Had some fun going through old files cleaning house and trying to find things I never processed before.
1DXM2
600mm f/4
1/2000 at f.8
ISO 2000
Had some fun going through old files cleaning house and trying to find things I never processed before.
1DXM2
600mm f/4
1/2000 at f.8
ISO 2000
Nice one Kurt, it all works and I like the slight open beak. Cool colours, but I might brush in some negative exposure over the perch to help the HL's, it needs some mid-3/4 tones to give it form/depth. Originally I thought another 10% all round so the subject can breathe, but the crop I think works.
Just my take, observations rather than what folk refer to as 'picky'...
- I would loose the small stump protruding past the tail feather
- Sharpening looks like Topaz, it's just a fraction too much, backing off slightly will help, but again this is perceptual sharpening
- To me it's not DoF, but why do the vertical tail feathers have no detail, everything is smoothed out ie Topaz applied, to me there should be some detail and a file like this wouldn't need any NR, where is the noise????
TFS
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
I agree the tail looks smooth, but in my experience Topaz does a great job of retaining details - at least at default values. Just a bit more head turn would have been good IMO, but still ok as is too. The slightly open bill adds some interest. Good call on the vertical comp - cropped from horizontal or original? Neat subject!
Hi Kurt ... a really cool image .
Love the perch , pose , the bicolor BG and the image in general . Head is more than good enough for me.
From the technical POV I would go along with Steve's " picky " observations / suggestions .
Very nice image
TFS Andreas
Hi Dan, you are correct, software has come a long way since I first started with PS in the mid 90's and CS2 (Creative Suite), however I think you hit the nail on the head 'auto'. If we take Topaz, auto does do a good job, but when a file like this has the application applied, backing off with minimal amounts and zero in detail recovery, (God forbid anyone touches that), it will be better. Rarely folk print their files and if they just did one file with and without Topaz, I think they would be very surprised to see the end result and is it 'noise' they are actually seeing, I bet when printed they would not see what they do on screen.I agree the tail looks smooth, but in my experience Topaz does a great job of retaining details - at least at default values.
Just my take Dan.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Agree with the comments given so far, but I love the detail, pose and colours here. The graduated BG is a plus too.
A super image! I like the smooth bicolor background and the killer details. The head angle works for me. Agree that the tail does look very smooth.
Thanks for the comments everyone. Here is the image before running Topaz DeNoise
Yep, I stand by my original comment Kurt, you have form in the tail and so the NR was too aggressive, smoothing it out, loosing detail and no need for any Topaz sharpening, sharpening the subject just needs minimal sharpening at the end stage via PS prior to web output, you only sharpening for output once cropped to the desired size, you would then have a cracking image. The perch might not even need any sharpening based on the above.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.