Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Small Friend

  1. #1
    Avian Moderator Brian Sump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,658
    Threads
    230
    Thank You Posts

    Default Small Friend

    Name:  20220503-Ground-Squirrel-Green-Brian-Sump-BSR59192-Edit-Edit-SHARPEN-v9.jpg
Views: 55
Size:  589.7 KB

    Another ground squirrel photo taken at the Santa Clara ranch in S. Texas.

    Much work to do with regard to processing wildlife photos (non birds). There are some great squirrel photos here for sure, so I'm sure there will be good feedback.

    Canon R5
    600mm
    Tripod
    ISO 3200
    1/1250
    f4

    LR and PS.

  2. #2
    Avian Moderator Brian Sump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,658
    Threads
    230
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Posting an alternate as well to gauge which is preferred

    Name:  20220503-Ground-Squirrel-Green-Brian-Sump-BSR59192-Edit-Edit-SHARPEN-v10.jpg
Views: 52
Size:  585.7 KB

  3. #3
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,291
    Threads
    2,653
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Brian, the first thing that strikes me is the background, I get the impression you have selected the subject and softened bay various means everything else but the subject, I don't know maybe negative Clarity or other similar sliders or positive NR . I don't see the subject and subject only being in focus - surely items in the same plane would be? Out of the two images I would definitely go for the the second image - but again I think you have softened adjacent foliage unnecessarily. Colours look ok but I get the impression the fur is perhaps a little coarse. Maybe more gentle sharpening smaller radius etc would help. Sorry if this sounds harsh it is not meant to be - just offering my impressions of what I saw.

  4. #4
    Avian Moderator Brian Sump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,658
    Threads
    230
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jon, not offensive one bit man.

    I don't do much wildlife processing with fur/hair and I find it a little more challenging. And I'm probably over-thinking things as I try to mix up my WF a bit. How I want to use NR and how I sharpen at the end is different from how I was doing it earlier this year and I definitely have less experience with the effects on the fur, for example, so I need to train my eyes. Same goes for handling contrast, but overall I think I'll get better making present adjustments.

    The truth is, I did adjust tones a bit differently on the subject, however I did not soften anything in landscape in comparison - in fact, right or wrong I sharpened the entire downsized frame as one. I believe the only thing close to the focal plane was the blades of grass at right.

    I went back before the crop and took a totally different approach here. Can certainly see the issues in the plumage now compared with before - hopefully it present better.

    Name:  20220503-Ground-Squirrel-Green-Brian-Sump-BSR59192-Edit-Edit-SHARPEN-v13.jpg
Views: 52
Size:  581.0 KB
    Last edited by Brian Sump; 12-23-2022 at 04:48 PM.

  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 Brian, welcome back into the jaws of the Wildlife forum. I will leave it to you to decide in what I say is correct, however just as an of PP at it's simplest, look at Daniel C's postings.

    And I'm probably over-thinking things as I try to mix up my WF a bit.
    Yes you are over thinking things and simplicity is the key as I have always said to PP, you have to do it in the capture, so apply the same rational thinking to PP.

    The capture is simple, to a degree of what you are shooting ie SS, Aperture Exposure, you know this and you use the Histogram for Exposure (ETTR) and the back of the screen to ensure no blown HL''s or distracting elements and certainly NOT for colour, anyone that does, sell you kit and take up 'watching paint dry'!

    PP is hard because we introduce the biggest factor into the process... US, the human element! As I said before just quietly think, what does the image need, not what would so & so do, or I read this so that's the best, the web is a minefield or honey pots to lead us down rabbit holes we don't need to follow, just quietly look and think, it doesn't need the Kitchen sink too.

    Post Production is so simple, but this requires two Softwares, one is a Raw converter, the second PS, too many folk try to do it ALL in LR/C1 and you simply can't, it's a fact. You don't need to know a huge amount in PS as I said to Dorian, but it's his call, as the little nuances that are often required like Colour balance, Curves, Selective Colour for example can make or break an image, but cannot be achieved in any other way, but it's sharpening within PS that is the best part. There are so many ways to sharpen a file, but PS offers the best and certainly not Topaz. No there is no silver bullet which folk think there is, it's all down to the image and what deliver the best for you and the file ie is it USM, Hi Pass, Channel layer sharpening, Luminosity sharpening but sharpening is the last ever stage you do before flattening and Saving for Web.

    When you look at the image, think, exposure yes it could go a bit brighter, darker, WB yes that needs a tweak, then you can think about colour and any other areas that need 'enhancing' and is that a Global choice or a selective choice, therefore you are making it a conscious discussion by YOU. Don't forget, sliders can go a negative direction too, it's not always a positive direction and Contrast adds sharpening and Dehaze/Clarity can add noise!!! In 'softening' an area what do you gain, is it more standout for the subject, or because 'smoothness' is the in thing these days???? I promise you, if you shot at ISO2500 well exposed and printed an image at 24x16, with Topaz applied, the other print with no NR, you would go for the no NR print.

    Much work to do with regard to processing wildlife photos (non birds).
    There is no difference in processing an Avian image, to a Wildlife image to a Macro, (well you might stack) or a Landscape, they all have the same common property, what is it that I need to do to the image and NOT, have I got all the Software that I can buy, it's again simplicity as you can do all within Lr & PS in you case without diving deep.

    Re techs, at f/4 you have isolated the subject no question, but is there any detail that may have added prior to you softening the surroundings to add depth? Personally I would have gone to f/5.6 just for a little more interest, but your call in how you want to portray the subject. The light seems very even, no tonal depth/layering to the capture, FG/BKG are the same, no they are not, light gets lighter as it moves away from you. The subject apart from the eye, again all has a similar tone, to me the darker fur needs to be darker in it's nature, the grey is around a mid grey the more orange lighter just needs a boost to enrich it. The biggest part I think is the vegetation, it has no character, everything is soft/OOF, just a bit more detail I feel Brian would add, but you may feel it then detracts from the subject, I guess it's a balancing act, as per PP is. POV is on point, likewise the slight turn of the head.

    I don't do much wildlife processing with fur/hair and I find it a little more challenging.
    Like Marmots, Ground squirrels, Tree squirrels often have coarse hair almost wiry, but tightly knitted so it can be challenging, but depending on the capture, cropping and output it might be easy or hard to render.

    The image isn't that far off, for me it's all about the smaller elements that are more perceptive to the viewer, which can often make the biggest difference.

    Just my take.

    TFS
    Steve
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  6. #6
    BPN Member Andreas Liedmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dortmund / Germany
    Posts
    11,211
    Threads
    1,263
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Brian ... good to see you are popping over and leaving your " comfort zone " !!!
    And present your work to the ... " peanut gallery " , as Dorien said recently .

    I quite like the overall image , with the little Squirrel munching in a typical manner . Nice overall color and tones , the comp looks balanced ... would wish for a bit more space to the left .
    I do really like the low perspective in general , but would liked a higher shooting angle , as i feel it is too mushy in the FG ... personal taste .

    Would agree that the fur details are a bit on the coarse side , but without knowing the species quite difficult to say .

    Steve has loaded off a ton of info , will not repeat things .... just for your info i treat most of my images the same in terms of sharpening !!!

    Nice one and TFS Andreas

  7. #7
    Avian Moderator Brian Sump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,658
    Threads
    230
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Steve, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed follow-up. Many things you discuss I resonated with and some things were new perspectives

    Regarding this image, we were actually in a blind shooting birds and he walked up. I was good at f4 to get as much light as possible with the birds, but definitely could have bumped down a couple stops and added ISO or lowered SS here.

    In post, I actually spent a good bit of time trying to create some different tones and colors in the foliage, however I do get your point completely. Also, have taken your prior feedback and read in many other threads about getting some natural color variation from subject and bkg, so thx for that too.



    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Hi Brian, welcome back into the jaws of the Wildlife forum. I will leave it to you to decide in what I say is correct, however just as an of PP at it's simplest, look at Daniel C's postings.


    Yes you are over thinking things and simplicity is the key as I have always said to PP, you have to do it in the capture, so apply the same rational thinking to PP.

    The capture is simple, to a degree of what you are shooting ie SS, Aperture Exposure, you know this and you use the Histogram for Exposure (ETTR) and the back of the screen to ensure no blown HL''s or distracting elements and certainly NOT for colour, anyone that does, sell you kit and take up 'watching paint dry'!

    PP is hard because we introduce the biggest factor into the process... US, the human element! As I said before just quietly think, what does the image need, not what would so & so do, or I read this so that's the best, the web is a minefield or honey pots to lead us down rabbit holes we don't need to follow, just quietly look and think, it doesn't need the Kitchen sink too.

    Post Production is so simple, but this requires two Softwares, one is a Raw converter, the second PS, too many folk try to do it ALL in LR/C1 and you simply can't, it's a fact. You don't need to know a huge amount in PS as I said to Dorian, but it's his call, as the little nuances that are often required like Colour balance, Curves, Selective Colour for example can make or break an image, but cannot be achieved in any other way, but it's sharpening within PS that is the best part. There are so many ways to sharpen a file, but PS offers the best and certainly not Topaz. No there is no silver bullet which folk think there is, it's all down to the image and what deliver the best for you and the file ie is it USM, Hi Pass, Channel layer sharpening, Luminosity sharpening but sharpening is the last ever stage you do before flattening and Saving for Web.

    When you look at the image, think, exposure yes it could go a bit brighter, darker, WB yes that needs a tweak, then you can think about colour and any other areas that need 'enhancing' and is that a Global choice or a selective choice, therefore you are making it a conscious discussion by YOU. Don't forget, sliders can go a negative direction too, it's not always a positive direction and Contrast adds sharpening and Dehaze/Clarity can add noise!!! In 'softening' an area what do you gain, is it more standout for the subject, or because 'smoothness' is the in thing these days???? I promise you, if you shot at ISO2500 well exposed and printed an image at 24x16, with Topaz applied, the other print with no NR, you would go for the no NR print.



    There is no difference in processing an Avian image, to a Wildlife image to a Macro, (well you might stack) or a Landscape, they all have the same common property, what is it that I need to do to the image and NOT, have I got all the Software that I can buy, it's again simplicity as you can do all within Lr & PS in you case without diving deep.

    Re techs, at f/4 you have isolated the subject no question, but is there any detail that may have added prior to you softening the surroundings to add depth? Personally I would have gone to f/5.6 just for a little more interest, but your call in how you want to portray the subject. The light seems very even, no tonal depth/layering to the capture, FG/BKG are the same, no they are not, light gets lighter as it moves away from you. The subject apart from the eye, again all has a similar tone, to me the darker fur needs to be darker in it's nature, the grey is around a mid grey the more orange lighter just needs a boost to enrich it. The biggest part I think is the vegetation, it has no character, everything is soft/OOF, just a bit more detail I feel Brian would add, but you may feel it then detracts from the subject, I guess it's a balancing act, as per PP is. POV is on point, likewise the slight turn of the head.



    Like Marmots, Ground squirrels, Tree squirrels often have coarse hair almost wiry, but tightly knitted so it can be challenging, but depending on the capture, cropping and output it might be easy or hard to render.

    The image isn't that far off, for me it's all about the smaller elements that are more perceptive to the viewer, which can often make the biggest difference.

    Just my take.

    TFS
    Steve

  8. #8
    Avian Moderator Brian Sump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,658
    Threads
    230
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Much appreciated Amigo. Your spacing and fg comments and noted.

    RE the fur, did you see the third RP? It definitely feels more natural than the first IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Liedmann View Post
    Hi Brian ... good to see you are popping over and leaving your " comfort zone " !!!
    And present your work to the ... " peanut gallery " , as Dorien said recently .

    I quite like the overall image , with the little Squirrel munching in a typical manner . Nice overall color and tones , the comp looks balanced ... would wish for a bit more space to the left .
    I do really like the low perspective in general , but would liked a higher shooting angle , as i feel it is too mushy in the FG ... personal taste .

    Would agree that the fur details are a bit on the coarse side , but without knowing the species quite difficult to say .

    Steve has loaded off a ton of info , will not repeat things .... just for your info i treat most of my images the same in terms of sharpening !!!

    Nice one and TFS Andreas

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