Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: gopher on watch

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ladner,B.C.
    Posts
    667
    Threads
    110
    Thank You Posts

    Default gopher on watch

    I was cruising backroads in southern B.C. looking for owls when this little guy showed up taking in the sun on a warm rock. Hope the owls didn't find him. The sun angle wasn't great but it was sufficient to give decent fur detail.Canon 1DxII, Sigma 150-600, f5-6.3 OS Contemp., ISO25400,f/6.3,1/2000,HHName:  gopher.jpg
Views: 83
Size:  508.7 KB
    Last edited by Bob Smith; 06-15-2019 at 04:07 PM.

  2. #2
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Hi Bob, I would suggest you revisit the raw and re process, I really do not think it reflects the original capture.

    To me, this is following in the footsteps of the Bear, way too much NR, it's over sharpened and Contrasty, there isn't the subtle detail in the face and at ISO1250, (not ISO 25,400 as stated in the intro), the image should be far better. The FG has a lot of weird aftifacts too, again stemming from NR and even it it was warm & sunny, Heat haze wouldn't play a factor like this.

    Bob, did you also use elements like Texture & Clarity, because the are similar, however they work in slightly different ways, also adding in some saturation in part and in it's nature, some 'Contrast sharpening' because they is what they do in effect.

    The attached RP is less than ideal, but taking some of the cast out of the grasses, reducing Contrast, Back, Clarity & some Texture, reducing the FG exposure there is things you can look at.

    TFS
    Steve

  3. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ladner,B.C.
    Posts
    667
    Threads
    110
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Hi Bob, I would suggest you revisit the raw and re process, I really do not think it reflects the original capture.To me, this is following in the footsteps of the Bear, way too much NR, it's over sharpened and Contrasty, there isn't the subtle detail in the face and at ISO1250, (not ISO 25,400 as stated in the intro), the image should be far better. The FG has a lot of weird aftifacts too, again stemming from NR and even it it was warm & sunny, Heat haze wouldn't play a factor like this.Bob, did you also use elements like Texture & Clarity, because the are similar, however they work in slightly different ways, also adding in some saturation in part and in it's nature, some 'Contrast sharpening' because they is what they do in effect.The attached RP is less than ideal, but taking some of the cast out of the grasses, reducing Contrast, Back, Clarity & some Texture, reducing the FG exposure there is things you can look at.TFSSteve
    Thanks Steve. I did struggle with the PP of this image so I appreciate your help and am somewhat mortified that I even posted that OP. I hope this RP is an improvement, where I used just a pinch of texture and sharpening and some brushed on +exp to the face---and restricted NR to the green grassy BG.Name:  gopher RP.jpg
Views: 60
Size:  401.3 KB

  4. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    10,421
    Threads
    1,708
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Neat to see a gopher on here, don't think i have ever seen one before. The repost is much better than the original. The light is what it is. Like the way the gopher is looking into the frame. It took me a long time to get the processing part some what down. I'm still working on it. Hope to see more of your images.

  5. #5
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Bob, I'm glad you embraced the feedback, I know it may seem harsh, but I try to be honest and hopefully folk can take stock and see where they can improve and certainly PP is an area that everyone can improve in, as it's just a constant honing and development.

    The RP is better, but there isn't that much detail within the subject, with that kit you should be nailing each frame. You have the camera set up correctly and the techs appear OK, likewise the lens, but somewhere in the workflow you are just pushing things too much, a light hand is always best and complicating the process, so lets try this.

    Just post the image without any NR applied and remove the Texture application too, so all you have is the 'processed' image, as I'm trying to peel back your workflow steps endeavouring to find how you got to where you are. At ISO1250 forget NR, folk have this obsession at even 800 & 400, it's just ridiculous and not required. Bob if the file is well exposed, in good light you really need to apply it and certainly you are not shooting at the higher levels that perhaps Andreas or I have to go to because of available light etc.

    All the best
    Steve

  6. #6
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,287
    Threads
    2,653
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I agree repost is better, Steve has given sound advice, you may wish to try this just to give a starter for 10, I am not suggesting for one minute it will give a perfect image but I think you could look at it and then decide too light? too dark? too much contrast? or too much colour etc. Just go into raw converter, set the conversion to Default, then simply press Auto, chances are it will be too contrasting and maybe a tad colourful, possibly a little oversharpened, but I think it may help you decide what might need changing.

