Canon 40D, 1/125 sec @ f/6.3, aperture priority, ISO 250,focallength 340 mm, flash fill
It 's easy enough to dial back saturation, as I have done here, until it less accurately resembles the bird, but I will have to take on faith claims of procssing artifacts from more than one experienced critic. It will be a challenge to eliminate anomolies I have yet to see and have no clue as to cause. I will have no way to dletermine if randm remedies I miht try actally address the problem(s) since I have yet to see one.
I like the previous version more. I didnt think the first one was way over saturated, I just thought it has some pixelation and some artifacts in the BG.
The last cardinal had way much red and this one not enough I think an in between would be good !!!
All Canon digital cameras produce super saturated reds Nothing that you are doing It is happening on its own Just go in and reduce saturation in the red channel by 15 points or so In your image the reds were a bit over exposed I reduced the saturation and increase the density in the reds just a bit
No idea how you got the artifacts on the image The indicated procedure will not create them Will post my version and I feel it still needs just a bit less Pose wise I would like to see less space on the left and more on the right side of the frame It is a excellent image with a great pose !!!
Hi Joel. One way to find the BG boogers is to play with hue and saturation at extreme levels as well as extreme sharpening. You should see the patterns in the BG more readily that way and then know where to look for them in the image in it's "normal" processing state.
Thanks to all for your time and expertise. You don't agree on what's wrong, the causes or how to avoid it, but you do agree the image falls short of ideal. In a disappointing way, that's helpful.
The repost is certainly not oversaturated. The look of the plumage and BG are somewhat off. Could you describe your workflow? I'm sure this image can be improved.
Rather than try to describe a variable workflow, I would prefer to continue to submit what I hope will be an improving series of images. Later I will take notes on the several routes I take to an image, depending on its intended use. Just too little time today, but I appreciate your offer of analyses.
One question I have is how one can compare the thumbnail we submit at 72 dpi with a full-size image at 300 dpi. Apples-oranges? Wouldn't a small image that, in my case, may have been been saved several times, be a more likely carrier of processing artifacts?
male cardinal withreduced saturation
Reply With Quote
