On Golden Pond

[Glennie Passier]

Wood Duck - drake (Maned Goose) - Chenonetta jubata

I have been visiting a little creek very close to where I live, and there is nearly always these little guys floating around. The creek is so narrow that I could jump across it. This has it's good points and bad points. The only bit of water is surrounded by the very bright green water plant - similar to a water hyacinth, which makes it difficult to get an unclutter BG. Enough excuses.

Late afternoon, bright and sunny.

In ACR - Highlights and whites to the left - shadows and black to the right. No HSL
In PSCS6 - Levels adjustment to the bird, cloned out some debris and HSL layer adjustment to the BG. Cropped to 78% of FF and smart sharpened (bird only) for web posting.

Canon 5D2
Sigma 100-600 Sport @ 600mm
1/400 @ f6.3
ISO 1250
Evaluative metering


C&C Always welcomed and appreciated!
Monopod

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Glennie, thanks for swinging by in Wildlife, you should also think about posting too.

I quite like the image and the angle of the subject, although it's moving away from you, not ideal. Nice rich colour, but the darks & shadows look/appear heavy and in part, choked, loosing detail. Moving sliders are fine to a degree, but this is 'Global' adjustments which affect the whole image. I would suggest once you balance the image out in Camera Raw ACR and export to PS, then look to address key areas with Layers & Masks, and Curves is ideal, Levels will only bring Contrast back in, not always a good idea. The green vegetation works and provides some separation, however I find the lighter ripple in the reflection slightly distracting, but nothing you could have done. I might have gone to ISO1600, would have added a bit more SS and added little in terms of Noise to the image, but easily addressed in PP.

The inclusion of the crop is brilliant, a very cool addition and something I may suggested is added elsewhere.

TFS
Steve

[Glennie Passier]

Thank you Steve! Diane..and now you. Eagle eyes. When I zoomed into the image at 100% I could see a lot of noise in the dark area under the tail. Magentas and green mostly. I think this is where my PS skills are lacking. I tried to knock the coloured noise out by reducing the saturation and then burning. Pretty crude. I am not confident with curves yet. I've tried many curves, and the result is not good, so I go back to the levels. I suppose practice.

I love visiting the different forums here Steve, and feel very unqualified to comment. Our wildlife in Australia is pretty tame compared to what I see in the Wildlife forum.

Thanks again for taking the time to look...and comment.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Glennie, this is where obtaining a good Exposure is paramount, that's your 'platform' you can push things a little where you may get a few 'Blinkies' not blown whites as invariably you can adjust things in PP, you want an even spread across that Histogram where possible and don't use that screen for Exp to see if it looks right. It's easier to slightly darken an image rather than lighten it, by lightening you highlight Noise within the Darks & Shadows. You may find that is Colour Noise you are seeing, but without seeing the original it's hard to say, but you can adjust that within ACR I think with the Noise Reduction Panel, the trade off can be that you then need to adjust other sliders.

'Level' - Naughty step , it's crude and goes only in one direction, Curves is a great friend as you can target all the various quarter, half & three quarter tones in very fine increments and Midtone is where all your nice detail is.

If you are serious about this 'Medium' and feel you will be doing more and creating more, ultimately learning too, then I would strongly suggest you think about purchasing either PSCC and or LR & PSCC as the tools are more refined and I think CS6 was launched in April 2012 so it is old in terms of Software sell by date, my first introduction was CS2 .

BTW never feel unqualified, remember we have all been where you are now, we just have been on that 'Path/Road' a little longer, the more you interact on threads the more you will learn as Photography isn't about one subject, you use you knowledge across the whole range. You have some incredible Avian & Wildlife in Oz, doesn't have to be exotic to post in Wildlife and it would make a nice change too.

[Jess M. McKenzie]

Nice image, Glennie. I like especially the 'painterly' look of the water. I'm trying to use the crop inset nowadays. Great idea, although sometimes embarrassing -- for me.
BTW -- possibly dumb question -- do you use New Adjustment Layer for levels adjustments?

[Jack Dean III]

Nice shot Glennie and thank for your input Steve. I think all of here in ETL are working hard to improve one step at a time. I find myself reading through a lot of post in other forums but I think I may be a little unqualified as well to make suggestions.

