Eye Spy

[Brian Sump]

Same Drake as the previous two posts in the series.


D850
600mm + 1.4
HH
ISO 1000
1/3200
f5.6

[arash_hazeghi]

I love how the head is poking out from between the wings, the BG is very pleasant. the image is lacking contrast (looks a bit washed out to me) and could also use a touch more sharpening.

TFS

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Brian. A super composition...love the pose, colours and BG. The wings do look a little soft to me (too much NR?). I notice that the contrast varies depending on the angle of my laptop screen...so, the contrast looks fine to me when I angle the screen back a little, but in view of Arash's comment re contrast maybe the default screen angle on my laptop is the most accurate. For some reason I can't scroll left /right with your image...I have to reduce the size to fit on my screen...this doesn't happen with all imagers posted here.

[Brian Sump]

I love how the head is poking out from between the wings, the BG is very pleasant. the image is lacking contrast (looks a bit washed out to me) and could also use a touch more sharpening.

TFS

Thank you. Which area(s) do you think are not sharp enough? I thought it was dead on.

33/.5 in LR
80/.3 SS in PS
15/15 DNAI (which has been customary) on cropped, full res file
25/0.3 SS after resizing
Manual sharpen head and eye to taste with 75% opacity pen
Was getting a touch noisy in spots so didn't push much further (a la Redhead Runner recently posted)

Reduced contrast just a few points in RAW. However I ran a TK S curve on the mids and NIK tonal and detail adj and felt that provided all needed. Guess I could give some more

[Brian Sump]

Hi Brian. A super composition...love the pose, colours and BG. The wings do look a little soft to me (too much NR?). I notice that the contrast varies depending on the angle of my laptop screen...so, the contrast looks fine to me when I angle the screen back a little, but in view of Arash's comment re contrast maybe the default screen angle on my laptop is the most accurate. For some reason I can't scroll left /right with your image...I have to reduce the size to fit on my screen...this doesn't happen with all imagers posted here.

Ok Paul. I save as 1900 wide, the max size. I could probably save smaller but I want you to be able to make critique at highest res possible.

[Geoffrey Montagu]

Hi Brian. A super composition...love the pose, colours and BG. The wings do look a little soft to me (too much NR?). I notice that the contrast varies depending on the angle of my laptop screen...so, the contrast looks fine to me when I angle the screen back a little, but in view of Arash's comment re contrast maybe the default screen angle on my laptop is the most accurate. For some reason I can't scroll left /right with your image...I have to reduce the size to fit on my screen...this doesn't happen with all imagers posted here.

Hi Paul,


Quick easy way leaving the posted size is to click and move your browser window to the left and simply expand the browser window to the right until you have the right edge of the image. After viewing as posted shrink the browser by dragging back to your screen size.

Geoffrey




http://500px.com/geoffreymontagu

[Brian Sump]

Here, increased the S curve amplitude and increased post re-sized sharpening to 50/0.4 SS instead of 25/0.3

[Geoffrey Montagu]

Like the flight position and that excellent background. Agree with adding a tad more contrast. Can't open Attachment 186994.


Geoffrey




http://500px.com/geoffreymontagu

[Bill Dix]

Very nice flight pose, with visible eye. Repost helped.

[dankearl]

Nice pose and nice colors. The repost looked good, gone now.

[Brian Sump]

Thanks Dan and Bill. Attachment fixed.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Brian. A super composition...love the pose, colours and BG. The wings do look a little soft to me (too much NR?). I notice that the contrast varies depending on the angle of my laptop screen...so, the contrast looks fine to me when I angle the screen back a little, but in view of Arash's comment re contrast maybe the default screen angle on my laptop is the most accurate. For some reason I can't scroll left /right with your image...I have to reduce the size to fit on my screen...this doesn't happen with all imagers posted here.

Pual if your screen contrast/colors change with viewing angle it is utterly junk and should not be used for viewing and commenting on photographs on this site, because you are just seeing the artifacts of your monitor as opposed to the image the rest of us are seeing. it becomes impossible to provide meaningful critique.

cheers

[arash_hazeghi]

Thank you. Which area(s) do you think are not sharp enough? I thought it was dead on.

