Lion drinking

[Tom Graham]

South Africa, Kings Camp in the Timbavati reserve, Sep 2009. Not sure if this is a female but think is probably a juvenile male. Very late in the day so color balanced "to taste". If I include more of lion's reflection (as in original image) the result becomes very square in shape which I don't like.
Cropped a lot, about 50% of original pixels. To squeeze into BPN requirement of 200KB file size I had to make image 940 pixels and save at quality 5 in PS. "Busy" detailed images require more KB size than 200K for good quality here. Anyway, Nikon D200, f8, 1/180s, ISO 720, 70-300mm at 300mm. All C&C welcome - Tom
101926

[Steve Kaluski]

Tom, your best yet, good eye contact colour and this one has more detail than previous, although the ISO is coming through in parts. Like you, I'm not a lover of square crops, however there isn't too much more you can do on this. Perhaps a sliver off the foot and a bit more off the top?

Looking at so many images posted on the Forum, 200KB has not impeded the overall quality, clarity and sharpness of the images and if the image is good and correctly processed it will 'shine' IMHO, if there was an issue I think we would ALL be in the same boat Tom. :S3: Look at Stuart Bowie's posting of a Ground Hornbill, an excellent example in Members Showcase and posted at 200kb.

TFS
Steve

[Hilary Hann]

Very nice image Tom, would agree with Steve's comments. I do like the golden light reflected in the ripples of the water. I'm still waiting to photograph a front end of a lion drinking, only got tails so far. :bg3:

[Morkel Erasmus]

Nice light and POV, Tom.

Steve took the words right out of my mouth...I have posted numerous images with lots of fine detail both here and in the landscape forum, often saved at 40-60 quality settings in PS, and none of them ever made me think it has degraded IQ much at all :Whoa!:. A correct and effective selective sharpening technique goes a long way in limiting image size being taken up by unnecessary detail. :bg3:


In all fairness, IMHO, I have spoken to users of the D200 before who were very timid in taking it higher than ISO400 due to it's excessive noise, and coupled with a lower segment lens like the 70-300mm it cannot be expected to deliver the same results as for example a D300s and 70-200mm f2.8 VR...:e3 (sorry for being "blunt")

If you don't mind, I would love having a crack at the RAW file or high res JPG as with your bat-eared fox previously - you know where to send it :w3

[Robert Amoruso]

Tom,

You mention the crop here and removing some of the reflection so as not to be square. I suggest a vertical crop as the left and right of the lion is not that interesting and with the lion's stance and reflection, a vertical may be a better alternative.

[Tom Graham]

Thanks all.
I tried a different sharpening technique, by Marc Adams - http://web.archive.org/web/20090625155301/http://pacificnw.naturephotographers.net/tips/photoshop.htm
which basically you size image to about twice final desired size (pixel width) then (Photoshop) oversharpen it and then in Photoshop final size it.

As for the 200KB limitation and IQ on BPN there is this recent discussion - http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/89393-JPEG-Compression
When I get around to it, I'll post an image of a Dik-Dik (antelope) that I think obviously suffers do to file size (200KB) limitation.
Now I have a ready excuse for so-so IQ :S3:
.
Morkel - will send you a high res JPG un-cropped, should be fun to play with :S3:. And after your very much improvement to my "Ndutu Scene", original put up on 9/19, I look forward to what you make of it.

Tom

[Harshad Barve]

Tom

I liked the pose , light and compo , lets see how Morkel will polish this , image with excellent potential
TFS

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks all.
I tried a different sharpening technique, by Marc Adams - http://web.archive.org/web/20090625155301/http://pacificnw.naturephotographers.net/tips/photoshop.htm
which basically you size image to about twice final desired size (pixel width) then (Photoshop) oversharpen it and then in Photoshop final size it.


I think you mean "Marc Adamus"? Remember that Marc is a landscape photography specialist (he's excellent!), and his sharpening techiniques typically apply to the entire image. I also sometimes use a version of his sharpening method which is modified a bit and was converted into a superb PS action by a local South African photographer I know (Philip Perold - www.philipperold.com), but I only use that method for sharpening scenes where there is a lot of fine detail around and behind the subject, making it difficult to selectively sharpen the subject by traditional methods. I prefer to create my own "subject layer" and after resizing only sharpening that layer, which ensures the crisp detail goes where you want it and also ensures your file doesn't get too big. :tinysmile_shy_t:

[Tom Graham]

Yes Morkel, is Marc Adamus. A noted USA wildlife photographer Ronnie Gaubert ( http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187/root ) (now deceased) used Adamus sharpening technique - for "small"web postings (on dpreview). Web posting sharpening being different than sharpening for print or other such.
Interesting, kind of like you said, after I sharpened, I did not like the background around and behind lion. It looked too "edgy" with that low sun angle so I blurred it some.

