Jakoetsk, Siberia, Russia 2019. A skulker during autumn migration, but much easier to see in the breeding season.
Bought myself Photoshop and Topaz Denoise, so hopefully this will improve the quality from what I show on this forum.
Printable View
Jakoetsk, Siberia, Russia 2019. A skulker during autumn migration, but much easier to see in the breeding season.
Bought myself Photoshop and Topaz Denoise, so hopefully this will improve the quality from what I show on this forum.
Well, this is terrible. There is no doubt about it. I have some work to do, bloody.
Attachment 185699
This should be much better.
A beautiful calling pose with SH right where it needs to be. Wish it was a tad brighter and the large stalk right in front of this beauty wasn't there. TFS
You know, it's nature. This plant is what it is and for me it is not disturbing. A bird in it's natural habitat. To many "clean" images makes it less interesting, I'll like the diversity in photographs.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Roach
Agreed about a little bit brighter, but only a tiny bit.
Nice calling pose, repost better. Wish the bird were parallel to the focal plane but you can't always get what you want.You didn't indicate SS or Aperture, so it's hard to tell if there is motion blur or DOF issue. Good to see a new species in its habitat; but some habitats can be more distracting than others.
Hello Bill, you can't have it all indeed, the bird was refusing to sit paralell. The original is tacksharp, even without sharpening. Aperture 5.6. Can be bigger, but most of the time it create's a more disturbing background is my opinion. I would like to see a more crispy image back after uploading, but maybe I'am expecting to much??Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Dix
Of course there are limitations to size and KB's.
Hi Jan, can you also add in:
What camera, lens, SS, Aperture and ISO, HH or tripod ie EXIF data, if food, water, audio etc was used to attract the subject, adding or removed elements for composition, just helps folk build their feedback.
Hi Jan ... nice calling pose and I do actually not mind the clutter background , agree with you that we cannot have everything sometimes . But disagree that a cleaner image is less interesting ... but no problem if you like it that way .
Both postings are looking technically speaking not very good . Not sharp , no fine details visible and look partly hammered with NR .... greetings from Topaz :w3. Not knowing how good this plugin is ... at least you used it too heavy . Just my take .
It would be good , for a better understanding , if you could add your equipment used and the shooting techs . Just check what all other folks provide ...
TFS Andreas
Attachment 185701
Third attempt.
Camera 1DX, 500mm with 1.4 extender. Speed 1/400, aperture 5.6. ISO 1250, Tripod of course (Gitzo and Sachtler), I'am not that big and strong:S3:. This plant was it's singing post, very fanatic. Topaz Denoise, pretty low value (can recommend it)
Getting somewhere hopefully with this attempt. Thanks for the help.
Ahhh, now we can see it is clearly sharp right where it needs to be and your choice of aperture looks spot on. The BG is sufficiently soft and beautiful. Even the stalk I was mentioning is mitigated slightly by your aperture choice. Still wish it wasn't there as it crowds your singing beauty. I love this frame overall and you controlled what you could perfectly. TFS
Hi Andreas, placed a third image. Think were getting somewhere. Also, I do have what I call "nude" images of birds as well. But I'am often trying to get some surroundings in the image to, although it makes it a bit more difficult not to disturb the whole image with that. It's a matter of taste I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas Liedmann
The way the backgrounds looks is in the original itself and has more to do with the aperture used. Denoising was at a very low level, brought it down manually. But I can recommend Topaz. Thanks.
Hi Jan ... looks a bit better . But I do not see what David is seeing in terms of sharpness and even more finer detail , what you have in your image is sharpness that is looking somehow coarse . Not fine . But just my take . Just take one of Steve Kaluski´s images posted ... and display them side by side in Photoshop elements , then judge yourself :w3.
Thanks for the recommendation of Topaz Denoise ... again your call ... I use Neat Image , longer and well maintained piece of software on the market . The company has only this piece of software .... not like Topaz Labs with all the junk they have . But as long as you are happy .... again your call .
As I have the 1DX as well .... I do not even use NR at that low Iso , if shot with the right exposure ( ETTR ) . Your shutter speed is borderline ... as your tripod will not really help , I assume this little critter will move a lot and does not stand still . But again your call ....
I am fine with your thinking about the BG .... but know how the majority of folks is thinking here .
Cheers Andreas
Hi Andreas, from my understanding is, if Jan is using Topaz DN (AI) Auto applies both NR & additional sharpening based on what it sees. You can 'tailor' the amounts, but I guess folk just leave it to Auto and so you are allowing the software to take charge rather than the author being in charge!!!!
I would ask Jan to fwd the Raw, then you can see to a degree the camera set-up too, but what he has capture ie how sharp & the exposure, then, as we do in Wildlife advise with a better understanding and so Jan can improve both capture & how much he needs to address in his web set up.
