RESOURCES?

[J. R. Weems]

Have been told this looks more like a painting and that I need to rethink my post processing. ?? Not sure what might be meant by this statement, but would be more than happy to study any resources that will help me improve. THANKS! :)

http://www.fototime.com/6630F0E63808EB8/medium800.jpg

[Jim Keener]

What a beautiful bird. I like your composition and colors. And especially your low angle of view. Which camera/lens combination did you use? Your settings? Congratulations on a beautiful image.

[Diane Miller]

And even more important to your question -- how did you process it? And can you post it at the full size of 900 x 1200? That makes evaluation easier.

[Diane Miller]

I was looking at posts out of order and see you posted the same image with a slightly different question -- better to keep it all in one thread. But now I see Arash moved it here from another forum.

First impression is too much contrast and noise reduction and then sharpening. With this much fine detail it's a delicate balance. There aren't easy rules for PP -- a lot of reading and experimenting is the way to learn. Your software may be doing things you aren't aware of.

Can you give more details about your processing?

[J. R. Weems]

[QUOTE=Diane Miller;1031249]I was looking at posts out of order and see you posted the same image with a slightly different question -- better to keep it all in one thread. But now I see Arash moved it here from another forum.

First impression is too much contrast and noise reduction and then sharpening. With this much fine detail it's a delicate balance. There aren't easy rules for PP -- a lot of reading and experimenting is the way to learn. Your software may be doing things you aren't aware of.

Can you give more details about your processing?[/QUOTE

Diane, well that could be on the software- I use Aperture, for the most part, then try and fine tune in PS C6 -- really didn't do very much to this at all. Sharpening was light, contrast was left alone. The background is NOT water, it is a gray mud flat as water was lower than I have ever seen it there. Been doing this since 2006 when I returned to photography . I only consider myself a student of same. No where around here to take any classes on this sort of thing. Here is some of my other stuff. THANKS for your valued time. Also, I believe the filter was set on A2-- another problem perhaps??

http://j.r.weems.org/J._R._WEEMS_PHOTOGRAPHY/Welcome.html
Best,
J. R.

Camera, Nikon D80- lens 80/400
ISO 320 - SS 1/200 -f9

a larger version as requested: untouched --

http://www.fototime.com/3550C433B0D5051/xlarge.jpg

[arash_hazeghi]

J.R,

The image in pane 5 looks MUCH better than the original. comparing the two you can see that bad downsizing method (always use Photoshop's bicubic) and coarse heavy sharpening combined with too much contrast has ruined the image in the original post.

your original looks good in terms of detail, notice how the feather detail is rendered naturally without harshness or too much contrast. The colors are still a bit off, it has a warm cast and the heron feathers have a rusty cast on them, too much red.

I wrote a short article about color correction/setting WB, you may find it helpful
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/124386-Basics-of-color-correction-and-screen-calibration?p=1031016#post1031016

best

Arash

[J. R. Weems]

Arash. THANKS! Color could be due to warmer filter setting. Will have to try to read up on 'bicubic' as I haven't a clue on this.
Best,
J. R.

[J. R. Weems]

Arash, upon a bit of research, I find my 'bicubic' seems to be set on 'automatic' -- I am gathering from a quick look that this may indeed be the default, and needs to be changed with every photo or maybe with every action?? THANK YOU, again
Best,
J. R.

[Diane Miller]

Bicubic Automatic will use Bicubic Smoother for upsizing an image, and Bicubic Sharper for downsizing. Those are Adobe's recommended choices. If Sharper gives too much of a crunchy look, you could try just Bicubic and, if needed, run the resulting JPEG back through a very judicious amount of Smart Sharpen. Every image is different, depending on how sharp it was from the camera and how much detail it contains.

The main thing I notice about the image is that the contrast is a bit high, which causes some saturation.

[arash_hazeghi]

What Daine said, don't use bicubic automatic, just use bicubic

Take the original that you have, remove the color cast by correcting the white balance, then resize and just use smart sharpen (small radius like 0.5 amount 50-100). do not use any filters, or anything that enhances contrast, saturation etc too much

good luck

[Diane Miller]

Addendum: In cases where Bicubic Sharper (chosen by itself or used by PS in a downsize operation with Bicubic Automatic) gives too much of a crunchy look, it pays to question whether the image has already been sharpened too much, either in raw conversion or in PS. The default sharpening in a raw converter is generally fine, and compensates for the slight softening of the anti-alias filter over the sensor. (Although some cameras have a weaker AA filter or even omit it.) Further sharpening in raw or PS can look good on casual inspection, but can be a problem when an additional sharpening step occurs in downsizing a JPEG. The recommendation is to resist anything but the default raw sharpening on the master file, and wait until a final resize for output, either for a smaller JPEG or for a larger file for printing.