Also, I agree that the 70-200 2.8 Nikon is a better lens than the 70-300 I'm using. If I were shooting at f2.8 or f4 then the 70-200 would be the lens. But like this image I generally shoot f8 and I doubt that for f8 and image sizes posted here you could tell the difference between the two lenses. I welcome a comparison to show otherwise, not at 100% pixel but a real subject image. Likewise, while the D200 may get noisy after ISO 400, I doubt if difference between 400 and 800 can be seen -here-. Fortunately, no one else here is using a D200 and can prove me wrong :S3: .

Tom
ps - it's ok to be "blunt" with me!!!

[Tom Graham]

For perhaps as a "learning opportunity" here is the original D200 jpg frame (no RAW). With the 70-300 this was as "close" as I could get at 300mm. And I typically shoot the D200 with "mild" settings and slightly under exposed. Then fix it all in Photoshop. So I might say that my first posted image is as much about how I Photoshoped original as about how I took it. :S3:
101964

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks for sending me the file, Tom.

Based on the high res JPG, I don't think the lion is critically sharp...might have been a front-focusing issue or the effect of the light conditions on the lens...

Here is a 100% crop of the lion with no PP applied...

http://i578.photobucket.com/albums/ss230/Lekrom777/DSC_0754_ME2.jpg

[Morkel Erasmus]

Here is a rework I processed from the file you sent. Overall there is a lack of fine detail even at high resolution, and this unfortunately transfers to the finished file even at 1000px wide. The shadow on the face didn't help and achieving any kind of sharpness here was difficult without creating a lot of artifacts. I also feel you pushed the warmth in the WB of the OP a bit. I did apply some warming filters in PS to move away from the cold colours of the JPG file.

Some fill flash would have helped get better exposure on the main focal point here - the face...

Please take this as a learning curve...the intent of these posts is in no way malicious...the purpose of us posting and critiquing here is after all to improve and develop our skills in this hobby-cum-artform we love so much. :e3

Workflow steps:
1. Crop and rotate
2. Resize to 1000px wide (all my BPN posts are 1000px wide, I standardise my workflow to be able to upload the images to my webpage which is optimised for 1000px wide).
3. Select lion using lasso and feather selection, create new layer.
4. Noise reduction on the BG layer.
5. Multiplied highlights layer on the BG layer.
6. Increased saturation by 8-15 points on lion and BG but dropped magenta and green channels by about 20.
7. Warming filter on both BG and lion - 25%.
8. Dodged shadows and midtones on the lion's face.
9. Little bit of contrast adjustment on the lion.
10. Sharpened lion about 3 rounds at 125%, 0.2px. Anything more and the details really became fuzzy.

[Tom Graham]

Oops, as I was composing this you re-posted, we crossed. So will leave this as below and reply to your repost.
Thanks Morkel. Guess I really don't know how sharp the D200 image should/could be with mild jpg settings (e.g sharpening at "normal"). Also, shutter was at 1/180 which is slower than I'd like. And then your crop here is pretty severe of the original, look original directly above, guessing crop about 1/10 pixels of the original 10Meg, giving 1M, so what can one expect from that?? I don't know. Thanks again for your work and help on this. I'd still be very interested in how you would crop and color balance the original if you can find the time to do it.
Tom

[Morkel Erasmus]

Oops, as I was composing this you re-posted, we crossed. So will leave this as below and reply to your repost.
Thanks Morkel. Guess I really don't know how sharp the D200 image should/could be with mild jpg settings (e.g sharpening at "normal"). Also, shutter was at 1/180 which is slower than I'd like. And then your crop here is pretty severe of the original, look original directly above, guessing crop about 1/10 pixels of the original 10Meg, giving 1M, so what can one expect from that?? I don't know. Thanks again for your work and help on this. I'd still be very interested in how you would crop and color balance the original if you can find the time to do it.
Tom

No problem, Tom. I don't think my crop was much more than your OP at the top...slightly closer but not as big as you make it sound...

Everyone's standards of "acceptable sharpness" differs, I'm sure. Just as a comparison, I am posting a 100% crop of an elephant that was about as small in the frame as your lion, shot in crappy conditions in the Kruger in 2009, using a D300s and 18-200mm VR lens (ISO-400). This, to me, is acceptable sharpness in these conditions. Given it's a newer generation camera, but in the same "segment" as the D200 (it's immediate follow-up model's refreshment to be precise). I know you will probably feel one needs an exact image in the same setting with the same techs to compare, but I have none such to provide :e3.

Just to confirm - do you shoot in JPG by default?? It seems like that from your comment. I would switch to shooting in RAW as soon as possible if I were you...one is able to extract so much more detail and dynamic range from a RAW file.