[Jim Keener]

Hey, Glennie. I like your bird. And the focus looks spot on. One thing that especially impress me is the blurring of the leaves in the BG. Each time I've tried it, I get a distracting mess. Well done.

My comments about exposure would closely track those of Steve, but without knowing what the causes were or the solutions. So I'm getting a good lesson here. As always, I am glad to see your name on a new thread.

[Steve Kaluski]

One thing that especially impress me is the blurring of the leaves in the BG.

Jim, the easiest way to achieve this is either down to DoF and or the distance between subject and the BKG. The more space between the subject and the BKG, the cooler it will look, the issue you may find is that being close to the subject the more DoF you need. Fixed lenses like 300, 500, 800 etc will alway provided a cool 'bokeh' look because of the compression. Trying to achieve this in PP can be a challenge, especially if you have fine detail, whiskers, plumage etc, like anything, best to try and achieve things 'in camera' wherever possible.

[Glennie Passier]

Jess - No question ever asked is dumb..it's the one that doesn't get asked. Yes. New layer adjustment - Levels. Although now I'm going to use curves if it kills me!
Jack - Thank you. I, too, read lots and lots and lots of posts. Mostly, because I am in a different time zone, nobody has responded to a post. I study the image and think this and that, or just say to myself..."holy crap" that's good! Next time I look, someone else has posted a comment and a lot of the time now, they are writing the same things as what I have seen. So I'm getting better at it, but not quite game enough to make a complete fool of myself.
Jim - I see those dreaming BGs and wish. I can never get to places where the bird is far enough away from the background.
Steve - I am now always looking for better backgrounds..and this is easier said than done. Unfortunately, I have to take the opportunity when I can. I also know that trying to do as much as possible "in camera" is best, but I don't usually look at "blinkies" or any images on the LCD screen on camera. The only think I look at is the little exposure meter in the view finder. And this changes from the ducks head to his tail. So if this duck has a really dark under tail should I expose to that, or his lighter head, or his very light body? I will post another image, just after this one with some new settings and see what I can get out of it. Thanks again Steve, very helpful!

[Diane Miller]

I'm late here and no time to comment now -- lots to say, though. Quickly, look like you're on the shaded side of the bird, which makes things difficult. The dark head is a bit lost in the BG, although the water is lovely. You just can't soften a BG except by controlling the distance between you, the subject and it, as Steve points out. The distance of subject to BG needs to be a lot more than the distance from you to the subject in order to get a softly OOF BG.

If you work the raw file correctly you shouldn't need Levels or Curves in PS, except for maybe the tiniest tweak. LR/ACR has amazing power to control tonalities. And global is OK for most of it.

I would use PS here for a masked Curves layer to lighten the head a little -- see my tutorial on Virtual Fill Flash on my web site. Or use a real flash for backlit subjects.

Hasty comments -- don't take Whites to the left and don't take Blacks to the right. Both will go gray. Set the best Exposure, tweak shadows (right) and highlights (left) as needed and then tweak blacks (left) or whites (right) as needed watching the ends of the histogram.

See comment for the pelican for an unambiguous way of expressing a crop, although nothing wrong with a picture.

[Glennie Passier]

Thank you Diane. Yep. I'm always on the wrong side of the pond! If I'm not, the ducks are. I like the water and know the duck would be difficult...or at least his head. I think I have the idea of the black and white sliders. I'm going to post another, very similar image - same duck, same place. I have read your tutorial on Virtual Fill Flash. Very good, and easy for me to understand.

[Steve Kaluski]

Jess - No question ever asked is dumb..it's the one that doesn't get asked.

Spot on.

Steve - I am now always looking for better backgrounds..and this is easier said than done. Unfortunately, I have to take the opportunity when I can.

That's nature for you.

Or use a real flash for backlit subjects.

But off camera, don't have it attached to the Hot shoe of the camera, have it on a bracket.