  7. #7
    BPN Member Andreas Liedmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dortmund / Germany
    Posts
    11,209
    Threads
    1,261
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Bob ... i do not know if the species is special or not . Looks like a squirrel species ... so you did well to capture on these .
    Light seems to be harsh at time of shooting , so i think you did well in capture .
    I do agree that the versions are looking over processed on all counts , color /tone / contrast ..etc .
    Try work with slow hand ....

    TFS Andreas

  8. #8
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jon, Bob uses LR, so not a good idea to use any of LR's defaults, in parts they are pants and so off.

    Bob, why do you not upload direct from your HD or EXT HD?

  9. #9
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ladner,B.C.
    Posts
    667
    Threads
    110
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mack View Post
    Neat to see a gopher on here, don't think i have ever seen one before. The repost is much better than the original. The light is what it is. Like the way the gopher is looking into the frame. It took me a long time to get the processing part some what down. I'm still working on it. Hope to see more of your images.
    Thanks John and Andreas and you're right about the light---it was directly overhead. Also right about the processing. I'm still working on it too, with much road still to travel, but learning from and enjoying the company here.


    Last edited by Bob Smith; 06-17-2019 at 12:49 PM.

  10. #10
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ladner,B.C.
    Posts
    667
    Threads
    110
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Hi Bob, I'm glad you embraced the feedback, I know it may seem harsh, but I try to be honest and hopefully folk can take stock and see where they can improve and certainly PP is an area that everyone can improve in, as it's just a constant honing and development.The RP is better, but there isn't that much detail within the subject, with that kit you should be nailing each frame. You have the camera set up correctly and the techs appear OK, likewise the lens, but somewhere in the workflow you are just pushing things too much, a light hand is always best and complicating the process, so lets try this.Just post the image without any NR applied and remove the Texture application too, so all you have is the 'processed' image, as I'm trying to peel back your workflow steps endeavouring to find how you got to where you are. At ISO1250 forget NR, folk have this obsession at even 800 & 400, it's just ridiculous and not required. Bob if the file is well exposed, in good light you really need to apply it and certainly you are not shooting at the higher levels that perhaps Andreas or I have to go to because of available light etc.All the bestSteve
    On this RP I have done no NR as suggested by Steve with the only global adjustments being to cut back high lites and whites (which pretty much only affected the rock) and added a bit of dehaze and desaturated the green a squib.. I brushed on a bit of texture to the animal, reduced it's orange saturation a bit in HSL(done globally but didn't visibly affect any other parts of the image) and added some exp. to the dark parts of the face. I tried Jonathon's suggestion of "Auto" but that left the whole image really dark. As to Steve's question, I like to keep all images I download to the web in a separate file on my Desktop to help keep track of them.
    .Name:  gopher RP 2.jpg
Views: 38
Size:  441.0 KB
    Last edited by Bob Smith; 06-17-2019 at 08:42 PM.

  11. #11
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Bob, its going in the right direction, will comment further, later today.

    Perhaps a quick 'crash course' in late Feb around YVR, or Downtown in March 2020, just need to check my dates?

    When you upload do you use the button Go Advance > scroll down to Manage attachments > and upload via the BPN window, if not it might be worth it.

  12. #12
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Steve with the only global adjustments being to cut back high lites and whites (which pretty much only affected the rock)
    Do that with a graduate filter, more control & options, IMHO.

    added a bit of dehaze and desaturated the green a squib
    OK

    I brushed on a bit of texture to the animal, reduced it's orange saturation a bit in HSL(done globally but didn't visibly affect any other parts of the image) and added some exp. to the dark parts of the face.
    Texture, I don't think you needed to. Reduction of Orange, OK, but again a balancing between HSL sliders as each slider will affect the other adjustment to colour ie in contrast or colour, but you may find yellow also comes into play? Exposure - via Dodge & Burn adjustments, but would personally do this via PS and a layers adjustment as you cab be far more refined.

    I tried Jonathon's suggestion of "Auto" but that left the whole image really dark.
    I told you, it's pants, leave Auto stuff alone Bob.

    The three blades of grass in the FG you can remove in PS but again, as an 'adjustment' layer. I might also crop some of the FG out and go a bit darker.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics