Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Ice bears of Arctic - 8

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,911
    Threads
    459
    Thank You Posts

    Default Ice bears of Arctic - 8

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Canon 1d Mark IV, 500mm F4,
    ISO 1600, F5.6 1/1250

    For Rachel,

    Sorry I missed 6th image in the series. Here is a link to the image on my 500ox
    http://500px.com/photo/18577979



    Last edited by Peter Kes; 12-09-2012 at 06:02 AM.

  2. #2
    Lifetime Member Rachel Hollander's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    14,320
    Threads
    929
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Sid - Another great shot and a slight departure from the rest of the series with the bear in the water and it looks like the light was a little flatter. I really like the low pov, the visible claw and of course the IQ. I would call it "Peek-A-Boo." There's a spot just left of middle and slightly down from the top edge that is probably just darker ice but looks like a dust spot, I would either clone it out or blend it in a little more.

    Thanks for the link to #6, that one is also great with excellent interaction, yet a nice simplicity to the image.

    TFS,
    Rachel

  3. #3
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Sid, yep the 'Peek-a-boo' look works, but do you have any more of the reflection?

    Shooting I assume from a zodiac works a treat, and being at eye level links nicely with the viewer, which I feel cannot be beaten. If you haven't yet, look at the MKIV ISO settings and what you can adjust when shooting high.

    Nice work Sid.

    TFS
    Steve
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  4. #4
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Rockies
    Posts
    1,273
    Threads
    106
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Splendid image Sid. I like it a lot.
    Andrew

  5. #5
    BPN Member Morkel Erasmus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    14,858
    Threads
    1,235
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Like all the others, it's great. Love the playful peek-a-boo pose and great exposure here.
    Morkel Erasmus

    WEBSITE


  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Sid,

    I like this one the best from all your series. I agree with the above. It would be nice to see the ears in the reflection.

    Is this a large crop? It seems the focus might be slightly in front of the face (and on the ice in front of the bear) and the fur seems a little soft. If so, then this image should sharpen up very nicely with Richardson-Lucy deconvolution. I could do it for you if you're interested in seeing the result.

    Roger

  7. #7
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Roger, it would be good if Sid agrees, (sorry Sid, no pressure) as a lot of our members have issues with sharpening and any additional tuition can only bolster their knowledge and understanding. A concise workflow would really bring things together nicely. For me this is the biggest hurdle with images posted. Personally, if the understanding using LR or ACR sharpening can be done, it really is, IMHO the way to go. Then it leave minimal work to be done for web and avoids artifacts.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  8. #8
    BPN Viewer Steve Canuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,444
    Threads
    444
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Like the composition of this one Sid. Also like the layers of color and texture of the water and ice receding into the BG and the reflection of the eyes.

  9. #9
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,911
    Threads
    459
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rachel Hollander View Post
    Hi Sid - Another great shot and a slight departure from the rest of the series with the bear in the water and it looks like the light was a little flatter. I really like the low pov, the visible claw and of course the IQ. I would call it "Peek-A-Boo." There's a spot just left of middle and slightly down from the top edge that is probably just darker ice but looks like a dust spot, I would either clone it out or blend it in a little more.

    Thanks for the link to #6, that one is also great with excellent interaction, yet a nice simplicity to the image.

    TFS,
    Rachel
    Thanks Rachel.

  10. #10
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,911
    Threads
    459
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    If you haven't yet, look at the MKIV ISO settings and what you can adjust when shooting high.

    Steve
    Steve,

    thanks.
    could you give me little more info on this? I am not sure what extra setting you are referring to.

    -Sid

  11. #11
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,911
    Threads
    459
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Clark View Post
    Hi Sid,

    I like this one the best from all your series. I agree with the above. It would be nice to see the ears in the reflection.

    Is this a large crop? It seems the focus might be slightly in front of the face (and on the ice in front of the bear) and the fur seems a little soft. If so, then this image should sharpen up very nicely with Richardson-Lucy deconvolution. I could do it for you if you're interested in seeing the result.

    Roger
    Roger,

    Thanks for the kind words. Sure! I am interested in seeing the results too.

    -Sid

  12. #12
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Sid, the appearance of high ISO speeds on the EOS-1D Mark IV are the result of an advanced image sensor and image processing technology.
    The Custom Function C.Fn II-2 High ISO speed noise reduction setting is set to a default setting (option: 0) of Standard. In order to get an idea of the noise reduction function effects, you should compare photos taken with ISO speeds of ISO1600 or higher by changing Noise Reduction from Disable to Strong. You will be able to see that approaching high ISO speeds of ISO12800, when set to Disable, noise will become more visible. Even at extremely high ISO speeds, if Standard and Low noise reduction are working, noise will be considerably reduced.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  13. #13
    BPN Member Andreas Liedmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dortmund / Germany
    Posts
    10,906
    Threads
    1,196
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Sid,
    like the half hidden bear, nicely seen.
    Subtle colors are working good in this one , like wise the composition in Pano format.
    Agree about the visible ears , think this would bring the image up a notch.