[Tom Graham]

Thanks for your repost Morkel. I like your sharpening. And interesting your cropping very close to mine. But I would like it a bit warmer. Granted, mine may be pushing too warm. But that setting golden sun, etc.

"Please take this as a learning curve...the intent of these posts is in no way malicious.."
I know Morkel, I know. And I'm happy to put up a "straw man" to learn myself and for perhaps others also. I was in a camera club for years, many years ago, where judges (of 35mm slides) scored us for competition points. And comments, questions and ideas "flowed freely". I am not that sensitive about my "art" as are many photographers. If all I wanted to hear was - "amazing, wonderful, super, great", I'd ask my mother :S3:
Thanks again - Tom

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Tom, I think as you say, this has been a good learning Curve, and a credit to you for taking it all on board, and to Morkel for taking the time to go through things in more depth, hopefully this means you can execute you next set of images in more depth, but agree with Morkel, the way to go forward is with a RAW file, you will notice a huge difference overall in your images.

I also agree, film days were good, especially using Velvia Pro, the sharpness you could not be beat even and would put digital in it's box, but poor light could/was an issue. :bg3:

Morkel, need to think and perhaps we should copy this thread for others to learn from????

Good luck Tom. :wave:

[Morkel Erasmus]

I know Morkel, I know. And I'm happy to put up a "straw man" to learn myself and for perhaps others also. I was in a camera club for years, many years ago, where judges (of 35mm slides) scored us for competition points. And comments, questions and ideas "flowed freely". I am not that sensitive about my "art" as are many photographers. If all I wanted to hear was - "amazing, wonderful, super, great", I'd ask my mother :S3:
Thanks again - Tom

I think I need to ask my mother sometimes :w3. I am now learning the ins and outs of the local camera club scene after avoiding it for the first few years of my photographic development :eek3::bg3:.

Just another note - the workflow steps I shared were what I felt was needed for this specific image...it's a very subjective process...

[Morkel Erasmus]

perhaps we should copy this thread for others to learn from????

Good luck Tom. :wave:

Good idea Steve...we could copy it to the resources thread?

[Harshad Barve]

Great thread this is , D200 sharpness was not a problem IMHO , Its ISO was bad , I can post image by my friend taken on D200 if you want

[Ken Watkins]

Tom,

I think Harshad may have the answer to this conundrum.

Certainly with Canon using intermediate ISO settings adds noise, whether this is the case with Nikon I do not know.

In this case the lighting is also a problem, and I believe a slight increase in eposure may well have assisted although you may have blown a few areas of the original, this should be capable of rectification.

You should certainly shoot in RAW at all times, unless you are running out of cards.

As for sharpening there are thousands of methods, but I find that they all do much the same careful use of Smart Sharpen works fine for me, I use the method recommended by Art.

Personally I prefer the OP, but think toning down the yellows may assist

[Morkel Erasmus]

Tom,

I think Harshad may have the answer to this conundrum.

Certainly with Canon using intermediate ISO settings adds noise, whether this is the case with Nikon I do not know.




Ken, if you had read through the whole thread you would have seen that I touched on this in pane #4: :eek3:



In all fairness, IMHO, I have spoken to users of the D200 before who were very timid in taking it higher than ISO400 due to it's excessive noise, and coupled with a lower segment lens like the 70-300mm it cannot be expected to deliver the same results as for example a D300s and 70-200mm f2.8 VR...:e3 (sorry for being "blunt")


I have found no problem with noisier images on my Nikons at any intermediate ISO compared to IQ of the "standard" ISO on either side of the "intermediate ISO".

[Tom Graham]

Well, my last safari I (Feb 2011) I did shoot RAW, and JPG. Been playing with Bibble 5 Pro to process RAW.
For sure the D200 is capable of sharp images. How sharp is sharp and how sharp can be seen here with BPN requirements I don't recall seeing being investigated. Has it? Again I refer to the thread I mention above in which our Roger Clark has seen problems with IQ on some of his images. (If anyone here is qualified to comment or analyze such, for sure it is Roger). Likewise, I have my doubts about how much noise can be seen here. Not that higher ISO doesn't increase noise, it certainly does. But that is it noticeable here, that is, the noise difference between ISO 400 and 800 on the D200 or any DSLR made since then (about 2007). I know this is simply my opinion but I'm sticking to it until proven otherwise :S3:. And I don't think images of lions, elephants (or any of the big five) will convince me!! How about a test like I think Artie suggested, shooting newspaper print?? Newspapers are common to all of us so such testing could be replicated by anyone. Another learning opportunity perhaps :w3 .

Tom

[Ken Watkins]

In all fairness, IMHO, I have spoken to users of the D200 before who were very timid in taking it higher than ISO400 due to it's excessive noise,

:w3

Morkel,

I did read the whole thread, and fail to see how the above deals with the subject of intermediate ISO.
Thanks for supplying the details regarding Nikon in this regard.

[Morkel Erasmus]

Morkel,

I did read the whole thread, and fail to see how the above deals with the subject of intermediate ISO.
Thanks for supplying the details regarding Nikon in this regard.

Ken, your post in frame #20 claims that "Harshad hit the nail on the head".

He said:


Great thread this is , D200 sharpness was not a problem IMHO , Its ISO was bad , I can post image by my friend taken on D200 if you want

D200 ISO performance over 400 is bad...which was what I said in my post in #4. You raised the point of intermediate ISO in your subsequent comments. :w3

[Morkel Erasmus]

Well, my last safari I (Feb 2011) I did shoot RAW, and JPG. Been playing with Bibble 5 Pro to process RAW.
For sure the D200 is capable of sharp images. How sharp is sharp and how sharp can be seen here with BPN requirements I don't recall seeing being investigated. Has it? Again I refer to the thread I mention above in which our Roger Clark has seen problems with IQ on some of his images. (If anyone here is qualified to comment or analyze such, for sure it is Roger). Likewise, I have my doubts about how much noise can be seen here. Not that higher ISO doesn't increase noise, it certainly does. But that is it noticeable here, that is, the noise difference between ISO 400 and 800 on the D200 or any DSLR made since then (about 2007). I know this is simply my opinion but I'm sticking to it until proven otherwise . And I don't think images of lions, elephants (or any of the big five) will convince me!! How about a test like I think Artie suggested, shooting newspaper print?? Newspapers are common to all of us so such testing could be replicated by anyone. Another learning opportunity perhaps .

Tom

Tom, this thread is going to go nowhere from here, I'm afraid :eek3:. Some good suggestions were given from a few people. I have had IQ problems with some images saved at below 60, but in most cases not. The point I was trying to make initially was that there is a way to process images that prevents too much of the space allowance to be taken up by unimportant details in the image. The point of posting the elephant was not to critically compare sharpness, as you said (and as I alluded to earlier), you need to generate a neutral test to compare apples with apples. The point of the elephant was to show you what I deem as "acceptable sharpness" in an image in challenging light-conditions, shot with a similar-quality-lens, and at a similar-sized crop than how much of a crop your lion is compared to the original JPG file (since you pointed out that it was a large crop).

You are welcome to do the 'newspaper' test...or you can just invest in a newer camera like a D300s if you don't want to go full frame. :e3

You say you are open to learn and not here for the "momma compliments", but it just seems that you keep going on the defensive when suggestions are made and issues with the image or your technique are highlighted. :Whoa!:

I'll be frank. Your original JPG does suffer from noise...not excessive levels but sufficient noise to have an adverse effect on fine detail and dynamic range. The image as it came out of your camera would have gone into my "bin"...as it is not of acceptable quality to post for critique according to my standards.

[Ken Watkins]

Ken, your post in frame #20 claims that "Harshad hit the nail on the head".

He said:



D200 ISO performance over 400 is bad...which was what I said in my post in #4. You raised the point of intermediate ISO in your subsequent comments. :w3

Morkel,

Well we clearly disagree with what was said, if as you state I raised the point about "intermediate ISO", then I cannot really understand how you claim your initial comments about ISO dealt with this.

You are correct in your description of this thread,

[Morkel Erasmus]

Morkel,

Well we clearly disagree with what was said, if as you state I raised the point about "intermediate ISO", then I cannot really understand how you claim your initial comments about ISO dealt with this.

You are correct in your description of this thread,

What's to disagree about? You made the claim that Harshad got to the correct conclusion, referring to his statement which I quoted verbatim in my previous post. His statement noted NOTHING about intermediate ISO...you brought it up in your post. Nothing to be confused about there. He did note the ISO performance of the D200 was not the best...something which I pointed to in my post in #4. My point there did not address intermediate ISO, but the ISO performance of the camera used in this shot.

I see no need for any further debate here. The points made were concise and clear. What is done with the information and suggestions is up to the individuals involved. :S3:

[Ken Watkins]

Oh well, let's end this now, in future perhaps this sort of communication should be conducted by PM.

[Morkel Erasmus]

What kind of communication? What do you deem as inappropriate in this thread?

I agree, let's end it, unless Tom has a final thought for his thread.

[Ken Watkins]

Morkel,

As you have chosen to continue so will I.

I have never said that anything was inappropriate.

The communications I am referring to are your responses to my comment which you clearly missunderstood.

Once again please contact me by PM if you wish to clarify my comments as I feel that this sort of rant is not helping Tom.

[Morkel Erasmus]

As pointed out - no misunderstanding if you just read everything in context. No need to take it offline or continue here as there's nothing more to add.

Sorry for this, Tom :)

[Robert Amoruso]

Closed.

If anyone wishes to delve into specific workflow issues from this thread, start a new thread in Digital Workflow. Thank you.