Glennie, learn to Expose to the right, (ETTR) to get as much data info as possible, which in turn creates for a better file. Learn to read the Histogram, if it's clipping or pushed hard to the left + the EV, if it's to the right dial -. Blinkies will show you any highlights that may be blown and so you can dial back on the exposure. The issue you have is how your SS, ISO & DoF all balance out, shooting Manual is the way to go, and does help the techs. I moved two years ago from AV to Manual and it's so easy, but depending on the situation I will toggle between the two, that's just me. You will within PP have to adjust Exposure most of the time albeit minimal, but the better the file is in it's exposure, the less you have to do, the better the image.

[Glennie Passier]

Steve, Thank you again. I am slowly beginning to pick up the reading of a histogram and ETTR. I generally don't touch DoF once I've found the subject. (But the unexpected always happens.) So I guess I only really have two things to worry about. SS and ISO. I can't wait to get out again.

[Steve Kaluski]

I can't speak on the 5DMKII and what happens with 'noise' at high ISO, but the 5DMKIII, like the 1DX should be pushed, a good SS ensures a sharp image, but no need to go over board. So many times I see soft images because people keep ISO's really low, the modern cameras are now build to capture images, don't let the subject escape because of SS's that are low. Yes, I can shoot at 1/125 at a push, but I need to be wedged in and control a lot of things as kit weighs, I shot 25,600 in the Arctic last year and the results are good, not great, but...

Just try it, yes you have to do some more PP stuff but you have nothing to lose.

[Glennie Passier]

I have seen some of those Arctic shots. They're bloody fantastic!

As you say, nothing to lose.

[Jess M. McKenzie]

RE Dumb Questions:
Thanks, Glennie. To me, a "dumb" question is one I could have answered myself with a bit of thought. I ask too many of those.
Re Levels: I've solved about 1/2 of my color or noise problems so far using Levels -- the other half needed Curves. For a very few, I've compared the two -- Curves won by a slight margin.
I use levels first because it's lots faster. I began that way on advice found in Richard Lynch's book, The Adobe Photoshop Layers Book. Thus there's at least one 'authority' on the side of Levels.
My procedure after New Adjustment>Levels is to close up both end sliders, one color at a time, then switch to RGB and adjust the middle slider.
(Maybe with a better monitor, I'd get different results)

NB: I looked for a more suitable forum dedicated to PP. Couldn't find one. A search for "post processing" found almost all discussions in this in forum and Avian.

[Diane Miller]

Have just scanned the above quickly - will have to get back later -- great discussion!

As Steve said, absolutely rely on the blinkies! (And set Camera Neutral for the "JPEG" -- it will look dull but that's not a concern. You want to have a setting that will show you where whites are getting too hot. And you can bring back some degree of blinkies in raw. A high contrast setting may trick you into thinking you have too much that you can't recover.) The exposure slider is not a good indication for a subject with significant whites and blacks.

The noise in the blacks is because they were underexposed and brought up too much. But sometimes that's unavoidable.

About adjustments as layers -- yes, absolutely, always! Check my tutorial on layers.

Jess -- great news to hear about this forum!!! You made my day!

Off to go hawk hunting -- back later.

[Glennie Passier]

Jess, I have read, and tried the "cutting off of tails" in the levels adjusments. By reading the histogram I would think there was no info there, but I have proved (to myself, anyway) that there is; be it ever so slight.

Diane - (And set Camera Neutral for the JPEG..) I don't understand. Are you talking of "picture style"? My camera is set to "standard". For the JPEG? This is for the screen display on back of camera? Now there's some dumb questions for you! I have read your layer tutorial...about 10 times over! Good luck with hawk hunting. Although I don't need to see any other fantastic images to know how brilliant you are!

[Diane Miller]

Explain "cutting off the tails" -- if you are clipping tonalities, don't! And if you are doing Levels or any adjustment directly on a pixel layer, don't. If the book told you to do that, I wouldn't trust anything else it said. Use an adjustment layer (Layer > New Adjustment Layer.) Some people will do a duplicate pixel layer and do the adjustment directly on it. That's nonsense. You're adding to your file size with an unnecessary layer and you can't go back later and tweak that adjustment after you learned you had clipped tonalities. With an adjustment layer, just go back and change the sliders. It's so easy, and its non-destructive until you go to a JPEG or print. Non-destructive means you can tweak back and forth unlimited times with no permanent damage to the file, unlike adjustments at are cemented into a pixel layer.

