Can Anyone Save This Photo?

[Harold Davis]

Or is it worth saving? I liked it myself. I've tried to work my magic with little success. so i decided to post the unedited picture. it was early at wakodahatchee and just not enough light to make a good pic.

Anything anyone can do with this one?

D300, exif shows 0mm, f/0, 1/250s, ISO 3200. i was using the sigma 50-500 and the nest was close so i'm figuring somewhere between 300-400 mm.not sure what that f/0 means.

thanks for looking and i appreciate the help.

[Jim Neiger]

Hi Harold,

I think this one is too far gone to save. It is very underexposed, and brightening it up would produce alot of noise, particularly since you used ISO 3200. There are many whose PS skills are beyond mine, but I think this one is likely beyond their reach as well.

The exif info is very strange and appears to be a software bug somewhere along the line.

[Harold Davis]

exactly the problem i was running into with the noise popping up while trying to brighten it. thanks mr jim!!

[Jim Poor]

Whether or not it is worth saving depends on how emotionally invested you are in the image. I have some really crappy images that I refuse to delete because they are special to me. Not marketable, but special.

I'm no photoshop guru, but this one is a tough nut to crack. That said, I like a challenge.

Most of the noise was in the Cyan channel so I desaturated that completely which helped a lot. Going for something dark and moody as the final result helped.

It isn't perfect, but what do you think of this? -->

Starting from the original RAW of even full JPG, you can get better results. A lot of the techniques used by photo restorers can be used to save important but flawed images. Things like channel mixing good channels to repair bad ones and such. Lots of good info in this book: http://www.digitalretouch.org/

[Jim Poor]

I uploaded the wrong version and forgot to convert to sRGB in the first attempt. Corrected above.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Harold, is the original RAW or jpg. If RAW there may be hope. :)

[Nonda Surratt]

Harold,

I can see why you want to try and save the image, has a very nice feel to it. Jim did a very nice job as well.

[Bill McCrystyn]

I love a challenge myself, ask Alfred. :) If you could give me an original LJPEG I think I can pull it out for you to something you would like "OUT OF THE BOX" . I don't really see noise as an issue. I did this rough out from the post on a cheap unprofiled monitor at work so I don't really know what it looks like on your end. If you would like, I would love to give it a try. Bill

[Harold Davis]

thanks guys, jim yours looks like mine did after i worked on it.

axel, yes the original is RAW.

nonda, thanks for the comment. i really liked this one too. ashame about the light.

and bill i'll shoot you over a ljpeg.

[George DeCamp]

Jim did a really nice job! Way to go Jim!

I would call Nikon about this : D300, exif shows 0mm, f/0...if nothing else but to ge it on record.Very weird and the cause of your problem was a mis-fire of your camera.

[Harold Davis]

will do mr george. thanks everyone.

[Marko Matesic]

When Jim mentioned something dark and moody almost instantly black BG and paint with light cross my mind.
I flip image horizontally because I think that flipped offers better composition.
hope you like it...it is little extreme "make over" but savings are always extreme :)
BTW I like Jim`s version better :)
so here it is...five minute make over :))

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/5480/12082007md3.jpg?s=1

[Bill McCrystyn]

Here is another attempt at home on my working monitor. There is just so much I can do with the small post. I don't know if I can do better than Jim's for you or not without the original. This is like a whole differant version. It depends on what your looking for. Comparing, I think I like Jims version better also. I like Marko's beak and eye the best, It's a tough one.

[Jim Poor]

Wow. Lots to choose from. I think everyone did a better job on the face than I did. I was too busy looking at the rest of it.

Personally, I like Marko's version a whole lot. I think it has a real beauty to it. It doesn't really look "real," but I think it has a really big impact.

[Alfred Forns]

Awesome thread !!!!

f/o usually is from non compatible lenses/converters etc When you use an extension tube on one of the new lenses the aperture does not show

Would double check the histogram Underexposing is death Would try using a lower shutter speed and good holding technique before going to 3200 The D300 does have clean ISO but generally don't like to go above 1250 for best results

[Ian McHenry]

I really liked both Jim and Bill's colour edits.
For me a tiny crop of Jim's edit fills the bill.
Ian Mc

[Harold Davis]

wow, nice job guys. i really like marko's creation, too. i like the idea of going extreme to make it work.