium. My favourite was Kodachrome, but it was very slow (ISO25) and other brands such as AGFA and FUJI had their advocates. Ektachrome allowed much faster speeds but I never liked its colour rendition.

 

It's all this history and background that makes me respond when I hear anyone speaking of a "real", "actual" or "untouched" photographic image, meaning, I suppose, one that has been produced without human intervention. I'm afraid there really is no such thing.

[Rich]

Wow what a read I understood all of that, probably cos I work with graphics but I still think you won't convince everyone. Like you say it is probably down to not understanding how an image is produced.

[Rich]

I've done an example...

 

This is how I took the photo, it's been saved from the RAW data with no processing, you could call this the 'real' photo!

 

 

This is the photo that the camera processed, personally I prefer how I originally took the shot over this as it looks under-saturated in areas, the greens and yellows.

 

 

This is my processed photo, which I did using the RAW data in photoshop. Just a quick process for this example.

 

[parthiban]

I can honestly barely tell any difference between the top two, and if you had just showed me the photos and not said which was which I'm not sure I would have been able to (at that size anyway). In any case, I prefer the top two to the manipulated third picture - obviously that's just personal preference, but the colours look more natural.

 

 

@Sagitar: That was a very interesting read (you should set up a photography website if you haven't already! ) but I think we may be taking what Tony said too literally. Correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick but I don't think he meant it exactly in terms of the "pure" unprocessed image that the camera sees, effectively the actual light that falls on the sensor, but rather that the image you get having pressed the shutter is the one you keep.

 

So basically point the camera at subject, take photo, and that's it. That's the impression I got from what Tony was saying and to a certain extent I agree because the world's best photographers are the best because they can pretty much get an amazing shot straight away (I'm sure they still play with them but the initial image will still be stunning).

 

I'm not really advocating either as better, as both have their merits based on circumstances, just trying to help balance the discussion

[Rich]

I can honestly barely tell any difference between the top two, and if you had just showed me the photos and not said which was which I'm not sure I would have been able to (at that size anyway). In any case, I prefer the top two to the manipulated third picture - obviously that's just personal preference, but the colours look more natural.

 

I probably could've used a better example, it was getting late. The last photo I overcooked to show what can be done though and 2 different cameras could've easily made either one of those photos if you used the Jpeg it processes. Have the image open in photoshop that's been created from the RAW data and the next tab have the Jpeg, when you flick between the 2 you will see the changes.

 

Correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick but I don't think he meant it exactly in terms of the "pure" unprocessed image that the camera sees, effectively the actual light that falls on the sensor, but rather that the image you get having pressed the shutter is the one you keep.

 

So basically point the camera at subject, take photo, and that's it. That's the impression I got from what Tony was saying and to a certain extent I agree because the world's best photographers are the best because they can pretty much get an amazing shot straight away (I'm sure they still play with them but the initial image will still be stunning).

 

But the image taken by the photographer will be the 'pure' unprocessed image, not the Jpeg the camera produces. It's just that on compacts you don't get the RAW data as they assume you won't want it. After all people buy compacts just to point and shoot, not process the photos themselves. As with the example above different cameras will process them differently. Yes I know I processed the last photo myself but my point is the camera could've done it like that. You can't say that is the 'true' image when the results can vary so much. It's the composition, focus, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and exposure that make a good photo.

 

The pro togs will use DSLR's so have more control over the processed image if using the Jpeg straight from the camera. They will also probably fine tune the settings for processing the image in the camera to their liking, you can't do this on a compact. The only togs who would use the Jpegs straight from the camera are those who's photos will be published in newspapers. The print quality on this medium is not as good as a glossy magazine where all of the photos would've had some processing in photoshop and the majority airbrushed as well but that's for a different thread.