[J. R. Weems]

What Daine said, don't use bicubic automatic, just use bicubic

Take the original that you have, remove the color cast by correcting the white balance, then resize and just use smart sharpen (small radius like 0.5 amount 50-100). do not use any filters, or anything that enhances contrast, saturation etc too much

good luck

After further reading as advised etc. I seem to have arrived at this. Not sure of what the experts will think, but I can sure see a difference from the first posted image.

http://www.fototime.com/867A14DE5FCD71D/large.jpg

[arash_hazeghi]

There is something wrong with your screen, your colors are way off and black level is off too. (very strong blue cast with red). What kind of screen are you using? is it calibrated? What programs are you using in your flow ?

[arash_hazeghi]

This is how a great blue heron should look like

146702

[J. R. Weems]

There is something wrong with your screen, your colors are way off and black level is off too. (very strong blue cast with red). What kind of screen are you using? is it calibrated? What programs are you using in your flow ?


At current a dell monitor, calibrated with Spyder-- Apture, PS CS6-- this is a juvenile --

[arash_hazeghi]

maybe the issue is with aperture, I have never used it. The original you posted only needed moderate WB adjustment, the last repost is totally off ...If you have CS6 I recommend just opening your RAW file in ACR and starting from there....

[Diane Miller]

You are too blue now, and low in contrast. Let the histogram be the final guide. Here's a quick and dirty, neutralizing the whites and increasing the contrast selectively with Blacks and Whites in LR.

Your monitor may be off, but more likely it's sjust a matter of practice in how things should look. Our eyes fool us.

Contrast is still a little low here -- your original was close to this except for too much contrast.

[J. R. Weems]

I dumped LR when it wouldn't open my D700 RAW files. Will have to look into ACR, as I haven't a clue. THANKS!!

[Diane Miller]

Get the latest DNG converter -- it will convert them and LR will open them. LR's Develop module is so much better laid out than ACR, but they are the same processing engine, assuming a recent version of LR. If LR is older than v4 it will pay to upgrade -- much better shadow and highlight detail can be obtained and controlled.

[J. R. Weems]

Get the latest DNG converter -- it will convert them and LR will open them. LR's Develop module is so much better laid out than ACR, but they are the same processing engine, assuming a recent version of LR. If LR is older than v4 it will pay to upgrade -- much better shadow and highlight detail can be obtained and controlled.

Thanks Diane, but I do not wish to go back to LR and lose all my photos as I did last time. DNG converter to be found where? If it will work with Aperture.
Thanks!

Best,
J. R.

[J. R. Weems]

I tried lower contrast and the image went to B&W -- Am using a trackpad, could that be the problem??

[Diane Miller]

Don't lower contrast with the Contrast slider! Use the other tonal adjustments to get that effect. But I'm not familiar with Aperture.... Anything that gives you good cursor control should work, but you do need very fine control. I use (and love) a Wacom tablet.

How did you lose images? The actual files or just the LR catalog? The latter can be rebuilt. Apple is no longer supporting Aperture and there is now a tool for moving those image to LR -- but if you had problems I can understand your reluctance.

http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/migrating-from-aperture-to-lightroom-where-do-i-begin/

The DNG converter is here: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5825

[J. R. Weems]

Diane, really? When did thid happen? I still get up dates -- well, when my system would not support BOTH I just uninstalled LR. I still have it hoever........ I will check into that tool. Would be tough learning a new system, but so many swear by it, including Scott Kelby, who's work I follow closely . a tablet? will check it out although I have never heard of it. :) if private email would work for yo here is mine:
j.weemsjr@comcast.net
I had a somewhat of a mentor on some of this stuff but she past away a couple years ago. An old guy needs all the help he can get. Just turned 70 a couple weeks ago. :)
Thank You
Best,
J. R.

[J. R. Weems]

Have downloaded the converter but have yet to locate it in the system? Where might it have gone. doesn't seem to be in my App files ??
Best,
J. R.

Have gone back and glanced at this and see where it is for windows-- no where do I see for a MAC, looks like I am out of luck here. :(

[Diane Miller]

Maybe I copied the wrong link. It's definitely available for Mac. Try this one: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5824

The pages are a little confusing -- this says it is for 8.6 but there is a mention somewhere of 8.7. There is a link to a list of supported cameras.

It will probably go into your Downloads folder -- I drag to the desktop then double click to open the file. It will probably just say drag it into the Applications folder. You can park a shortcut in your Dock if you use it a lot.

[Diane Miller]

I see now that 8.7 is not supported on Snow Leopard and older Apple and Windows OSs. (Along with a growing list of other things.) Welcome to Leapfrog....

[J. R. Weems]

Ok, still trying to sort this out. Another verdict if you please.And with my THANKS! :) This is the only juvenile I have ever seen so I am doing a lot of guessing here. :)

http://www.fototime.com/9857870E0308FEE/large.jpg

[Diane Miller]

The contrast is too low now. Here's your original post with contrast lowered and brightness up just a bit, using only the Brightness and Contrast sliders in PS -- not the best way to do it but all I can do with a JPEG. The correct way to lower contrast is to go back to the raw conversion. I also lowered saturation just a little.

This is, to me, a pretty good rendering of the subject. You were just a little off with too much contrast in the original post.