Printable View
This image is from late 2016 when the short eared owls were active in BC delta. It was a very productive trip and I came with many keepers. Visited the same location late last year and they were all gone....
shot with 1DX II and 400 DO II + TC 1.4X III ISO 2500 1/1600sec hand held processed with DPP 4.12
hope you like it
The owl looks very good indeed, focus bang on, lighting optimal and I really like the background.
Did you apply NR....... it looks very smooth, you will perhaps disagree??
(What is DD 4.12?)
no NR that’s how the look like here. Looks natural on my monitorQuote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Ashton
that was a typo it was DPP
Lovely wings up pose, nicely detailed and with that hint of a head turn, nice work
Mike
A really beautiful frame.
Perfect wing position. The BG is killer at this location, isn't it?
I think Jonathan might have been referring to NR on the BG?
No nits from me,
Gail
Thanks Gail, I did apply NR to the BG, I use neat image and calibrate it to the BG so that it only takes out the grain rather than artificially blurring it which is something I don't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by gail bisson
best
Hi Arash ... cool image with nice flight pose . Eye looks stunning .
Lovely colors and perfect tonal range .
Going back to Jonīs thoughts and your answer to it , taking your word you should have set NR to 0 in DPP .... right ? No NR at all ?? Just to the BG with Neat Image .
TFS Andreas
Thanks Andreas, for this image I did not use use NR slider in DPP. I explain my workflow in detail in my DPP4 guide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas Liedmann
best
Arash
Love how the background/setting matches the bird with those earth tone colors. Love the pose and the detail.
Excellent view of this species. The pink background is incredibly pretty and looks very painterly. It is clear the BG has been smoothed a lot; that's not a bad thing but more a matter of taste.
Eye and the far wing are my favorite. Beautiful frame.
Bg looks completely natural to me. Not close to subject at all, not
sure why anyone would think this is not natural.
It's not that it's 'not natural'; it's that Arash adds more NR to his backgrounds than most others. I tend to push my blues more than everyone else. We all have our processing trademarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by dankearl
It's all a matter of personal preference.
Dorian, I do not know what Arash does, I use denoise on almost every photo I process. Why not?
It is not "natural" that cameras process as they do in my opinion, I rarely shoot where I live in iso400 light.
The light when I am photographing birds is fine with me, iso3200 is what I can get, in nice morning clouds at 1/2500 or so,
it is nice light in my opinion, why should I not clean that up?
Just asking, a nice lockdown discussion.
I'm not saying NR is bad. I use NR on every one of my images, to varying degrees depending on ISO and crop. I'm saying different people use it to different artistic ends.
Not true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Anderson
The BG has not been smoothened at all, I never smooth the BG's IMO it's pretty stupid to blur the BG. I hate those images with blurred BG's they look fake and are an instant delete.
here is the screen shot from RAW
Attachment 185651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Anderson
this is fake news now! :bg3:
I do not apply more NR either to the bird or the BG, rather, instead of using that bull **** Adobe software that makes grainy files with those terrible color casts, I use an optimal raw converter (DPP for Canon) so I don't have to apply a lot of NR like most folks struggle with. Both Canon and Nikon full frame cameras are almost noise free at these ISO's if you use the right raw converter. I use fast lenses with full frame bodies that give a smooth BG in camera. I also get close to the subject (you can see the owl is almost FF) which helps even give a creamier BG.
I never use NR as "artistic" tool, I use it to remove noise, which this image has almost none to begin with.
OK, this is processing nuance unfamiliar to me. I did not understand the difference is in the conversion, not in the application of NR. I am forced to use NR because I do all my processing in LR, the only software my computer-challenged brain can understand, correct? I simply do not understand what DPP is. It is a stand-alone program? A plug-in? Do you do all your processing in DPP or bounce it into something else afterwards? I realize LR is really limiting but it is so easy for someone without compute skills (me).Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
The full-frame comment about the owl make sense, so thanks for clarifying that.
Dorian,
You don't even use PS? Lightroom alone?
I don't know anyone who does that, you get both with the package, right?
I know Arash used DPP with Canon, i think he uses Capture with Nikon,
I use PS and Topaz denoise plugin, pretty simple. Better than just Lightroom I think, but to each their own.
