Canon 5D mark III
Canon 300 f.2,8
f.2,8
f.1/200
iso 2500
Canon 5D mark III
Canon 300 f.2,8
f.2,8
f.1/200
iso 2500
Hi Giovanni you have not posted for a while here.
A nice starter to get back into business , i guess taken somewhere in Finland .
I quite like the PEEK-A-BOO pose of the bear, even if he is only very little hidden behind the thin tree.Overall comp with the negative space on RHS works well .
Overall the image lacks IQ for me , looks a bit crunchy and the blacks are almost choked with no detail, think it is just an editing issue,colors looking a bit strange for me with magenta in the fur .
Your image has no embedded color profile , better to judge color when there is a color profile assigned .
You might think about toning down the refection in the water on RHS.
I think it is worth re editing the file , because i personally like it besides the nits.
TFS Andreas
Yes it was in Finland.
I posted it becouse I had some problems about editing ...and you found them..
I used for the first time Dpp 4 and it could be the reason..but I am no happy about the total setting in pp.
About composition I think it is right becouse the space is in the side where the bear have its head...I would like show the water on its body ..but no detail ..I saw also a magenta dominant...
I will try again but I am no sure about the right result (also iso are no low..)
About the color profile how I could put it for the web ?
When I save in ps cc I normally use Srgb (Rgs only for saved file in my hd)
Thanks for your help.
I will tried with different shoots...off course
Dear Giovanni,
Glad to see you posting again, great pose from the bear and such a pity the conditions were not quite favourable, I see you had to up the ISO to 2500 yet the result was a mere shutter speed of 1/200s. You needed at least 1/500s here to obtain an image with reasonable IQ, F2.8 makes perfect sense but I wonder why you did not up your ISO more (not familiar within Canon cameras but I guess your equipment can handle it?)
I tried to remove the magenta and by the way I found some reds too - sorry, the result is never ideal when one works with a jpeg. Not sure what steps you followed when processing but I have the feeling you pushed some sliders a bit too far, I agree with Andreas that re-editing this file carefully will give you better results. There are books on processing one can buy on line and free tutorials on the Internet, meanwhile do experience with various settings and get to know the capabilities of your equipment
Giovanni, I am puzzled by the title of your image, which is simply "Bear". I would like to challenge you to find more exciting titles for your images in the future. The title of the image posted often has a power to bring more attention and interest from the other members, it can be arousing or ironical, it can be funny, it can even be annoying, but it does need to arouse curiosity and a desire to view - I believe a photographer does not take images for himself (or herself), since we all have this burning desire to share the find, or the capture, with the world. The title is (to me) about as important as the image I am presenting - it tells the story and makes one's image memorable, it is part of the magic formula and at times it does not have to tell the truth but something we want to hear
Here is my attempt to correct the colour casts, a different crop although I am aware the IQ diminishes with every inch. It leans towards a black and white, but this is how I see it. Forgive me Giovanni, my RP does not give it justice, you really need to start this afresh...
Suggested title? "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate" - "Leave every hope behind you, you who come near"
Warmest regards,
Last edited by Gabriela Plesea; 07-07-2014 at 01:28 PM. Reason: typo error
Gabriela Plesea
Hello again Giovanni - check the sticky "saving for web" by Steve Kaluski, hope that helps
Kind regards
Gabriela Plesea
Without access to a raw file it is hard to offer advice. Was this cropped at all? DPP, despite the GUI changes, is still lacking in all the areas the last version was... namely shadow and highlight control. Would be happy to have a go at the raw if you like?
Hi Neil , i disagree about your thoughts on DPP , it works really now , it is still somehow limited compared to ACR /LR , but better IQ/Colors IMHO.
I prefer to work with less fancy raw conversions , but that is just personal preference.
Cheers Andreas
Giovanni - I have to agree with the comments above. The IQ on this image really isn't even at a level where I can appreciate the pose and sighting. I think the RAW might have enough quality, but your processing has let you down.
If you want to, you can load the RAW file on Dropbox and send it to me, let me have a crack at processing it...![]()
Off course also for your Morkel...I am honored also if, as I said, I hope to have better file in other my shoots.
I could send you by wetrasfer if yuo give me the right address to send.
OK Giovanni, RAW files received. I have had a go at the posted shot in DPP4, not my favourite program but since you are using it I will stick with it for the initial corrections. First problem is the focus, which is on the bears left paw and not his eyes, so the face area lacks a bit of detail but for web posting it cleans up.
In DPP (and lightroom) I always use the cameras "Neutral" setting, this avoids any over compensation of saturation and contrast in any colour channel. The best base from which to begin.
Exposure up to 0.67
I set WB to "shade" and fine tuned with -3.0 in the B-A slider
Shadows I set to 2.0
Highlights to -1.0
Color tone to 1.0 (helps with the magenta)
No contrast added... quite often I find reducing contrast is going to help with noise a little and at ISO2500 you need all the help you can get with Canon. :)
Sharpening I left default unsharp mask settings.
