Harlequin Macaw (c)

[Joseph Przybyla]

I captured this image to day when leaving Gatorland in Orlando, Florida. On the way out of the park in a side area is a display of macaws. As near as I can determine this is one of many hybrid macaws. Comments and critique welcomed and appreciated. Thank you for viewing.

Nikon D500
Nikon 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6 VRII AF-S ED image captured at 340mm
1/250 F/5.6 Matrix Metering EV +1 ISO 640 Auto 1 WB, camera supported by a monopod
Post processed in Lightroom Classic CC, Photoshop CC 2019 and Neat Image for noise reduction
Cropped slightly for composition and presentation

[John Mack]

The highkey treatment works very well. The details look good. Maybe a little more depth of field.

[Colin Driscoll]

Great detail and colors. Bit of a hound dog eye hasn't it.

[Joseph Przybyla]

The highkey treatment works very well. The details look good. Maybe a little more depth of field.

Hi John, not much I could do about the depth of field. I was so close that it would not have mattered. I had to go close and tight to get a clean background. Thank you for viewing and commenting.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Great detail and colors. Bit of a hound dog eye hasn't it.

Hi Colin, your right kind of a sad eye like a hound dog. Thank you for viewing and commenting.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Here is another that I just worked up. I thing the HA is better in this one.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Just a sideline to this post. I never realized how much these birds are hybridized for colors and personality. I always thought the ones I saw were offspring of the wild macaws. Not so.

[Steve Kaluski]

Stonking detail Joe, and having that light backdrop really gives the subject that edge. The second is the one IMHO.

Hi John, not much I could do about the depth of field.

Joe, could you not have stepped back and then cropped? If you had to go tight in, you had plenty of ISO to up the DoF?

Neat Image for noise reduction

Joe, why apply NR, the ISO was only 640 and it appears you didn't have to lift the image, so noise would only have been in the dark/shadow areas? I just cannot see why folk use NR on such low ISO, you are just losing some fine detail.

TFS
Steve

[Joseph Przybyla]

Joe, could you not have stepped back and then cropped? If you had to go tight in, you had plenty of ISO to up the DoF?



Joe, why apply NR, the ISO was only 640 and it appears you didn't have to lift the image, so noise would only have been in the dark/shadow areas? I just cannot see why folk use NR on such low ISO, you are just losing some fine detail.

TFS
Steve

Hi Steve, not really possible to step back for more depth of field, tight quarters and people around. Even with the camera on a monopod it was crowded with people behind peeking to see what I was photographing. The noise reduction in Neat Image was negligible only 0.9 so you are right no noise. Just part of my workflow to take the image into Photoshop and use Neat Image at the auto settings to reduce noise on the whole image, then back into Lightroom for sharpening and whatever detail was lost I recover with the detail slider. Normally I try to capture images where the noise doesn't matter but by using Neat Image it gives a smoother background and using the masking in Lightroom sharpening any detail recovery is only applied to the bird/subject. Thank you for viewing and commenting.

P.S. Just thinking of your tiger you recently posted. If there is a background like that the noise would not be noticed but if the background is pure/smooth noise reduction no matter how small I believe improves the appearance. Also the way Neat Image works by determining the noise on a smooth background/area it mostly doesn't impact fine detail

[Steve Kaluski]

P.S. Just thinking of your tiger you recently posted. If there is a background like that the noise would not be noticed but if the background is pure/smooth noise reduction no matter how small I believe improves the appearance. Also the way Neat Image works by determining the noise on a smooth background/area it mostly doesn't impact fine detail

Cheers Joe, thanks for the reply, but just be mindful when and how you use NR and what it is really for. With the current camera bodies noise is less of an issue and with an image like this, I would say it has zero benefit and zero noise.

I would only use LR for 'in-put' sharpening at the raw stage if required, PS offers the best in terms of sharpening, however you need to think what will offer the best results in terms of what application within PS do you use, as per my comment on Jon Ashton's Bull Finch, as there are many options, not just say 'smart sharpening or USM'. You just need to be aware that you have many options at your disposal. If it's only web images then Export from LR and customise the Export box, its so easy.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Cheers Joe, thanks for the reply, but just be mindful when and how you use NR and what it is really for. With the current camera bodies noise is less of an issue and with an image like this, I would say it has zero benefit and zero noise.

I would only use LR for 'in-put' sharpening at the raw stage if required, PS offers the best in terms of sharpening, however you need to think what will offer the best results in terms of what application within PS do you use, as per my comment on Jon Ashton's Bull Finch, as there are many options, not just say 'smart sharpening or USM'. You just need to be aware that you have many options at your disposal. If it's only web images then Export from LR and customise the Export box, its so easy.

Hi Steve, I agree many options to use. With the RAW/Master file I zero the default sharpening that Lightroom applies. I do this for two reasons, first the Nikon D500 does not have a Bayer/Anti-aliasing filter so no need to sharpen for that softening of the image, second because sharpening will increase noise so by zeroing out the sharpening the noise only what was when the image was captured. I like the Lightroom sharpening the best, I can see what is happening when I move the sliders. I bring the Amount slider all the way to the end (150) and then slowly back it off until the sharpening artifacts disappear. The carefully set the Radius for optimum sharpness. I either leave the Detail slider alone or move it to the right until the image looks right. Then I use the Masking slider to apply the sharpening only to the subject. I have tried the Photoshop options, read many books on sharpening but find this to work best for me and to be the simplest. I only sharpen the 16 bit TIFF, no sharpening to the master file.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Joe, great feedback and I full understand where you are coming from and if it 'ain't broke, don't try to fix it'.

I would not rule out Luminance and Colour sliders too Joe - but everything has a 'cause & effect' and often a balancing act, as no two images are the same.