33/.5 in LR
80/.3 SS in PS
15/15 DNAI (which has been customary) on cropped, full res file
25/0.3 SS after resizing
Manual sharpen head and eye to taste with 75% opacity pen
Was getting a touch noisy in spots so didn't push much further (a la Redhead Runner recently posted)

Reduced contrast just a few points in RAW. However I ran a TK S curve on the mids and NIK tonal and detail adj and felt that provided all needed. Guess I could give some more

you have too many steps, I have no idea where it goes wrong. I only have two steps, C1P def. sharpening and smart sharpen after I downsample usually 100-150 radius 0.5. that's all for me.

your repost is much better now colors/WB is still a bit off that you can improve.

[Brian Sump]

you have too many steps, I have no idea where it goes wrong. I only have two steps, C1P def. sharpening and smart sharpen after I downsample usually 100-150 radius 0.5. that's all for me.

your repost is much better now colors/WB is still a bit off that you can improve.

Ari, I studied your guides religiously. Every time I followed the sharpening process I got hammered on here. Truly man - maybe it was my camera, my lens, my exposure, my monitor etc but obviously it works for you because your product is very nice. Also, I feel like I am disliking the colors on my birds less and less in C1 unfortunately - at least 1/3 birds.

I've had to refine my process and the past few files, other than the Redhead as I was on 16" screen, have done much better with the three step approach (notwithstanding the Topaz step which I believe guys like Small and Murphy are using as well).

Guess it doesn't matter where I went "wrong" if I'm undersharpening rather than over? Also, sometimes I will only add 15/.3 to the resized and everyone says it is crunchy but others I'll add 75/.5 on the resized and it needs more. O.g. sharpness, amt of cropping, exposure, etc all factor in for certain. I loved the output of my repost but don't know what I don't know....

Thanks for taking time to comment, always appreciated.

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Brian. I also save at 1900 wide, but most images posted here allow me to scroll bar the image...some don't though.

[dankearl]

Brian.
I only do 3 things in C1P.
I almost never change the shot WB settings. The colors always seem fine to me.
I adjust the sharpen per the iso per Arash guide and I adjust the luminance NR per iso per Arash quide.
I may tweak those but not that often.
I then just make a Tiff file, crop in PS, and size and sharpen with TK panel for posting.
My Tiff files are sharp or at least I think they are or I don't keep.
I smooth the BG and use NR on the BG but that is it.
I takes me a few minutes per file, I shoot everyday, hope i get one or two keepers.
That is all I work on, the rest get dumped.
I actually keep screenshots on my phone of those 2 settings in Arash's guide
that I look up if I forget.
Those are the only things I correct except tweaking basic exposure.

[Paul Burdett]

Geoffrey...thanks for the tip (which doesn't seem to work on my laptop)...so I just Ctrl minus to decrease the screen size so as to view the image. I have a brand new very powerful PC which I might start using to view forum images...just prefer not to be online with it. Cheers.

[arash_hazeghi]

Ari, I studied your guides religiously. Every time I followed the sharpening process I got hammered on here. Truly man - maybe it was my camera, my lens, my exposure, my monitor etc but obviously it works for you because your product is very nice. Also, I feel like I am disliking the colors on my birds less and less in C1 unfortunately - at least 1/3 birds.

I've had to refine my process and the past few files, other than the Redhead as I was on 16" screen, have done much better with the three step approach (notwithstanding the Topaz step which I believe guys like Small and Murphy are using as well).

Guess it doesn't matter where I went "wrong" if I'm undersharpening rather than over? Also, sometimes I will only add 15/.3 to the resized and everyone says it is crunchy but others I'll add 75/.5 on the resized and it needs more. O.g. sharpness, amt of cropping, exposure, etc all factor in for certain. I loved the output of my repost but don't know what I don't know....

Thanks for taking time to comment, always appreciated.

Hi Brian, the more steps you go through usually the worse the outcome as shown in this post, if an image is sharp and clean it doesn't really need all this crap to make it look good. somewhat like a fine piece of tuna steak or fillet minion, don't need a lot of slat, pepper sauce etc. it just tastes good. the over work is often needed when you are trying to cure imperfections

At the end of the day what matters is that the images look good to you not others. Many folks don't even have the right monitor for looking at the high res images so it's a moot point . I think this extra stuff is all a waste of time but that's my opinion. Don't let others tell you what your images should look like, use the feedback but be the judge yourself.

keep up the good work

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Arash. You raise valid points. Maybe I explained it incorrectly, but the colour contrast doesn't change with the viewing angle, only as I move the laptop screen forwards/backwards (or is that what you are referring to). However, I have a brand new powerful PC, so may start using that to display forum images...just prefer not to be online with my PC. Thanks for the honest comments as usual.

