-
-
Wildlife Moderator
LOL, not sure about that title David, but I try to shed some light here and there on PP, albeit limited.
My first question, do you think it needs around an 8 degree rotation? Why, to me the HL's in the water are running downhill??? F/10 oh the dilemma, lighter lens and higher f-stop, or the heavier lens with more of a scope for f-stop, a debate I've been having over the last 6 weeks with a good friend in SA who leads tours, so jury is out at the moment, but I think you are loving the flexibility.
I can see where you are going in terms of framing but could you get closer, as from your intro it was more about the chick, rather than subject in the environment? As you say - 'with limited PP skills' I think you did a good job, but hopefully you can see that in getting a good Exposure life becomes a lot easier and more importantly, the image doesn't suffer from truck loads of PS stuff to retrieve the info. I'll be honest I think it's more of an 'exercise image', and sadly it's not grabbing me David, I want more of the chick. Yes, even with 256 colours I can get more from the chick, but....
So, get the right exposure and here, expose for the chick and avoid hefty crops to retain IQ.
TFS
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
LOL, not sure about that title David, but I try to shed some light here and there on PP, albeit limited.
My first question, do you think it needs around an 8 degree rotation? Why, to me the HL's in the water are running downhill??? F/10 oh the dilemma, lighter lens and higher f-stop, or the heavier lens with more of a scope for f-stop, a debate I've been having over the last 6 weeks with a good friend in SA who leads tours, so jury is out at the moment, but I think you are loving the flexibility.
I can see where you are going in terms of framing but could you get closer, as from your intro it was more about the chick, rather than subject in the environment? As you say -
'with limited PP skills' I think you did a good job, but hopefully you can see that in getting a good Exposure life becomes a lot easier and more importantly, the image doesn't suffer from truck loads of PS stuff to retrieve the info. I'll be honest I think it's more of an
'exercise image', and sadly it's not grabbing me David, I want more of the chick. Yes, even with 256 colours I can get more from the chick, but....
So, get the right exposure and here, expose for the chick and avoid hefty crops to retain IQ.
TFS
Steve
First and foremost, I post often to learn and get better as a nature/avian lover with a camera. Your responses are always very helpful toward that goal. Also saw the "crooked water" and tried CW rotation but then chick was crooked to my eye. This is pulled back from the ETTR EXP out of camera but even the bright spots still had detail. There is detail even in the deep shadows (all on subject in this frame) but also the most problematic noise (though very uniform to my eye). Yes, these slower zooms are challenging but with the improvements to these newer bodies quite flexible and useful. When I say overcast, this was late in the day with thick dark clouds over the low sun. BTW, with you in my head, tried lower ISO but these chicks are always in motion running from one offering from parents or older chicks to the other. So, no go in this situation. Yes, for sure f4 glass would be much better. It still amazes me that at f10 (with TC) in way less than ideal light this rig has fast and accurate AF. So, I play and learn thanks to folks like you.
ps
Also, to be considered, Canon did a stellar job with this first generation IBIS which does allow lower ISO in these situations (low light and slow glass) when subject is relatively stationary without need for tripod.
Thanks again, as always mate.
-
Wildlife Moderator
David (The Thinker) , choosing the R6 was definitely the way to go for you, the noise aspect is superb, likewise colour, I think you may have had a few issues with the R5 and the resolution aspect, purely because of your thirst to push and explore.
Regarding the rotation, well forget any exact/precise rotation, this is where the eye(s) is/are your best friend, if they think it's off, then its off, so any rotation is primarily done - by eye. Better to go with a higher SS and more ISO than blurred fur, right decision. Folk thought I was mad shooting Musk Ox at 1/2500, well with a coat that is over 2m in length, any breeze will blur so like the chick you want to freeze things.
Cheers
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
I went back and found one a little closer, with no bright water and left exposed as out of camera. Also, more dynamic pose running down the bank as parents sounded the alarm. Looking forward to your feedback on that one.. Thanks again mate. Appreciated as always.
-
Super Moderator
I'm liking the soft colours here, and the dark subject looks good against it. And like you, I love that little wing. I was wondering about rotation as well, and one good way to go about it is the bird's eye alignment. If you "browser crop" you'll see one just higher than the other - and it's not as drastic as the BG lines so you can see that somewhere in the middle would be about right. I'll assume some NR was performed?
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Yes, thought I put it in the description. Bumped the noise sliders up a touch in DPP and one round of NI on the BG (every thing but the subject) only. Thanks for the help/advice on the rotation. Always appreciate your astute inputs, advice and help.
-
Wildlife Moderator
David in relation to noise/grain within the image, your approach is the way to go and the correct way, to apply NR at the Raw stage and never on a ‘baked/exported’ tiff. This is what it’s design for and the image is therefore far better (in terms of IQ/look/appearance) and means you have a file that is fit for purpose and further manipulation within PSCC will deliver the best results.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Super Moderator
Steve, are you saying that one should only ever perform NR during raw conversion? Because I've never done that - I've only ever done it on on the exported tif in PS, because I have better control on localized NR with a preferred plug-in. Not saying your method is wrong (there are many ways to skin a cat), but many raw converters are clunky or not up to par for NR.
-
Wildlife Moderator
Steve, are you saying that one should only ever perform NR during raw conversion?
110% Dan, why do you think NR is within the Raw converter, so without question NR should always be applied prior to export and the file will be better. With a 16 Tiff, it's hard baked. I have never applied NR to a Tiff unless it's for a RP where I have no option. Sorry Dan, but that's the right way, others will disagree and that fine, but if you are looking for the correct route here, then NR is applied to the Raw prior to export.
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Super Moderator
It's all good, we'll agree to disagree on this point