Female Mallard

[Alex Becker]

Hi all,

Heres female Mallard from NJ. Bummed about the grass in front of the bird but there wasn't much room to move around it. Some tonal adjustments in LR and then toned down a harsh highlight on the chest in PS as well as NR and sharpening. Didn't need f/10 for this shot but had it for some more head on poses.

Camera: Nikon D500
Lens: 200-500mm f/5.6 at 500mm
Specs: 1/1600 ISO 2000 f/10

Thanks for looking!
Alex

[Isaac Grant]

Mallards are a very under appreciated species. I think if they were not so common things would be different. I really like the feel of this image. Don't really mind the grasses in front of the bird. And what is up with her head!!! The back looks so weird and almost like she slipped while trimming her hair . I do feel the image is a bit flat. I would deepen the mid tones and black point which I think will give her and the grasses a more authentic feel. Would also add a little more saturation. Easy fixes.

[Steve Kaluski]

You handled the harsh light well Alex and I like the low POV. The side profile with open beak is well timed and creates some added interest. Techs look good to me, but surprised you needed any NR considering the low ISO and light, as the image looks well exposed so for me, I would have thought there would have been minimal noise????? My take would be to look to addressing the light FG and very simply addressing some main 'colours' as it brings a bit more depth & colour, adjusting the Black point might create a more 'contrasty' look & feel.

But just my take.

TFS
Steve

[Alex Becker]

Thanks guys! Very much appreciate the comments and RP. Isaac, agree on mallards being under appreciated, such pretty birds. I have no idea what the deal behind the hairdo is...theres a couple more shots where it's even more pronounced too...bizarre. I would love to know the story there. Steve, I've been following the NR guide from Artie and Arash for images above ISO ~800. Here, there was some noise in the BG although it was pretty tightly clustered and it maybe wasn't necessary to do for this size posting / this exposure, but I've gotten into the habit as part of my workflow.

Quick question on that front -- Steve, are you doing NR for images around / under ISO 2k or just reserving it for the really high stuff (5k-10k+)? Isaac, I think you've mentioned before that you run Neat Image on pretty much every shot you post. Both of you produce really great looking files so I would be interested in hearing both your thoughts on your NR approaches and if/how they differ.

I've attached a RP where I've bumped the saturation on the BG, lighted up the BG, as well as added some slight saturation onto the bird to make it pop more. I tried to keep the image looking pretty 'light and airy' if that makes sense as thats how I remember it. Hopefully the RP is an improvement.

Thanks again both -- appreciate your thoughts and help!

[Isaac Grant]

I do NR on the backgrounds on all files. Only touch the bird typically above ISO 1600 but different camera and sensor so can't comment on the d500. Once in a while if I had to lift shadows a bunch or something I apply to the bird at lower ISO but do so carefully and only slightly. Following that guide will be a great deal of help as I use it as well for my 1dx.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Alex just back after a 200 mile drive so I will be brief.

Steve, are you doing NR for images around / under ISO 2k

No, never, when well exposed you should not need too.

You are shooting Nikon the files will be cleaner and IMHO have less Contrast within them, plus the RAWs are uncompressed which I feel Canon should follow.

Steve, I've been following the NR guide from Artie and Arash for images above ISO ~800

But that is for Canon I thought and so surely this will be different to Nikon, I would have thought you look for something that takes into account Nikon set-ups????

The RP does look better, but Saturation is not always the right route because it warms things up, hence you need to understand more about 'Colour' and how small tweaks can more depth, tone even sometimes detail, but it takes time sadly, you will get there. It's just taking time to asses what needs doing and keeping all Adjustments to a minimum, you don't need to throw the kitchen sink in to .

With 1DX & the MK2 I've really only looked at things over 6400 as a starting point.

Cheers
Steve

[Steve Kaluski]

Alex just a thought, but if you are using LR then use the Module with LR to do what you need to do, why use a Third Party?????

[Alex Becker]

Thanks both, great to hear your thoughts on this. Steve, I'm following along with the 'professional photographers guide to post processing' which only deals with using the neat image photoshop plugin on the converted TIFF file. I haven't seen an equivalent to the DPP guide for Nikon using Lightroom for the initial conversion although I haven't looked very extensively on that end. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the last part, do you mean using LR for noise reduction in the develop module or something else? I'm using LR for pretty much everything before moving to PS for some edits (eyes, lowering certain highlights,etc) but mostly for sharpening, cloning, and NR.

Good to get feedback on the different routes one can take, I generally try to keep things minimal but still so much to learn. No huge rush though and I enjoy the process.

Thanks again -- much appreciated!

[Steve Kaluski]

I'm following along with the 'professional photographers guide to post processing' which only deals with using the neat image photoshop plugin on the converted TIFF file.

OK Alex thanks for the clarification, as I thought you had Arash's guide to NR with relates to DPP.

do you mean using LR for noise reduction in the develop module

Yep

The more you do at/in the 'RAW' stage the better, so it sounds like you are on the right path, before 'baking' the Tiff and working on that.