    TFS Andreas

  14. #14
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Sid, did Roger try his magic wand on the image, curious in case I missed it, as it would be great to see the enhancement and what it can do?

    cheers
    Steve
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  15. #15
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,911
    Threads
    459
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Steve,
    Received files from Roger this morning. Thanks a lot Roger. Here is some info he provided in the email

    Attached is a half size comparison of the original and final. Final is a combination of 3x3 Gaussian with 30 iterations followed
    by a 5x5 Gaussian with 4 iterations. I put that image in photoshop with the original on top, then erased the original over the bear and
    select portions on the ice so the sharpened image shows through where needed. The sharpening enhances noise so this combination
    shows less noise overall in the image.

    Another variation that might show less color noise is to convert to LAB and do the sharpening only on the luminance channel.

    While the bear does show more noise, the detail in the fur is a lot more and I prefer the sharpened image. Let me know what you
    think.

  16. #16
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,911
    Threads
    459
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Roger,

    Looking at the final scale down image I am with Roger on his sharpening technique. Details are much better and noise print is very very low compared to tonal contrast sharpening. I tried smart sharpening with tonal contrast(Nikfilters) selectively on the bear and could not produce results closer to Roger's final version. Thanks again Roger.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    The difference with Richsrdson-Lucy (RL) deconvolution and unsharp mask or smart sharpen is as follows. In the unsharp mask/smart sharpen methods, a bright subject tends to become larger, for example a hair. With RL, the method works to move energy using the defined point spread function into the center assuming the spread in the point spread function is due to image blur. Thus something like a hair becomes thinner and brighter with RL but becomes brighter and fatter with unsharp masking methods. The downside is RL is compute intensive. No instant feedback. On a 3 GHz I7-950 class machine, it took a couple of seconds per iteration, so the 30 iteration run took about a minute on Sid's full resolution image. Often, some unsharp mask after RL produces a very nice result. I did not do any unsharp mask on Sid's image.
    Roger

  18. #18
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Sid & Roger thanks for this. I guess it's a trade off between clarity/sharpness for additional noise. What would be interesting Sid is to shoot at high ISO make the required adjustments in camera within the CF and then execute the same procedure. I think for me, the litmus would be seeing a 20x16 print. BTW any additions via Luminance channel, do you not lose detail? Certainly Sid the difference between the OP and on 500px is a noticeable difference.

    Roger when you say 'No Instant feedback' is this a case of just waiting for it to do it's thing, let it run it's course, and if it's not right, revert back and then adjusting more or less iteration? How can we get to try this?

    Steve
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Hi Sid & Roger thanks for this. I guess it's a trade off between clarity/sharpness for additional noise. What would be interesting Sid is to shoot at high ISO make the required adjustments in camera within the CF and then execute the same procedure. I think for me, the litmus would be seeing a 20x16 print. BTW any additions via Luminance channel, do you not lose detail? Certainly Sid the difference between the OP and on 500px is a noticeable difference.

    Roger when you say 'No Instant feedback' is this a case of just waiting for it to do it's thing, let it run it's course, and if it's not right, revert back and then adjusting more or less iteration? How can we get to try this?

    Steve
    By no instant feedback, I mean you have to wait the second or two per iteration. In ImagesPlus (the software I used) you get the revised image with each iteration, but the best results are with a small blur and lots of iterations, so the change from iteration to iteration is small. I usually just make several runs then bring each image up on screen and compare them, then either choose one, or from those, choose what to try next. Having been doing this for years, I usually have an idea on what to use. On Sid's image, I made 4 runs as tests then a combination of two runs for the final. RL can also be use to repair some motion blur, but that usually takes me more tries to get it well. And on larger images like mosaics, the iteration time is longer, so a run can take many minutes (I do a lot of mosaics with landscapes and occasionally on animals).

    Regarding sharpening on the luminance channel, no you don't lose detail. Unsharp mask works very well on the limunance channel too. The advantage is no changes in color around edges.

    Roger

  20. #20
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks Roger, it has a nick name over here 'CSI filter' no idea why.

    In LR3 the Detail slider was a kind of halo suppression, now the slider has more subtle control/effect and I tend to think of it as a 'mixer' than a 'volume' control, but I guess I will still to what i know as it suits my workflow, however always good to learn new stuff. Just for the record, I try to ensure I sharpen only the high frequency detail and use the luma noise reduction to counterbalance any excesses in the low frequency detail.

    steve
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics