Black Vulture

[Joseph Przybyla]

Last February I found this bird roosting on a low branch most likely spending the night. Image captured at Circle B Bar Reserve in Polk County, Florida. Comments and critique welcomed and appreciated. Thank you for viewing.

Nikon D500
Nikon 500mm PF, camera and lens supported by a Oben carbon fiber monopod with a Wimberly MonoGimbal head
1/1600 F/5.6 Matrix Metering EV O ISO 1800 Auto WB changed in processing, image captured at 500mm (750mm 35mm Equivalent)
Post processed in Lightroom Classic, Photoshop CC 2023 and Topaz Denoise AI
Cropped for composition and presentation

[Jonathan Ashton]

I like this, overall a clean file and the tones look good to me. I am sensing however that the Topaz may have lost some detail in the wings. I don't have latest Topaz but I do have the AI version and I often found I had to try different versions rather than just going for DenNoise AI. It may be worth thinking about using it at differing strengths/values in layers and using masks.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Joe, I seem to recollect this from a while back?????

I like the overall capture, but feel there is too much OOF plumage which is a bit dominant, but then it does throw the head into pin sharpness for detail. Did you shoot any with more DoF as this guy appears to be quite motionless.

I too am wondering that with the introduction of Topaz AI, it has actually flatted any finer detail/definition in the plumage, (do you use Auto?), but then with the bright light hitting the wing its created some deep shadows set against the much lighter wing so that too may have added into the mix.

Beefing up the BKG I think punches out the subject a bit more Joe, however I have never used Topaz AI, but personally I think if you have it, then Topaz DeNoise and using more of PS will provide/deliver better results IMHO.

It may be worth thinking about using it at differing strengths/values in layers and using masks.

Jon I took a look and I feel you need more detail to work with, even using some of PS more deeper applications.

TFS
Steve

[Steve Kaluski]

Joe in Topaz AI what do you have Strength & Detail set too?

[Joseph Przybyla]

Hi Jon and Steve, thank you for viewing and commenting. Here is a screen capture showing where the focus point was and depth of field information. The depth of field was 0.19m about 7.5 inches, most likely not enough for this big bird.

Regarding Topaz Denoise AI I always use the automatic settings.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Here is a redo of the image, doing things a little different this time.

[Steve Kaluski]

Regarding Topaz Denoise AI I always use the automatic settings.

OK Joe, that's was my take, so what I am about to say is down to you whether I'm right or wrong... however strangely enough I was having a discussion about this last week with a friend of mine.

Anything AUTO stay clear of, or at least toggle between the two (original and rendered image) to see the difference and my advice would be to tweak it and that's across the board re Software, whether it's the value settings Values, Opacity, Fill etc and apply as a layer mask.

Now Topaz AI, personally I think it's pants, it's not as good as Denosie, Topaz think differently and have done more upgrades this year I think, however...

Now I bet if you applied AUTO and the Strength and Detail were high, masking/concealing what little detail you had in the plumage, smoothed it ALL out. If you were to drop the numbers so say 4 and 2 and let it render the image, there would be fractionally more perhaps, but to me from what I've seen the numbers are too aggressive. Smoothing out seems to be a trend and I for one don't like it, its as if the image has been Botoxed to an inch of it's pixels, creating a non natural scene, having a hint of grain I feel isn't an issue and I bet if you printed your ISO1800 image with no NR you would not see any noise/grain. In addition, the sharpening applied, is that it, or do you apply sharpening once cropped to output?

So, my conclusion/advice, if you use Topaz and feel your image needs DN at whatever ISO they were shot, then use Topaz DeNoise, select the type Standard, Low etc let it do its thing and if at Auto DN is say 26, 42 or 80, peg it back to 3 or 4 if its ISO 1600, you really don't need a lot, add 1 to the sharpening as I think it will not accept zero and apply sharpening via PS which is the best. see how you get on.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Hi Steve, I read and sort of agree with what you wrote in the previous post. I have tried Lightroom, Neat Image, and Topaz Denoise AI for reducing noise in images. Lightroom is hard to use and I have not had good results with it, most likely not knowing how to use it or wanting to take the time to play with the different sliders. I have read about as much as I could how to use it but never had good results and always slammed the detail in the image. Neat Image sometimes worked okay and other times not so much, once again hurting feather detail or causing artifacts. I know Arash has used Neat Image, being brilliant as a engineer he goes deeply into the advanced settings (I have read one of his books on processing images). I have found after using that Topaz Denoise AI does the best at removing noise in images and preserving feather detail. In using I do not just let click auto and be done. I do examine how it has rendered the image going back and forth from the original to the rendered image. I also use the view with the four different algorithms choosing the best one. You and Andreas are critical of Topaz and AI, most likely because the images look different from what both of you do in Photoshop. You both began processing digital images in Photoshop, it was all there was, I think. Both of you are very skilled in Photoshop, I am not. That is why when you tell me how you processed a image in Photoshop I am lost and ask you to show me the image so I can make mine look like it using Lightroom. Artificial Intelligence is the future, each update in Lightroom has more. Photoshop uses AI behind the scene, so do cameras. The new eye focus is AI. AI has enabled someone like me who does not have your eye and experience to get good results. Thank you for commenting, more to this discussion we will have to have sometime.

P.S. You didn't say if my posted image was better. If it is I will tell you what I did. Thanks again, Steve.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Joe, firstly thanks for the reply, as it highlights well your thoughts and concerns.

Originally NR was best suited for Raw images NOT Tiff, as the pixels are baked in as a Tiff. Now the new softwares work either in Raw or as a Tiff and you may fine Topaz AI works better on a Tiff if you don't already. Secondly it's what you are most comfortable in using and if it delivers what YOU want. I have grown up with PS and learning how to do the stuff PRIOR to all of the Third Party Software, however things have come on in leaps and bounds. many offer Auto because folk don't want to 'process' and are very happy to let the programmes do their thing, as I said to Jon re DXO AKA the 'Sausage machine' , as you drop it in, moments later out it comes....

Like Jon I questioned the IQ because often folk never look at the numbers and so when you move slider back, and let the programme render the image you sometimes start to see how much it's masked detail creating the super smooth, zero detail rendition. Also large crops like the owl doesn't help, you throw away too much data.

It's a crying shame distance is the issue Joe as doing a one2one for a morning would clarify a few of your concerns and give clarity to some of the adjustments too, keeping PP simple is so key, but it's all about having a well exposed, sharp image and minimising cropping. Most Raw converters are the same and drill down in the same way, logically. Not all sliders need to be adjusted and remembering what Contrast does helps. You use Lr and it's recent upgrade is perhaps the best, with the application of masks, the rest is more or less the same, just refined or renamed over the years. But this is Global, PS deals with more specific adjustments and this is where it can transform an image. You don't need to know everything and you couldn't because a lot is not applicable, but adjustments with the aid of Masks & Layers is key, yet simple, in doing so it just elevates the image.

Yes I think the RP is slightly better, but it might perhaps not be the ideal image, perhaps another that has more DoF overall might work better. At the end of the day Joe it's having fun, but also delivering as best you can an image and best portrays that species in an interesting way.

Probably rambling, but I hate typing, it's always better to have a verbal chat because there is an interaction.