Yes, just LR because it is easy. I am not good with computers. I have no idea how to use a plug-in or into what I would plug it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dankearl
Though easy, I understand my current LR processing flow will be a constant battle between sharpness and noise. I have no idea how to use new software. Maybe if I ever finish my book.......
Your work is amazing, Dorian, one of the best photogs/birders here so I would
not presume to tell you to change anything..
Here is what it boils down toQuote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Anderson
- Adobe is a greedy company. They do not want to pay licensing fees to the camera companies whose engineers have worked hard day and night to create these cameras for us. They buy cameras, shoot a bunch of test targets and then reverse engineer the camera. They then use open-source generic algo's to demosaic and process the RAW files. the result is weird colors, and very grainy files because they have to work so hard to get the details out. A good photographer can eventually get a descent output after spending some time adjusting colors manually and doing a lot of NR. that's what holds many folks from shooting high ISO or leads to noisy files even after processing.
- DPP is Canon's own raw processing software. It comes free with every canon camera and gives the highest possible image quality. The noise pattern is very tight and much easier to remove without rubbing the details. This is because DPP was developed by Canon's engineers who know every detail of the image sensors. It uses Canon's own propitiatory algo's developed after years of R&D. The catch is that because Canon are not a bay area sw company they don't know how design a strong UI and effective documentation . That's why Artie and I wrote the DPP to teach people how to use it. It worked best for both of us when we had Canon.
- For Nikon and Sony cameras the best sw is Capture One Pro. Phase One (small Danish company) pays both Nikon and Sony to license their sw development toolkit for developing raw files from Sony sensors (Nikon also use Sony sensors). Therefore you can get pretty much the same quality the manufacturer intended out of C1P.
-If a RAW file is processed optimally it will only need subtle and gentle NR to clean it up, even at high ISO.
below are crops from the same are of the BG, the one on the left is from ACR (LR) and the one on the right is from the DPP. Apart from colors being totally off and muted the ACR is producing 10 x more noise in the process of conversion than DPP. I turned NR off so DPP output also has some noise, but it is much easier to deal with
Attachment 185653
to the contrary of the popular belief using the right RAW converter actually makes the whole process easier and a lot less painful. I see folks use all this mambo jumbo filters and lots of convoluted steps only to arrive a terrible result. it's not that hard really.
Just because one's work is good it doesn't mean it cannot get any better. We can all improve. for one thing he should not be holding back in using high ISO while expecting the same high image quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by dankearl
Thanks, Dan. I've always known processing was the limiting factor in my photo equation. I need to find the time to rectify it! I've also enjoyed seeing yourQuote:
Originally Posted by dankearl
work evolve since I've joined the board. You've been cranking out lots of strong stuff recently, particularly the harriers!
Certainly! I just have to find the time to learn new tools. The comparison you posted is a great illustration, and it might prove the motivation to give DPP a try, cheers!Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
A few points about blurring the BG (whether by blur or aggressive NR). These images look totally fake and synthetic to my eye, I can often call them out from a mile away. The most sophisticated example is Apple iphone's portrait mode, which actually uses depth information from a second camera to create an artificial blur simulating a wide aperture portrait lens with a $30 camera module.
so why doesn't it work?
the answer is because the blur in the OOF areas is created by convolution of a sharp image and the blur caused by the aperture blades of the lens. the Blur characteristics of a lens is a unique property of the lens and does not have a known closed form mathematical formula. this is what photographers call "bokeh" and is a unique characteristic of each lens kind of like a finger print. the PS blur filter uses Guassian type blur which is very different from than the lens bokeh. it is more like looking at a sharp image from behind an opaque glass. it has no depth to it for lack of a better term. Aggressive NR does the same thing.... so to get a pleasing smooth BG you need to do it in the camera.
"Certainly! I just have to find the time to learn new tools."
Dorian, there can't be a better time than lockdown.
I think I will try out Capture One, what better time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dankearl
and also cleaning up your computer from old files, checking your back up etc etc :)
I've been organizing files, sorting out back-ups, and updating my website these two weeks. Since I am a writer without kids, my day-to-day has hardly changed outside of my wife being home all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
then you have no excuse ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Anderson