Glennie - yes, the camera picture style. You want one that will give a good idea of the highlights you can recover in the raw file. Standard should be fine. An on-the-fly JPEG is what you see on the back screen.

Didn't find the hawk today, or anything else worth shooting. Some days are like that.

[Glennie Passier]

Thank you Diane! I had a look at the settings on my camera. Picture style is "standard", but when I look at "more info" on that setting sharpness is defaulted at 3. Settings like Neutral and Faithful have no defaults at all. I am going to change my setting to Neutral today, to see if there is any noticeable difference.

I'm sorry your hawk didn't co-operate; these are the worst days..

[Diane Miller]

Sharpness on the camera isn't important for raw conversion -- it is ignored. If you zoom in on the LCD to see what you got it may be of some use there, as the image on the LCD usually looks bad zoomed in, being a low-res JPEG.

It won't affect the histogram (at least significantly).

[Jess M. McKenzie]

RE cutting Off Tails, when I look at the levels histogram in *some* images (NB some) I see flat tails left and right -- no *signal* there, but perhaps some noise. Cutting off those those tails by pulling in the pointers, L&R, just to the points where signal begins, seems (sometimes) to raise the SNR. Lynch says it also normalizes the color range. As to color -- following the procedure described by Lynch (2012) on pp 50-55 often reduces "muddiness" and brightens the image considerably. I should stress here that the procedure doesn't always work. If it doesn't help, just delete the layer...;-)

[Diane Miller]

Yes, you can pull the ends into where the information starts -- that's not clipping anything, as there are no tones there. It's when you cut into the information that you're clipping tones. You can do the same in raw conversion (with LR/ACR) and generally shouldn't have to do much of that in PS with Levels or Curves.

Can you describe what Lynch says -- I don't know the book. Bringing the darkest tones to black and the lightest to white (just) increases contrast and boots saturation. That's the same as reducing muddiness, and it's very basic to proper processing for those images that should have a full tonal range. You can also do it with Curves which is a little "gentler" on the lightest and darkest tones.

[Jess M. McKenzie]

Diane Miller wrote -- "Can you describe what Lynch says -- I don't know the book. "

Lynch wrote quite a bit on this subject. For example: "The primary characteristic that Levels can help with is tonal range. Shortened tonal range is represented by a histogram that does not have information ... across the entire range of the histogram graph. ... A shortened tonal range in any of the channel components indicates that the light source was not full spectrum. ..." (Gaps are mine)

There's more, but essentially he points out the 4 components of the Levels display:
RGB, red, green, and blue, and instructs the reader to begin with red, move the white slider left to the beginning of the signal (past the flat portion), then move the black slider to the right in the same manner. This is repeated with the green display, then the blue, then the RGB display is adjusted (gray slider) to a satisfactory brightness.

The result is an RGB histogram that extends the full range of the display, left edge to right edge. The graph contains small spaces, rather than being a solid black.

If you like, I'll post an image to show the pure effects of a levels adjustment, comparing it with the original.

[Diane Miller]

But you can do the basic equivalent in LR/ACR, so it's best to get the tonalities as correct as possible there. Levels or Curves in PS gives you a little better (or easier) control of each channel than does LR/ACR, but I'd save it for a final tweak only as needed after you have done all you can in raw. He is describing correcting overall color balance by working on each channel, which can be good but not always what you want to do, especially with subjects in natural light. First use the WB section in raw conversion (compare Auto WB with moving the Temp and Tint sliders, or use the eyedropper if there is an area in the image that should be neutral). Then look at the histogram and balance the Tone sliders in the basic section to bring the ends of the histogram to where they should be for the contrast that the image should have. (Not all should have a full range from black to white, such as a foggy scene.) You'll get vastly better results doing it here than in PS, as you're working on all the tonal range the camera captured. And you can toss in a bit of Clarity (midtone contrast) and Vibrance (intelligent saturation) to boot.