Noise sliders 7.0 and 9.0 respectively. Problem we have is High ISO and slightly not focussed image which means we have to be careful with NR. But high ISO means we need NR, especially those black parts of the bear. Unfortunately DPP cannot do everything and lacks a mask option for Sharpness so Photoshop has to be used for the final tweaks.
In addition : colour adjustment slide - Changed Magenta H to 13.0 and S to -1.0 as the high ISO seems to have introduced a bit of a cast in the shadows. Exported as TIF 16-bit for PS tweaks.
Morkel can probably do better ;) but even sticking with the basic Neutral settings and a white balance of Shade you are quite close to something natural.
The final web image I masked in the bear and tree parts in focus (do not us PSCC2014 new focus select tool, it causes problems in PS for many people) by hand using a second layer. Tweaked the blacks and midtones a little using Levels. NR'd the BG, resized, sharpened masked layer, save for web.![]()
Neil this does look way better than the OP .
From my POV and others you should avoid DPP luminance NR , just use chrominance NR , ask Arash about this . Plus avoid USM in DPP just use Sharpness with the 5d MK III set to ī3ī.
From my understanding you used NR twice , for what reason ? ISO 2500 is not high from my understanding with the MK III , so noise should be easy to control .
BTW all personal preference , i try to avoid a lot of wanging sliders inside raw converter . I do Picture style īneutralī, WB , exposure mostly minus 1 - 1,5 stops ( i do excessive ETTR) to get all the detail back in the HL , and avoid clipping the blacks , chrominance NR , sharpness 2-3 depending on cam/ISO.. No HL recovery , no shadow recovery , no color treatment , all the rest is in PS with proper masks and better tools.
Giovanni feel free to send me the raw file , too , via DB .
Cheers Andreas
Andreas, my aim was to get a full size file exported from DPP as the OP did not specify if he was using PS or LR in addition...the challenge was to get it looking good enough in DPP that Giovanni could work with it. In PS I did a second round of NR simply for the web size, as resizing does not remove all artifact/noise from the file. Strangely Canon 5D files are quite good at detail but remain pathetic at the OOF areas.
I left USM as standard in DPP as I could not change it, this maybe a bug and the reason it was left at 1,1,1. I do not like the USM in DPP, but I do not like simple sharpness either as you have little control over the effect. So either way....
The RAW file was well exposed but the blacks were rather black, but also the highlights in the water behind were also on the verge of white.... so a better exposure could not have been found IMO. Dynamic range on the 5dIII at ISO 2500 maybe better than a D800 at the same ISO but terrible if you have blacks and whites using all of the DR available. Noise on the 5DIII is OK, but around ISO2500 or 3200 it is losing a stop or more to the 1Dx. Add this to the focus being on the claw not the face you will struggle to get the desired detail, at these ISO's you have to have subject big in the frame and SHARP!
From my point of view you should avoid DPP altogether ;) but the OP was using it so the challenge was set.
Ok Neil , you have your view of DPP , i have mine, and that is ok .
But for the fun of it and the sporty feeling , a battle would be great , who gets more detail and nicer colors (again subjective ) out of his/her raw converter ..
Agree with you about having a good raw file as base image is a lot easier to deal with .
But basically i think you have a completely different workflow , and we treat stuff differently , beginning in the conversion and ending in PS .
Anyhow thanks for your additional info , appreciated .
Cheers Andreas
Ps : have a look at Guy Gowan and his edits.different approach !
Giovanni, I hope Neil's version gave you an idea of the quality you can end up with using a solid workflow.
Neil - just not sure why you cropped the feet out??
Giovanni - you sent me a totally different image. I will process it but send it to you privately as it's not the same image as is under discussion in this thread.
Morkel, I didn't ;)
NO, if you look at the OP you can see the cloned in space at the bottom ;) I think Giovanni told me this in his mail.
Hi Giovanni , thank you for the raw file to have a play with it.
If you add anything like here , you should tell us, easier to understand for us all .
Basically the file is not the best in terms of sharpness /focal point and exposure (high ISO /noise) . For easy NR you should (from my POV) expose to the right (ETTR) , because then there is less noise visible and you do not need to lighten up the shadows/mid tones where the worst noise is visible .
The focus point is actually on RH paw as viewed. So you have a very shallow DOF at aperture wide open , and less sharpness on the head .So far so good .
I used Canon DPP 4.0 for this RP with my settings , takes me too long to type that all down
WB , Color correction , Sharpness 2 , Gamma correction ,No luminance NR , just chrominance NR .
PS CC , tonal tweaks via curves, color tweaks via selective color , LCE with ALCE V2 (masked) , for all tweaks i use a mask (mostly TK)
Downsampled and sharpened for web
No use of NR to the subject , very slight to the BKG after downsampling with smart sharpen set NR to 3% .
Thanks for watching , Cheers Andreas
Thanks a lot Andreas
Now it i nice, for me.
Normally a no make mistake (as now) for right exposition
I think becouse I would like taste the automatic iso in M mode.
Normall I set ALL as manual.
About Alce to means the action ..is it right ?
Ciao
Gio