I have tried the Photoshop options, read many books on sharpening but find this to work best for me and to be the simplest

I bet it doesn't mention a really need section that is overlooked and buried within PS, but that's another chapter in Post Production...

All the very best, it's all looking good.

[Arthur Morris]

Any port in a storm. Well done on all counts. Super sharp with great FFD. Is the BKGR white sky or building?

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

Just read the stuff above and I must say that I have zero concerns about the d-o-f in either version. And I have zero idea in the world as to why anyone would suggest a higher ISO to get more d-o-f. Just sayin' And they were talking about the first image. Everything is sharp even in the second image with the bird's head angled toward us!!!!!

with love, artie

[Joseph Przybyla]

Any port in a storm. Well done on all counts. Super sharp with great FFD. Is the BKGR white sky or building?

with love, artie

Hey Artie, if I recall correctly the background was a clear area on a white sign. Thank you for viewing and commenting.

[Arthur Morris]

Stonking detail Joe, and having that light backdrop really gives the subject that edge. Joe, why apply NR, the ISO was only 640 and it appears you didn't have to lift the image, so noise would only have been in the dark/shadow areas? I just cannot see why folk use NR on such low ISO, you are just losing some fine detail. TFS Steve

Hey Steve, with all due respect, I just cannot see how much more detail you need or want :) If you read the stuff above you seem to be contradicting yourself ...

with love, artie

[Steve Kaluski]

I have zero concerns about the d-o-f in either version

OK Artie, as present looks great, no problem I would be very happy to have achieve this result both in terms of the difficult shooting conditions and the Post Production, Joe is absolutely on the money here. My only thinking was that say 97% is critically sharp and bang on, I just felt that on the RHS of the head (the green plumage and the red plumage just below the neck) it MAY have been the icing if everything was 'in focus' if achievable. No idea how far Joe may have needed to go, but it was just a thought. It might even be that applying some NR it has also added to the softness in those areas, but I am having to make assumptions without seeing the raw. The image is a stonking one and it was just me 'thinking out loud'.

Hey Steve, with all due respect, I just cannot see how much more detail you need or want :

It was more of a 'general' comment Artie. I just cannot see why folk feel the need to apply any NR at ISO below even 1000 these days, based on the current camera bodies. Nikon with say the D800E, D3s, D4s... created fantastic clean files with little contrast compared to Canon files and High ISO was not an issue, but here at ISO640 what noise would there be, so why apply it? It may be minimal and because the critical sharpness is perfect , so there is very little impact????

I guess it's just a bit of frustration on my part Artie when I see good/great images at low ISO and where folk have this desire to add NR when truly it doesn't need it.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Hey Steve and Artie, after reading your comments and back and forth I did up two more images from the original. One with not noise reduction and one with noise reduction only to the background. Pixel peeping and evaluating all three images I can see a very very slight difference probably because I know which image is which and I am looking for a difference. What I did notice is that on the top of the birds green feathers there are a couple smudges that the noise reduction helped to reduce that artifact. The two images of the bird without noise reduction the artifact is more noticeable as it is in the master file. I believe that if the background is pure using Neat Image for noise reduction has negligible effect on feather detail. This is because Neat Image uses an area without detail to determine the amount of noise and at the default setting the noise reduction is applied at 60%. The slight amount of detail that might be lost can be recovered by sharpening in Lightroom and using the Detail slider. This image had almost no noise, the most I could find was 1.9 as determined by Neat Image moving the box around the background. Also I am using a crop sensor camera which because of the design has more noise that a full frame camera at the same ISO. Thanks to both of your for sharing your views and taking an interest, very much appreciated.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Joe, thanks for taking the time to expand on the overall posting, I think it's great because there is some valuable exchanges I think going on. With hindsight I guess I started going off at a tangent thinking you had applied NR to the whole image, but it appears you only applied it to the background, good. Interesting workflow on sharpening, but if it works for you then great.

[Arthur Morris]

OK Artie, as present looks great, no problem I would be very happy to have achieve this result both in terms of the difficult shooting conditions and the Post Production, Joe is absolutely on the money here. My only thinking was that say 97% is critically sharp and bang on, I just felt that on the RHS of the head (the green plumage and the red plumage just below the neck) it MAY have been the icing if everything was 'in focus' if achievable. No idea how far Joe may have needed to go, but it was just a thought. It might even be that applying some NR it has also added to the softness in those areas, but I am having to make assumptions without seeing the raw. The image is a stonking one and it was just me 'thinking out loud'.

It was more of a 'general' comment Artie. I just cannot see why folk feel the need to apply any NR at ISO below even 1000 these days, based on the current camera bodies. Nikon with say the D800E, D3s, D4s... created fantastic clean files with little contrast compared to Canon files and High ISO was not an issue, but here at ISO640 what noise would there be, so why apply it? It may be minimal and because the critical sharpness is perfect , so there is very little impact????

I guess it's just a bit of frustration on my part Artie when I see good/great images at low ISO and where folk have this desire to add NR when truly it doesn't need it.

Hi Steve,

Understand that you are talking to someone who does not include NR as part of his regular workflow. At times I used NR on ISO 800 images made with the Nikon D850 and same with the 5D Mark IV images when I shot Canon. That to eliminate what I call "small pixel noise." I too use Arash's sophisticated method of applying less NR to the subject and more to the BKGR.

with love, artie

ps: I was not ignoring your comment -- my laptop died last week :)

[Steve Kaluski]

ps: I was not ignoring your comment -- my laptop died last week

LOL Artie, never thought that. I'm now in Whistler BC enjoying the snow for the next 3 weeks, bluebird day here, zero degrees, but getting much colder, tomorrow high of -6, low -14, enjoy your sun.