I just got home from a three day camping, fishing, bird trip and whittled 1200 photos down to 100. I mention this because 6 months ago I would have been happy with a third of them but this forum has given me a much more critical eye and desire for quality. I have also learned how important the original photo is compared to PP. So...while scanning my chosen photos I could really see how much the comments from this board has taught me because I saw in most how I could have improved the original and what I need to carry over to the next trip. For this I want to thank you all, but it leaves me with few to chose from to post. Hope this makes sense, it has been a real eye opener to me!
I will put out there the first in flight photo I have posted for your comments: Canon 7D with 100-400 L lens, hand held, 1/2500, f/10, ISO 800, pattern metering, jpeg crop of 15%. I did a sneak to a natural blind for this photo.
Willie you have frozen the bird excellently at 1/2500 and I like your composition. I miss some sharpness of feathers on the furthest wing and I guess it's because of a heavy crop at ISO 800 (you have not stated your FL so I reckon the bird was quite far away) which is evident in the amount of noise in the BG. Not sure how much you've tried to recover highlights & midtones in pp? I'd love better visibility of the eye but a black eye inbetween black feathers is not always easy to highlight. Having said that: I think you did very well given a few things that counted against you here (for example the small-ish size of the bird)!
thanks for the observations Tobie. I must not understand how to report crop. I only cropped 15% off the photo as I was fairly close. What is correct way to state that? I did very little PP, reduced shadow a bit.
I only cropped 15% off the photo as I was fairly close. What is correct way to state that?
To be honest I'm not sure, but now I understand what you meant Willie. Perhaps one of the more experienced guys can enlighten us both on that one. I see that guys sometimes use '85% left' or '15% cropped out', 'almost FF' etc. probably to prevent any confusion. I'd play a bit with reduced highlights, a little more contrast and sharpness, even midtone curves to see if you can get a little more detail out of the whites. I'm sure that if you've captured the image in RAW you can get more detail out of it.
Last edited by Tobie Schalkwyk; 05-13-2014 at 12:06 PM.
I did try working with contrast, highlights and sharpness and it seems to brought out a little more detail, did I over do it? I do like it better, tho there is a little more grey tone to the bird now.
I report crops as the % of the original frame. No ambiguity that way.
Nice catch and interesting water BG -- BIF aren't easy. What was your gear and processing? I know the head is very dark, but I wonder if there is a little more detail to pull out? And the whites should have even more potential, although you do have some detail there I just posted a sticky here on the first steps to getting the maximum detail in whites.
thanks Diane, I am still shooting jpeg and processing with elements and iPhoto. With the skills I have I could not get any more out of the head, i have a lot to learn. Will read your sticky about whites.
How about if I begged you to shoot raw + JPEG? Then you will have the raw files to go back to when you learn how to process them. Elements has a basic and decent raw processor -- a good place to start. No harm in giving it a try -- raw processing there is non-destructive. You can always go back to the original as your learning increases.
I just wanted to add my two cents here as well about the shooting in RAW . I have been going back and re-editing photos from several years ago . My knowledge has increased as well as my software upgraded . Some of my previous captures were good enough to merit revisiting , and I could not have improved the first pp with out having the massive amount of Data only retained in the RAW file. Some of the things you will learn to do ( All in Artie's "Digital Basics " file ) Selective sharpening and "Eye Doctoring " both can be done with Elements and In my opinion are needed on this photo . I question the choice of f/10 seems a tad over kill to me ? I do like this photo and also feel it IS worth the extra effort .
that is a good idea, I think i will learn to use Canon EOS utility or Image Browser to download then I can slowly learn DPP or Elements. I like the idea of non-destructive as I may be giving more presentations at my local Audubon chapter and will need them for the future. I just have not had as much time as I am the primary care giver for my elderly mother. Thanks for the idea.
Just one more thing (While I'm at it lol) try to stay as organized as possible . it really stinks trying to go through 15-20 thousand photos to find the one photo you remember from years ago ,lol when a simple "Key Word " applied during pp would have saved hours of searching . I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk ,but I wish I had this drilled in to me years ago ! And I'm only talking a few years to reach that many photos .....You shot 1200 on your last outing ! It adds up quick !
PS Elements has a downloader/organizer that interfaces with its raw converter. You can turn it on in the preferences so that when you insert a card it comes up ready to serve you. While Lightroom is more sophisticated, this is a good place to start, and you can upgrade later to a higher end system. You are just complicating things if you try to mix and match other applications.
Some good suggestions all around, Willie. RAW simply allows you to do so much more in pp compared to .jpg. You've got nice equipment and time is precious so make it all worthwhile by optimizing your pp foundation (using RAW). Keep in mind that Adobe is currently making Creative Cloud available for $10 US pm - it's really worth it (it includes LR as well as PS) and you stay up to date with all of their updates.
Back to the pic: I could not understand why your IQ was so low in spite of the settings you've used but the fact that you're pp'ing a .jpg explains it - that's typical to a .jpg file on which you push the pp limits. Definitely a lot more detail in your 2nd version but if I were you I'd go back and do the same capture on RAW (perhaps at a little lower ISO and wider aperture). I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the result, specially in pp. Keep on clicking!
I did try working with contrast, highlights and sharpness and it seems to brought out a little more detail, did I over do it? I do like it better, tho there is a little more grey tone to the bird now.
Willie when I saw this (http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...Forster-s-Tern), it reminded me of your thread. It appears that the grey tone which started appearing in your bird actually implied that you were on the right track.
Forster's Tern
Originally Posted by WillieHall
