Printable View
Little Owl.
Nikon D4
Nikon 300ml 2.8
iso 1000.
I am pleased with the image quality of this Owl shot, but not sure about white balance and temperature ect, this image as just been downsized for the web ,would really like to know what others think I need to do to improve it, any help much appreciated.
Thanks Keith.
It's basically a very nice image. How did you process it? It is a little low in contrast and the WB may be off a little, with a slight greenish cast. An almost-monochromatic subject can be difficult. I don't know the bird, so you are better off to go back to the raw file and experiment. Maybe a little Clarity, if you use LR, or the equivalent in PS, and maybe a little more saturation.
You don't give the SS or aperture, but it seems sharp enough. Is it much of a crop?
Agree with the green cast, you can see it in the cement block (cinder block?) Also agree that it's a bit flat, the eyes and beak don't jump out, maybe some selective contrast in the face. The sun angle lights only half the bird but it's not too strong. Getting rid of the greenish cast will probably help the bird stand out more from the background.
If you don't mind I took a whack at it in Lightroom.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-I.../test-owl_.jpg
Thanks Diane, Jon.
Diane have not done anything to this image apart from resize ,very small crop, have had this cast problem pointed out to me before ,could this be down to my white balance setting?, have spent a lot of time with these Little Owls and the colour looks about right but a little flat,1/800@f8 almost full frame I get very close to these birds using a hide.
Jon I don't mind at all in fact I welcome what you have tried to do, not absolutely sure about my eyes and colour have difficulty seeing the green cast which is obviously there, your version certainly lifts the bird but the bird looks a bit magenta ,what you say about the sun and lighting I find interesting and I think you could have a point there.
I will try the things pointed out to me and repost.
Thanks a lot Keith.
Have increased contrast/brightness/vibrancy, is that better or worse?
Thanks for any tips.
Keith.
Yes, Keith, much better! The added contrast from the dark end has brought out detail better. Jon's colors went too far to magenta. Colors are tricky, especially green-magenta. It takes some experience to see them correctly, which relies on consistent lighting in your viewing area. You also need a good monitor, properly calibrated, and a good color-managed browser to see posted images correctly.
Hi Keith, I played around with this for about twenty minutes trying to get it looking as good as I could. I would have preferred to start with the raw file but did the best I could with the Jpeg. The two main issues for me were the side lighting and the shadow across the bird that it produced and the color cast, in the end I used 9 adjustment layers with mask to produce the image. I started with a curve to set the black and white points then there are three curves used on the Owl to control the shadow and highlights, one curve to add contrast, and a finale curve to brighten the subject relative to the BG. There is also a color adjustment to get rid of the green cast and I finished off the image with a sharpening layer and a mid tone contrast layer. I included a screen shot of my layer pallet so you can get an ideal of the layers and mask used. I intentionally do not give out the values I use in my adjustments not because I want to keep them secret but they really do not matter as each image is different and unique and really cannot be copied from image to image its more important to understand how I looked at the image and how each adjustment built open each other to achieve the finale image. Almost forgot I hate the perch so I cropped out as much as I could to lessen its presence in the image, also you really should try to position yourself to have the light coming over your shoulder to eliminate shadows on the image.
Better still!
Yeah, I was using Tone Curve in LR. I set some points on just the green channel that isolated the tones of just the perch and bird, and lowered them just slightly so as to not affect the background. Once I saw Keith's comment and checked the result again, it was obvious I went too far, and it was a very slight to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane Miller
For my own selfish purposes, I want to see if this is more balanced (just want to make sure I'm seeing the same things). I also tried to minimize the side lighting with a local adjustment brush. Layers in Photoshop give a lot more control, but you can accomplish a surprising amount in LR. I can't locally adjust the luminance, which would be a nice addition in a future version.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5...test-owl_2.jpg
Yes, you got a very close match with Don's, just a little less contrast, which I think is better. You said you set some points on just the green channel, but you're ahead of me there.... (I go to PS for color channel work.) I don't see color channels in the Tone Curve. What did you do?
I'm going to assume LR5 is the same as 4 here. When the Tone Curve panel is first opened there are 4 sliders, Highlights, Lights, Darks, Shadows. Below that is Point Curve. You can select a default point curve, or you can use the little icon to the right to customize the point curve. When you click it, it hides the sliders and allows the user to put points on the curve. Just below the graph of the curve is a Channel selector, with RGB selected as default, individual channels can be selected here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane Miller
How sneaky of them -- to hide it in plain sight! I never noticed it before. Thanks -- I learned something!!
Jon ,Diane, Don, thanks a lot this it is great, and will certainly give me something to work on,Diane a new monitor is on the top of my shopping list, Jon I have LR but must admit that I get on better with CS 5 ,could I get a similar result with this system?,Don that is very interesting and I will study this ,going off to my caravan in the forest this weekend but will put this on the top of my work list when we return.
Thanks a lot much appreciated.
Keith.
Hi! First, sweet shot, Keith! Really like the turned head and "stare down" look...BG is lovely. Although I'm not too great at PP, (but am pretty good at color) I agree with Diane's comments above. Your RP was much better... and Don's work certainly brought it up really well. Thanks for the post and thanks to Don for a great explanation and screen shot.
I've been working with LR for the past 2 years (just after acquiring my first DSLR and lenses), I started working with PS a couple of months ago when I needed to do some more advanced work for some extended family pictures. I'm still learning, but from what I understand, PS can do everything LR can plus more. Every release LR adds more functionality that allows more work to be done before exporting to PS for further work. I've watched and read a ton of digital work flow material, including on this site, but I don't have a ton of experience. A lot of people seem to start in LR and then export to PS when necessary. I haven't purchased Mr. Morris's guides yet, but I understand they can be very helpful. One of the reasons I started posting here (just last week) is to get more direct feedback.Quote:
Originally Posted by keith mitchell
So far I like it here and I think I'm going to use up my participant quotas pretty quickly so I'll be joining as a member shortly.
Hi Jon,
We'll be happy to have you as a member -- it's very expensive to keep this site running and there's never the budget for things that would be nice to do.
To flesh out your response a little: Adobe Camera Raw, which comes with PS as a sort of helper program, is the equivalent of the Develop module in LR, with a different interface to the same processing engine. I much prefer the LR layout, and in addition LR will do a number of things PS can't, in the area of image management. And PS goes well beyond what LR or ACR can do. For me, and many others, the workflow integration of LR and PS is top-notch and indispensable. I've tried other raw converters and haven't found one I think is better, although others here favor DPP for Canons.
But for a shot that is very good to begin with, it is increasingly common not to need to do much in PS -- often just some minor cloning, noise reduction and sharpening with plugins, and sometimes some of the other plugins such as Nik's Silver Efex Pro for B/W. For the price, Photoshop Elements will do a lot of that. LR is definitely my home base. Keywording and Collections are wonderful, as is exporting with presets. It is a database and goes way beyond PS's other helper program, Bridge, which is simply a file browser.
Thanks to all who contributed! I'm having similar issues with a photo, and this helped me as well.
really good info in this post also, thanks all and cool bird!
Hi Keith a bit late as I've been/am away. Not ideal working on the MacBook pro, but my initial impression is the OP is not that far away. I think it you reduce the Blue via a Saturation adjustment and then slightly adjust the WB, going a tad warmer you will almost be there. You could add a little in the shadows, and lift the highlights & white a fraction more, to what degree is perhaps personal taste. Certainly adding a Midtone adjustment and then 'scalp' the light a little more in the head area, but I know this is way beyond your comfort zone. :w3
When you get back drop me a line as I want you to try something which may help in your first step in processing your images, as it may address a constant issue you have. It's not a silver bullet, but...
cheers
Steve
