Autumn KD R5

[Brian Sump]

188535

Ok, a second file with the R5. This time a Killdeer in autumn dress.

Again, the firmware was not updated and I think there's IQ to be had but taking a crack at PP techniques here.

Re-learning sharpening techniques due to the anti-aliasing filter, among other things. Hope to have more shots with proper lens firmware next week.

Canon R5
600mm IS iii + 1.4x
Handheld
ISO 1000
1/3200
f7.1

LR and PS, DN (not on bird) and Nik. Cleaned up a few specs/weeds in the water

[arash_hazeghi]

I like the light, the bird shows visible noise and the head/eye isn't quite tack sharp to my eye. wish the water was clam.

TFS

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Brian, in addition to Arash's feedback, the image is very chocked in the blacks/shadows, creating little or no detail. Detail is there, I just feel it's masked within the workflow and if you have used NIK DE it's not helped IMHO. Always look at the Histogram in LR prior to export, it will clearly show you these chocked areas and so you have time to address any issues and deliver the file to it's best.:S3:

TFS
Steve

[Steve Kaluski]

Brian, just a though, when you export to PSCC, in the top menu bar of PS, IMAGE, click on Mode, what are the two items you see ticked?

[Brian Sump]

Steve, I happened to process this one about four times. It's not the best IQ for certain but it was good practice at minimum.

Would you agree the human eye sees shadows? In your comments are you referring specifically the shadows on the rear part of the bird? In the process of the above I lifted blacks and reduced them back and forth and even masked black areas in playing with offset and gamma, in part to assist in dealing with the smoke haziness, until I found what represented a Killdeer to me (have always taken a position that the blacks in Killdeer are black and should be such). Now, in reference to the shadows they are indeed dark but light angle was from front right 1/4 of the subject so that would be expected. Again, I really try to avoid making the bird look washed out by lifting darks too much.

This is a 16 bit RGB tif if that's what you're asking. Thanks.

[Steve Kaluski]

This is a 16 bit RGB tif if that's what you're asking.

Yes, just checking.


Would you agree the human eye sees shadows? In your comments are you referring specifically the shadows on the rear part of the bird? In the process of the above I lifted blacks and reduced them back and forth and even masked black areas in playing with offset and gamma, in part to assist in dealing with the smoke haziness, until I found what represented a Killdeer to me (have always taken a position that the blacks in Killdeer are black and should be such). Now, in reference to the shadows they are indeed dark but light angle was from front right 1/4 of the subject so that would be expected. Again, I really try to avoid making the bird look washed out by lifting darks too much.

Yes the dark areas are clipped as presented, however even in shadow areas there may not be detail as such, but you don't want excessive 'black' or out of gamma range areas, albeit the eye may not see it. However in the bill for example, there is detail that can be extracted, without having the subject 'washed out'. I guess we will see things differently, which is in part good, because it's healthy, however in my book Black is just part of the tonal range, illustrated by the greyscale at the foot of this window and so the subject has 'shades/tones'. :S3:


BTW is this FF or a crop?

[Brian Sump]

Yes, just checking.



Yes the dark areas are clipped as presented, however even in shadow areas there may not be detail as such, but you don't want excessive 'black' or out of gamma range areas, albeit the eye may not see it. However in the bill for example, there is detail that can be extracted, without having the subject 'washed out'. I guess we will see things differently, which is in part good, because it's healthy, however in my book Black is just part of the tonal range, illustrated by the greyscale at the foot of this window and so the subject has 'shades/tones'. :S3:


BTW is this FF or a crop?

Thanks, comments received Steve.

This is a crop but the full size resolution of this frame is still 5050 x 2800 and 7.3MB so I am assuming we do not have a cropping IQ issue as well.

[John Mack]

A nice view of this killdeer. I like the pose and that ripply water. The raised foot coming out of the water is nice as well. Does it matter that the blacks are clipped on here, yes anywhere else, no.

[Brian Sump]

A nice view of this killdeer. I like the pose and that ripply water. The raised foot coming out of the water is nice as well. Does it matter that the blacks are clipped on here, yes anywhere else, no.

Meaningful to me John. Thank you for saying.

[gail bisson]

This is really nice Brian. You are definitely figuring the camera out! Still a bit coarse and contrasty to my eye but much better than previous image.
The blacks look natural to me and I would leave them as is.
Great POV, like the raised foot and the gold water is lovely.
Gail

[Steve Kaluski]

The 1 DX3 has no anti-aliasing filter an I do not sharpen at all in LR (I stay at the default but increase the radius to 1.2 and mask all but the bird,using mask slider). This seems to be my magic number so might be worth trying for the R5? I have also reduced the amount of Smart Sharpen on the JPEG I use from about 35-40 with the 1 Dx1 to 15 to 30 on the 1 DX3.

Hi Gail, I would be very concerned to set the radius to 1.2 in LR, personally it's too excessive and beyond even LR's default of 1.0, I would suggest a lot lower. With the new launch of both the 1D MKIII & the R5/6 sharpening is really minimal as both the IQ and clarity is really good. The mask in LR is only there as as part of NR along with the other two sliders, but if you are using Topaz NR at the raw stage then the mask is redundant. If you are using Smart sharpen are you also expanding it to take into account both Shadows & Highlights options?

I'm only saying this to help avoid haloing and artefacts.

[gail bisson]

Hi Gail, I would be very concerned to set the radius to 1.2 in LR, personally it's too excessive and beyond even LR's default of 1.0, I would suggest a lot lower. With the new launch of both the 1D MKIII & the R5/6 sharpening is really minimal as both the IQ and clarity is really good. The mask in LR is only there as as part of NR along with the other two sliders, but if you are using Topaz NR at the raw stage then the mask is redundant. If you are using Smart sharpen are you also expanding it to take into account both Shadows & Highlights options?

I'm only saying this to help avoid haloing and artefacts.
Hi Steve,
In 10 years on BPN I have never had anyone say that I had oversharpened an image and only once did someone comment on a halo in my image! So I can only go by my personal experience and this is what works for me. So many ways to do things!
Gail

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Gail, that's fine, no worries.

All I was trying to explain was, that with the advancements in both camera, software and sharpening techniques, sharpening with a radius of 1.2 is deemed to be excessive these days, especially (as we are taking about Canon, ie 1DX 3, R5 or R5, current LR & PSCC), most of us have backed off considerable, because IQ is so good now with super, razor sharp images, however if that works for you fine.

[Brian Sump]

This is really nice Brian. You are definitely figuring the camera out! Still a bit coarse and contrasty to my eye but much better than previous image.
The blacks look natural to me and I would leave them as is.
Great POV, like the raised foot and the gold water is lovely.
Gail

That's great Gail, thank you for the comments!