This "in your face" image was taken a while ago.
D500/500PF, 1/2500th sec@f5.6, iso800. Cheers.
Printable View
This "in your face" image was taken a while ago.
D500/500PF, 1/2500th sec@f5.6, iso800. Cheers.
Well Paul, never seen a birds nose hairs before so.... that's cool ;-)
Really unique close up view. Eyes are piercing.
Did you by chance use the Topaz AI stuff on this? It just doesn't feel quite real for some reason but it's hard not to like going nose-to-nose with an Osprey!
love the intense stare down the barrel, I agree the details look a bit coarse/crunchy as if the image was digitally upsized but the image is sharp so looks like some funny processing to me
TFS
Hi Brian/Arash: Thank you for the feedback...always appreciated. OK...so I cropped a head/shoulders image to just focus on the head. I used only a little Topaz NR and sharpen..no up scaling. The original head/shoulders image is less "crunchy" I guess.
I like this crop a lot...very cool to see an Osprey this close up! The eyes are really piercing. I see what Brian and Arash are saying, but I still like the image. Nice work.
Thanks so much Kurt...cheers:cheers:
Hi Paul, as Srash mentioned, nice intense stare down the barrel.
Based on the posting I think you ran out of DoF, be nice to have had the top part of the head in focus too, so perhaps f/9????? Not sure where the FP was, looks like towards the RHS as the left eye as viewed is just a tad softer than the right, perhaps having the FP bang on the beak, but the beak does look nice and sharp. I think there is more you can pullout, the blacks/contrast is hiding some cool details here Paul, plus did you adjust the sky globally, as it affecting some of the plumage & beak IMHO, do the sky in PS, easy and you have more control.
TFS
Steve
can you post the original ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Burdett
Paul, why are you using NR on ISO800???
Hi Steve/Arash. Here's the original as requested. Steve...I'll take another look at the blacks/contrast and see if i can get more detail. I can't recall if I adjusted the globally... I normally will do selective adjustments. I used a small amount of NR in Topaz mainly to add a little sharpening...probably didn't need to. The post here has no Topaz:bg3:. Cheers.
You were close to this bird. Love the direct stare. Both posts look good to me.
Thanks so much John!
Hi Paul, when I viewed the OP I thought there was more to extract and although I'm now away, and using the MacBook Pro, the raw looks good, to me, it appears you need very minimal PP, definitely no NR, or adding stuff like Levels, Contrast, just some simple selective Exposure adjustments, you can certainly see you had detail!!!
My feeling is that you got suckered in to how you PP all images an tweaked the same sliders etc, when really the image probably needed one or two adjustments in total, the more you adjust the more the images gets away from the capture & vision, keep it simple Paul, get your some Global adj done in your raw, then refinements in PS where you have greater control.
Re Deniose, it’s a product for Noise reduction as you know, so best keep it for that, if you like it, PS offers the best options for sharpening without question. There are many options within the Software to suit your workflow, I would revisit the file if you have time, based on your last post. Certainly PS is more flexible and you can apply it in so many ways - via Masks, Opacity, Blend modes, Channels, Contrast, Curves etc etc... but keeping it simple and for web images with minimal 'perceptual' sharpening - your images will look great, ramping up the amounts, especially for web files will just kill them, with halos, crunchy files and coarse details.
Cheers
Steve
Hi Paul ... love the image . Well done with the stare ... very intense and in my face !!!!
From the technical POV ... I do agree 100% with Steve .
Also his advice or suggestion regarding the workflow ... is very good !!! Going 100 % along with my thoughts about processing ,
TFS Andreas
Thanks Steve and Andreas. Will keep your suggestions in mind. Cheers!
I am confused in Pane 10 where you say "this is the original." Did you not convert it? It surely is not the raw file ...
with love, artie
Hi Artie. Pane 10 is the original tiff file...resized for posting here. My OP is a crop of that one.
P.S. DATCA....what is this acronym??
Hey Paul, Thanks for getting back to me. DATCA = ditto all the comments above. Thanks for the clarification. My point is that the image in Pane #10 reflects the changes that you made during the raw conversion. That said, the OP is mega-contrasty and the IQ suffers from the huge crop. The full frame image is much more pleasing (though the colors look a bit funky to my eye and the light a bit harsh).
Do you remember the line from Tootsie? The director says to the cameraman, "Pull back a bit." (Inferring that he was zoomed in to far on her ugly face.) The cameraman replied, To Philadelphia? That might be applicable here.
with love, a
Hi Artie. I think the "funky" colours may be due to the harsh light...but I made no colour adjustment per se to the face. Your "Tootsie" quote is valid, although in this case I was aiming for as close as possible to the face...maybe too close. Thanks as always for your guidance...much appreciated.