That is down to f/stop & the compression the 500mm delivers David.Quote:
now we can see it is clearly sharp right where it needs to be and your choice of aperture looks spot on. The BG is sufficiently soft and beautiful.
Hi Steve ... at this stage it is just simply " fishing in grey waters " for the viewer , as you have an image and some minor additional info about software used . You know that yourself .... and you are right about the raw for a first look how good the base image is . But even if send you my raw .... you can only judge on my output , you do not know what I am doing on the way , so again " fishing in grey waters " . Without seeing the detailed WF ... very difficult to find " eventual errors" in the process IMHO . Just guess work .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
Hi Steve, I am confused as to why you repeated my exact point. Is f/stop not aperture. To be clear, my point was the face looks sharp to me and the "spot on aperture choice" made the BG sufficiently soft and helped a little with that FG stalk. The crown, the eye and those chin feathers all look sharp to me. I would love further explanation on the sharpness in those areas and how it could be better. Perhaps I am to used to the poorer resolving power of my old glass.
For me, the first base is review the Raw as it can tell a lot:
How is the camera set up, as often some of the basic issues seen here on BPN have been the camera's configuration.
The techs, SS, f-stop ISO...
How well is the image exposed, and ultimately, is it 'Critically' sharp, prior to any input/output sharpening. As we know, you can make a 1600px image look stunning, but when you see the original...
How much is the image cropped by
Then if need be questions can be asked to the Workflow as you 'drill down' to find and address the issues if required.
I like the calling pose, but I agree the image is too cluttered, I wish the rest of the bird was in focus, he is not parallel to the back of the camera
TFS
David, my reply is to Andreas's reply.
My bad, I saw my response quoted and thought you were talking to me. At any rate, I would still love to know your take on the sharpness in the face area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
Hi David, no problem, but based on pane 10, the 'perceptual' sharpening of the eye and beak appear sharp, but the use of Topaz may have masked more detail within the body plumage, but the main question is - is the Raw critically sharp which is key. As Arash mentioned, being more parallel would have offered a better result. The transition from sharp to the Topaz 'blur' I feel jars too much and overall the image does not look real, or at best, reflects the scene/original capture.Quote:
I would still love to know your take on the sharpness in the face area.
For me, you have to blend the two adjustments (NR & Sharpening), to provide a 'realistic' rendition and so the use of NR must be sympathetic and with a light hand, coupled with sharpness, but too many folk use it when it's not required ie ISO 800 which is crazy and then creates these super blur backdrops that just look false. What part of any 'noise' is it that they see and wish to address??? Personally I tend to leave a little 'grain' in at times, in my book for 'authenticity' and I use that both loosely and artistically if you know what I mean, before someone takes it the wrong way. :S3:
Hope thais helps.
Folks ...... not to forget , we all look at the same image . But we all use mostly different screens , of different quality levels . So the appearance of the image onscreen will differe widely , I think .
I for myself have a real high end 4K Graphic monitor 32" .... so this is real unforgiving screen , showing the slightest shortcoming in photographs .... sometimes a sad feeling :w3:bg3: . On my images , too !!!!
I only know of Arash ... who is using the same setup as me , here in BPN .
My gut feeling is that most users here do not have such high end screens .... so the difference in perception will be great .
And last but not least is the question ... how critical am I , about the quality of the presented image ? Does not matter if it is my image or from somebody else !!!
Attachment 185703
I see there is some discussion about what I've done or didn't with my image!!!. So here is number four without noise reduction. Strange thing I don't understand is that with noise reduction applied, the number of KB's was much smaller???? Had to bring down the quality for this one!
So, the same usual editing, except noise reduction. Only things like optimizing the histogram, shutterspeed (0.6 stop) some shadow editing.
Yepper, that clears it up for me. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
Thanks Jan ... for the next tryout . For me not much changed apart from the slight noisy appearance .... image is not sharper and it does not carry more fine detail , IMHO .
My feeling is that the RAW file is not 100 % sharp ... judged just by your various postings .
You could bring some light for yourself and others , by sending the file to one or two of us to get their hands on the file . If you like !!!
Discussion & Exchange is one of the key elements here ... we all still learn .
If there are questions about what I've done, please ask me. I have nothing to hide. By the way, I have a new I mac for my photography. Must do the job is my humble opinion!!
LOL ... Jan , you can answer a lot , but cannot answer the most important question. Is this image 100 % sharp .... you can answer it for you , but not for others !!!!
If you want to list all the things you have done to the image in C1 , PS and Topaz .... would be a long thing to do . By saying you have used C1 ... says simple nothing , the same is valid for Topaz and PS . Hope you get the point .... too many variables and to many sliders to use inside each piece of software .
Nice that you have the new I Mac .... for color critical work ... not usable , sorry to say that ! But the truth ....
Hope you understand my points
Supply the raw ... and let others play their game , and then compare
