Sandhill Crane Flight - Underside View

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Hi All,

Sharing Sandhill crane flight image from Bosque Trips.


Sandhill Crane flight Underside View.

I wish I have added a bit more exposure compensation on this shot. I quite like the grass attached to the legs.

Nikon D500
500mm f/4 , 1.7x TC II
ISO 1000, f/7.1, 1/2500, Aperture Priority +0EV

Post processing:-
Added canvas to the right and added more space bottom and top.
Noise reduction with Neat Image




Let me know your comments on the same.

[arash_hazeghi]

nice wing span and high key exposure, the angle was steep but I can live with that given you have nice view of the underwings

like your other shot this one is also contrasty and shows noise... something is not quite right in your workflow

TFS

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Hi Arash,

Thank you for the review and comments. I will post screenshots of my Lightroom changes, Photoshop changes and Base Image.

Any suggestions will be really great. I am not sure where I am making the mistakes.

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Hi Arash,

Below are the details.

Screenshots show the changes done in the Lightroom, Photoshop and RAW image.

I generally follows post-processing and Noise reduction based 2 Books "Professional Photographers Guide to Post Processing Guide.pdf" and Artie's Digital Basics. Thanks to both of you for sharing the information

I typically make exposure corrections in Lightroom and bring it into Photoshop.

I have actions setup for all these layers. I think the culprits are the curves and level which I add for all the images. I need to understand which ones to add and which ones not to add.

Before sharing I create a copy, resize the image and sharpen the bird layer.

Love to hear your views.

[David Seymour]

Hi Krishna,

I like the high-key effect, and the detail on the bird is good but does show some noise as Arash mentioned. I wonder if the noise issue may have been due to creating the high-key effect in Lightroom (by setting Highlights = +100, Whites = +41) before exporting to Photoshop? If so, Neat Image in Photoshop would have attempted to characterize the noise signature from the sky, which would have had any noise signature wiped out by the Lightroom settings. All this assuming you didn't use a preset noise signature for your camera sensor in Neat Image. If I'm right you could try setting up a dedicated noise signature for your camera within Neat Image (by photographing a grey card or other uniform subject such as a blue sky) and apply that to the image after export from Lightroom with the settings you had. Another thing that may work is to export an image into PS without the LR settings and in Neat Image capture a noise signature from the sky, save the signature then apply it to the image exported with LR settings.

Cheers, David

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Hi David,

Thank you for the comments.

I created cloning area of the image wing where I see more noise and used it as basis for Noise Signature. Based on this I did noise reduction.

Thanks
Krishna

[arash_hazeghi]

Krishna, your problem is LR adjustments, leave those sliders near 0. they make the image worse. whites, blacks, highlights etc. should not be changed that much or the image will look goofy, your original capture in pane #3 looks much better than the processed image in pane #1.

Those extreme adjustments also brought out the noise.

hope this helps

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Awesome thank you for the info

[David Salem]

I process Images almost every day with Lightroom and PS and I can tell by your adjustments, and by the amount you are adjusting, that you are not getting you exposure close enough at capture. I rarely even move the exposure slider because I should hope to be close enough to only need to maybe adjust the highlights down a bit or the shadows up a bit.
If I find that I have to adjust my exposure by a full stop or more, I know I haven't done well exposing properly in camera and need to learn why I made such a mistake. People that think, or that tell you that you can change the exposure in PP and it won't affect your image quality are sorely mistaken. It will, and that's why you want to try to get it right in camera. By the looks of you increasing the exposure by a full stop, and bringing the highlights up all the way, this image was moderately under exposed. It is very common when shooting birds in the sky to under expose by this amount. Most birds require 1-1 1/3 stops of overexposure on the cameras meter to be exposed properly in the sky.
On a bright cloudy day the sky could be almost all blinking on the highlight alert of your camera, yet the actual subject is exposed properly.
The rest of your adjustments are way to heavy handed too. The contrast, whites, and blacks should rarely need to be moved at all and the clarity and vibrance shouldn't be moved more than about 10 points or so.
I heard you mentioned levels and curves. I suggest you barely play with those. I use levels on some images but just a few points on either end. It will change your contrast in a hurry so be very sparing.
It's all about the capture in the field. Then you polish it with some PP.
Work on understanding that you are only trying to expose for the bird, and nothing else really matters.
I just went back and looked at your info and just saw that you were shooting in AV mode. This is not a good mode for shooting BIF as you have limited control over your subject and the scene as things change and the camera doesn't know what you are really trying to expose for. Learn to shoot in manual.
The faster you start learning, the quicker you will understand exposure well. You will command the camera, not the opposite.
Sorry if I went on but I saw your adjustments and had to say something to try to help. Hope it does :)

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Hi David,

Thank you for the details. I agree with the exposure, when I saw this image in the light room I though it was underexposed but I still went and tried to do post processing.

Great Information provided, will keep it in mind

Thanks
Krishna

[Jonathan Ashton]

Krishna nice action and timing, my first reaction was underexposure. Personally I try to do as much as possible to ensure optimum capture followed by raw conversion resulting in a close to as possible ideal TIFF, this leaves less to be done in Photoshop.
From what I appreciate ACR and Lightrooom are very similar in terms of processing but from my rather simplistic viewpoint ACR does the job without lot of other Add ons. That preset you refer to seems to complicate matters unnecessarily. I know lots will throw their hands up in horror but ACR is good and simple.

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Thank you for the information Jonathan