In LR/ACR, as you move the blacks and whites sliders hold down Alt to see where you're clipping, but that doesn't mean you should go so far as to just clip -- it depends on the image, and on the Shadow and Highlights tonalities as well. I almost never touch the Contrast slider.


I've been using PS (heavily) since version 4 came out in 1996 (hard to believe it's been 20 years!) and certainly respect it's capabilities but today's excellent raw converters have improved on a lot of what it can do. And raw adjustments are all non-destructive, and so easily edited with LR/ACR.


More clarification on the book:

If you're getting gaps in the histogram you should be bringing the image into PS as 16 bits, where you would have to go to major extremes to get the gaps (posterization). Is he using 8 bits?

Is he doing this as an adjustment layer or as an adjustment ON a pixel layer?

Is it a new edition or old? What year written? Possibilities have improved vastly over the years with recent tools. I don't think I have used Levels for at least 6-7 years.


I'm working on a Sandhill Crane image that I'll be posting soon in Avian. It's not 100% done but here's the histogram so far. It won't change much. If I "stretched" the tonalities, it would look horrible.

[Jess M. McKenzie]

Hi, Diane. Thought I'd covered all I need to say, but I see some answers were left out.
Your latest questions:

"If you're getting gaps in the histogram you should be bringing the image into PS as 16 bits, where you would have to go to major extremes to get the gaps (posterization). Is he using 8 bits? "
I used 'gaps' to mean small skips -- single lines -- in the top 1/4 section of the histogram. Hard to describe -- best to try one and see for yourself. I don't have an answer for your bits question.

"Is he doing this as an adjustment layer or as an adjustment ON a pixel layer?"
I think I understand the question. Lynch uses Layers>New Adj Layer>Levels

"Is it a new edition or old? What year written? Possibilities have improved vastly over the years with recent tools. I don't think I have used Levels for at least 6-7 years."
Copyright date is 2012

If you'd like to see for yourself go to
http://www.amazon.com/THE-ADOBE-PHOTOSHOP-LAYERS-BOOK/d
click on the book's cover and search for
Levels Adjustment layers for Tone and Color Correction

You should be taken to a clickable line for page 45

NB: I'm just a student -- certainly not a proponent for levels adjustment as a cure-all; i'm just saying, as i have before, that it works for me about half the time.

[Diane Miller]

Probably not significantly out of date. I'm curious if he talks at all about getting the best raw conversion before coming into PS...

Not criticizing your learning -- we've all had to and all still are at different levels. Just trying to say that there may be better ways. You can find a lot of techniques in books and on the internet, and a few are good.

Layers > New Adj Layer > Levels is the right thing to do. The wrong thing is Image > Adjustments, which glues the adj into a pixel layer. It's not unusual to see people who do the latter, or do other adjustments directly on a pixel layer, like dodging and burning. If someone wants quick-and-dirty, that's OK but I prefer the craftsman approach.

You should acquire an understanding of bit depth. When you open an image in PS you should have things set so that it is in 16 bits. And you should have PS set with the correct Edit > Color Settings.

I don't remember from other threads -- What is your raw converter and what version of it and PS?

[Jess M. McKenzie]

Hi, Diane...
Raw converter is almost always LR now.... PV2012. PV2012 for ACR as well, but i don't use ACR any more. Don't need to, as you've pointed out.
Both my LR and PS work in 16 bit modes. But you had asked if Lynch used 8 bits, and I still don't know, although he does mention that HDR images are 32 b, so i suspect he's a 16-bit guy.
BTW, I have mentioned in the past that I also use New Adj Layer> Curves. In some cases, I've compared curves and levels on the same image. In some of them curves is slightly better. I hasten to add that my monitor is a regular Dell, so YMMV...;-)
Oh. Almost forgot: PS is CS-6.

[Diane Miller]

What I really meant was which bit depth do you use, so good on the 16 bits. Just checking, as the gaps you mentioned getting in the histogram sounded like maybe you were coming into PS in 8 bits.

Apologies for never being able to remember what anyone uses for raw. LR is excellent, as is CS 6. Just be sure you leverage the tonal adjustments fully -- that should limit Levels or Curves to tiny tweaks.