Nuthatch

[Steve Kaluski]

Posting more for fun than anything else, as this was more of a grab shot, simply because when setting up we had place some moss on the fence for another perch and disregarded that anything would land on it.... wrong!

The Nuthatch picked some seed and promptly landed on the fence to then swallow it and then fly. After which I removed the moss and he/she still then landed on it, but it gives a more simpler aspect with less distracting elements to compete with the subject.

Anyone struggling to get good images from the R5 around ISO3200-6400 you need to re look at your camera set-up, this is at ISO5000 and SS 1/640 and it's razor sharp, for the R6/3 this isn't a problem.

Thanks to those who commented or viewed the last posting.

Steve

Subject: Nuthatch (Sitta europaea)
Location: UK
Camera: Canon EOS R5
Lens: EF200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXT
Exposure: 1/640s at f/6.3 ISO5000
Original format: Landscape, almost FF on width
Processed via: LRCC 10.5 & PSCC 22.5.1

[Steve Kaluski]

Now without the moss.

Techs changed to: 1/1000SS f/7.1 ISO5000

[Dorian Anderson]

Bird looks great, for sure. Head tilt in second frame is awesome. Fence isn't ideal with or without moss, but it is what it is.

Switching gears, it's easy to say ISO 6400 works great when you can lure a bird hella close at a backyard feeder or blind. Noise is a much greater concern when
cropping is required -- i.e. when wary subjects need be stalked under more natural and distant circumstances --- so using a set-up as a baseline is kinda pointless.
Also, Arash has demonstrated that the same capture can have ~2 stops more or less visible noise when it's opened in different software; you might not need NR
in your software at ISO 3200 whereas I always do in Lightroom. Do I need to learn other/better software? Sure, but my images aren't suffering from too much noise
right now. Who cares if ghetto-*** LR forces me to use Topaz at ISOs your software tolerates if we get to the same general place? And I'm taking nothing away from
your processing skills because they're generally excellent. Mine would be better with better software, but I'm too lazy and technologically-challenged to learn how to
use it. I need a user-friendly and idiot-proof interface. That's why I stay with LR and use Topaz on ISOs you don't. I'd love to get away from $10/month, but I don't
know how. ****, I couldn't even figure out DPP!

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dorian and thanks.


Switching gears, it's easy to say ISO 6400 works great when you can lure a bird hella close at a backyard feeder or blind.

Well it is and it isn't, doing test images and reviewing the Histogram helps, but with the mirrorless and understanding the Histogram in the EVF really is a great asset as once you have the exposure set, and the light doesn't change you are good to go.


Noise is a much greater concern when cropping is required -- i.e. when wary subjects need be stalked under more natural and distant circumstances --- so using a set-up as a baseline is kinda pointless.

Providing you expose correctly ie ETTR, to the point where you might get the odd blinkies the image will be pretty spot on, if you need to drop the exposure in PP that's fine, it's when you have to open the exposure up but a stop or more you will begin to have issues, but noise is generally in the dark/shadow areas, I think what you might be seeing is Contrast, especially with Lr and or you add blacks, Clarity globally and use a Profile Adobe Color. Remember I'm used to photographing animals so I can appreciate what you mean by more 'natural circumstances'. Also what you see on screen may not be seen on a print, especially even some areas that you might have concerns over?


you might not need NR in your software at ISO 3200 whereas I always do in Lightroom.

I do use NR and have never stated/said I don't, it's just the way I treat my files both prior and post production and with Lr I have over the years explained the issues with this and what to do to avoid letting Lr apply the crap it does behind the scenes. Many years ago it upgraded and opened the doors, allowing more folk to 'simply process' and instantly - it looks great, but 'technically' the output is pants, hence knowing the beast and perhaps needing more NR. Also NR has to be applied to the raw, not a baked Tiff, it will work but less than ideal, hence why NR is always within the Raw converter.


Do I need to learn other/better software? Sure, but my images aren't suffering from too much noise right now. Who cares if ghetto-*** LR forces me to use Topaz at ISOs your software tolerates

Learning, that all comes with time like everything Dorian as you know, other/better software, then that might mean more time to get to grips and stuff like C1 will take you down so many rabbit holes you will easily loose yourself. Yes its very good, I started using it in 2006, now its got way more sophisticated and you would need to take time out to really understand what each module does and we all like to spend more time out in the field than behind a monitor. I flit from Lr to another brand and that is even more complex, even Arash would need to sit in a dark room for over a week to get to grips with, I'm still learning after 3 years, but Lr is my go to and it dovetails so well with PS and this for me is where the majority of my PP is done.


I need a user-friendly and idiot-proof interface. That's why I stay with LR and use Topaz on ISOs you don't. I'd love to get away from $10/month, but I don't know how. ****, I couldn't even figure out DPP!

No you don't, what you have is perfect, but using Lr on it's own isn't, learning some of what PS has to offer will certainly create greater and quicker results. Keeping a simple Workflow is key, updating that workflow as you learn builds a more robust and efficient workflow.

If the software works for you no need to change and yes, I do find DPP clunky too, others do not and so who's to say which is better. Take a look at Andreas Muskrat in Wildlife, you might be surprised???

[Dorian Anderson]

Yes, the EVF with histogram is so great. I do exactly as you suggest; slightly overexpose the brightest parts of the image knowing 1) I can recover that detail and 2) lift shadows with less noise penalty.

You are right that LR is quite cryptic. I mean, I know how to move the LR noise slider, but I'm not sure when that NR is being applied, probably to the TIFF rather than the RAW as you suggest.
I also don't uderstand the difference between sharpening and output sharpening even though I use them both. What I need to find is a better but easy-to-use RAW converter since LR's sucks; I
can then put the TIFF into LR and go from there. I only really us PS to add canvas, and that's a real rarity for me. I just can't handle all the pulldown menus and submenus in PS. It doesn't
follow any of logical order.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dorian, thanks for the reply and I know where you are coming from. I will drop you a PM to the above as it might be deemed as going off topic, I think it’s more beneficial, however. I will also answer how you can see NR being applied too. Plus explain re pre/post sharpening and if you are using Topaz.

If you were closer I would be happy to give you a quick crash course on Lr, as it doesn’t suck :bg3:, it’s like everything, you just need to understand it and create a Workflow that works for you coupled with some basics of PS. PS is daunting but it is without question the best bit of software out, you can never learn it all, but knowing some of it’s strengths it will, make you images better and more importantly easier to manipulate without gimmicks.:w3

[Andreas Liedmann]

Steve has the answer written under each of his postings ... at least IMHO .

" Post production : It's ALL about what you do with the tools and not , which brand of tools you use . :S3: "

I might like to add .... " Post Production : Do not let the piece of software control you , rather control the software yourself .:bg3: "

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Steve ... the Nuthatch looks great for a grab shot , interesting that you processed theme differently in terms of tone and color ( at least locally ) . Love that eye with the clarity and the well defined pupil !!!
Colors looking good , as does the tones and the fine details showing up are ...as good as expected .
As this is more a fun image ... I will overlook the not ideal and attractive perch :t3.

TFS Andreas