As an aside: I read your comment regarding the Sony 200-600 as being a poor lens...is that pertaining to soley BIF? (used with A9ii)

[Brian Sump]

Hi Brian, the more steps you go through usually the worse the outcome as shown in this post

Surely you're not suggesting the image got worse or that it is not a quality image?

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Arash. You raise valid points. Maybe I explained it incorrectly, but the colour contrast doesn't change with the viewing angle, only as I move the laptop screen forwards/backwards (or is that what you are referring to). However, I have a brand new powerful PC, so may start using that to display forum images...just prefer not to be online with my PC. Thanks for the honest comments as usual.

As an aside: I read your comment regarding the Sony 200-600 as being a poor lens...is that pertaining to soley BIF? (used with A9ii)

Hi Paul, yeah I was referring to that, it means the screen is not really good enough for what you are trying to do, honestly most laptops are like that (even mac books) now that you got the PC why not use it? I gave up using my macbook pro for editing long time ago


As for the sony 200-600 I compare it to my Nikon 500PF and it just doesn't stack very well for pretty much anything not just BIF, yes for static subjects it is more usable and when you fill the frame the resulting file is fine but it is just not as good as the Nikon 500PF. maybe that's not a fair comparison because Nikon 500PF is significantly more expensive. IMO if someone really wants to use the SONY system they should step all the way up to 600GM to realize the full potential of A9's AF technology.

cheers mate

[arash_hazeghi]

Surely you're not suggesting the image got worse or that it is not a quality image?

the image initially needed some work to optimize it despite all the steps you went through and the time spent, after the rework it certainly got better and may be can be improved even more but you did a lot of work to get here. My point is that you don't need all these extra steps to come up with a fine image. you could have achieved the same results or even better in just two simple steps. It seems like the image was taken in the nice afternoon light if I am nit mistaken but it is lacking the warm times one would expect, that's usually result of wrong WB during conversion or result of some post conversion filter

regards

[Brian Sump]

Nah, 7am.

Until there is a button I can push where every image is optimally exposed and in focus Ill do whatever I have to do to get a near perfect image. Didn't even stop using auto ISO until a week ago

Thanks

[dankearl]

It is a nice image. It is a Mallard, there are lots of them.
This is good and nice to work on your PP, but there is a lot more challenging
stuff out there.
Don't get bogged down on one image, everyday is a new image.....
Also, I use auto iso and find that scrolling it up and down (I am usually +1/3 to expose properly)
Is there a difference in you setting the iso and having to scroll it up and down with the Bg?
Not that I know of..

[arash_hazeghi]

Nah, 7am.

Until there is a button I can push where every image is optimally exposed and in focus Ill do whatever I have to do to get a near perfect image. Didn't even stop using auto ISO until a week ago

Thanks

At 7AM you should also get some golden sun rise tones this image looks more like taken in a partly cloudy day. You can get the perfect image with few processing steps or with many processing steps, at the end of the day if you are happy with the results and the method, that is all that matters.

good luck

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Arash. Thank you for the honest comments. BTW I only edit on my PC...then put the images my laptop for posting. The 500PF was a consideration for a while, but if I get that and sell my Canon 100-400 I'll only then have a prime...and then I'll need a zoom (and a Nikon body). Still interested to see the Canon R5 and the new RF lenses though. Or...maybe a used canon 1DXii and a used 500mm f4...still expensive and a lot heavier...which is why the 500PF is such a good choice here.

[Volkan Akgul]

hi Brain, very good . değerli yorum çok. hepsini bende aldım :)

[John Mack]

The title fits the frame very well. The framing and pose are right on.

[Arthur Morris]

WW,

The processing here is much better. There are no huge differences between the original post and the repost. I love the "peek" but wish that the eye were completely clear of the sixth primary tip.

with love, a