Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
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