New setup test shot - little owl

[Mike Poole]

Hi all,

I'm currently going through a steep learning curve - new camera, new mac (always PC before), adobe CC software and a new screen. Beginning to wish I'd saved my money!

Please can you take a look at this shot and comment with regards to brightness and technical aspects as opposed to the subject itself - of that makes sense. All workflow suggestions gratefully accepted...

It was taken with a canon 5d3, 500mm f4, ISO 1600 1/250th at f4.

Eventually opened in LR (having major problems setting the cataloging up!) added a bit of canvas above and bellow in PS then saved for web using an sRGB profile.

Not being particularly computer savvy its still a bit of a foreign language to me setting everything up compared to how I had my windows machine running, but its paid for now so I have to learn!

Thanks in advance

Mike

[David Kenny]

looks very nice overall. The white area above the talons (Shins?) seem a little bright but it is hard to tell if they are blown on this monitor. I like negative space but I feel there is too much to the left. Personally I would have gone vertical with this one.

-Dave

[Svante Larsson]

In general I really think this is a lovely image and I (in contrast to Dave) really like this way of cropping (I believe cropping to be highly personal in what you like) - possibly I would like a little bit more room above his head.

When I look at the image in Lightroom there is a little bit of blown whites but I think not really enough to disturb the overall image and it should also be easily fixed by adjusting the highlights and / or whites a touch. Then I do not know what the bird really looks like but I get a feeling that the image is a little bit washed out and I would experiment a bit with increasing contrast, clarity and vibrance.

[Diane Miller]

The face looks very sharp. Your histogram will tell you if there are blown-out brights or blocked up blacks. Midtone contrast is a little low but overall brightness looks good to me. The SS and aperture are a little less than ideal but it looks like with the light you made a good compromise.

You don't need to Save for Web -- just use the Export function right from LR, for any kind of file, including a layered PS file, and put in the parameters and save it as a preset for future use.

I switched to Mac several years ago when my XP workstation died just after Vista came out. Little did I know that Leopard had also just come out and was a complete disaster. Now I hate both systems. But all in all, and about 4-5 operating systems later, the Mac is a sound platform, but maybe Windows has improved, too. But don't be an early-adopter. The engineering department is apparently run by the marketing department.

[Mike Poole]

Thanks all for the suggestions. I don't have any room below due to the perch, so on this occasion a portrait format is no an option without going ridiculously tight.

I've re-calibrated my screen and I'll put a re-processed image below. Hopefully this should look more natural, with the owl being more brown than my first edit

Diane - forgive my ignorance, but I've never used PS before. In my previous workflow, I'd simply do my edits in lightroom, then export them back to the original folder, using the measurements intended for the end application - so for here i'd go 1200 pixels on the long edge, max 400kb file size.

I can't see a similar option in PS without saving for web, so should I just save my tiff that I used for PS, then re-import it to LR and do the final saving from there? Or is there a more sensible option?

regards

Mike

[Diane Miller]

The RP looks better but neither post has the color space profile embedded. That's important for many browsers, and LR will always attach one for you. Just be sure to check sRGB so it will do the proper conversion. If you use Save for Web you also have a checkbox to convert to sRGB and another one to attach the profile. To get a derivative JPEG for posting here, if you use LR you don't need to go to PS.

Here's a quick summary of using PS with LR: (Apologies if I'm not understanding your workflow -- I'm probably repeating things you are already doing.)

Do the adjustments on the raw file in the Develop module of LR, as best you can. Then if you need to add canvas, clone, or do masked adjustments (best done on layers), then open the image in PS. Just do Cmd-E or Photo > Edit In -- not Export.

Sometimes you'll need to use PS for a Curves or other corrections for things that you didn't get quite perfect in LR. That's OK as long as it is for small corrections. For major ones its better to go back as get it right in the Develop module.

When the file is fixed to your satisfaction in PS, leave all the layers intact and Save. That will bring the image right back into the same LR folder you were working from. (You can choose from several sort orders -- sort by capture time to place it next to the raw file, or by Added Order to find the PS files at the end of the filmstrip for that folder.

Then select that PS file (or an adjusted raw file if it was an image that didn't need PS) and do an Export, setting the correct parameters for BPN or whatever, and save a preset to easily get the same settings.

But generally it isn't best to export it back into the same folder -- you don't want to keep derivative files where they might be mistaken for the master file. I export to a folder on my desktop named LR Exports, and from there I post them or whatever and then get rid of them. If I want to export another copy I'll just go back to the folder in LR and do it again from the master file, as that's something I don't usually need to do.

If it's a particularly good image I might put it in a Collection to make it easy to find again.

[Diane Miller]

Another advantage of PS is the many filters such as Nik's suite: Color Efex Pro for many effects (especially Pro Contrast and Detial Extractor), Viveza for sophisticated masked tonal adjustments, Dfine for noise reduction, Sharpener for sharpening and Silver Efex for B/W conversion. These can be run from LR but it will do a similar thing as opening in PS, and give you a rasterized file. Better to do them from PS if you have it, as you can then control things with masked layers and blending modes.

Topaz also has many interesting offerings, and there are some high end third party noise reduction and sharpening tools, although there are no miracles in either department and they can offset one another if not used very judiciously.

[Iain Barker]

Hi Mike

I really like your subject and don't mind the horizontal crop. You have had some good advice already which I agree with. On your repost it looks to me like you have lost some of the sharpness you had in the original.

Iain

[Mike Poole]

Diane - great info thanks, really appreciated. There are a couple of very useful bits in there for me.

Iain, thanks for looking. You're right about the sharpness, it took me a while to realise why, but I just remembered that I'd finally worked out my filing system on my new mac and done this re-edit from my new catalogue on my external drive thinking I was only adjusting the originals colours, and forgot I hadn't done the sharpening as I thought I was on the original (in a rush before work) - a real 'D'oh' moment - taxi for Pooley!!

Thanks again

Mike

[Cambell Baxter]

Hi Mike,

I really like this shot and wouldn't change anything except for the added canvas at the bottom where the post has been added... I can make out a line there. Maybe just needs some blurring or cloning? :) Awesome shot though!