Photo critique please. [Archive] - Surfbirds Bird Forums

Colin Key

March 23rd, 2009, 07:29 PM

Hello James,

The composition here is good but the image quality is not; they are all blurred, soft, out of focus and quite "noisy".

I know that your camera can produce good results - remember the Robin which I "fiddled" with for you?:

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/107825110.jpg

It would be useful to give the basic shooting data and camera settings (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc), and whether you have shot in RAW or JPEG.

I suspect that the poor IQ is a result of low light meaning that you were forced to use low shutter speed, wide aperture and maybe high ISO? In those circumstances, any camera movement will result in a poor IQ and there is nothing you can do in post-processing to rectify that.

This same species was shot at 1/1250 f/8.0 at 560mm and ISO 400:

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/106458347.jpg

If you want to send me one of the original "out of camera" files (do you still have my email address?) I will be happy to have a look at it.

At least you know (from that lovely Robin shot) that your camera is capable of 'coming up with the goods', so it might just be a question of improving technique.

Regards,

Colin

exeter_uk

March 23rd, 2009, 08:57 PM

Colin,

These shots were taken as Jpeg's, i have however started to shoot in RAW, but not on this occasion.

I suspect you are right that a combination of lack of skill and lack of light is behind the poor IQ!

The shots were taken with f/4.4 ISO 100 and shutter speed between 1/125 and 1/160 @ 486mm.

The small CCD sensor on my camera, especially when compared with a DSLR, means that with anything other then perfect light, the shutter speed needs to be slow/aperture wide. I could never, even with much more skill, produce images like yours with your equipment and Portuguese light!

I would be interested to know in low light, what should be sacrificed i.e increase ISO, increase aperture or reduce shutter speed, or should it be a combination of all 3.

I am still new to photography, and if a subject is still like this guy was, i will generally use the auto function, i only normally "play" with manual setting when i'm trying to shoot something in flight, or something that wont sit still, or if i have lots of time to experiment with the settings.

James

Colin Key

March 23rd, 2009, 09:27 PM

As a quick answer James, I would say "up" the ISO to at least 400 which would give you a much faster shutter speed - I often use ISO 800 (or higher) for birds in flight. But, the light available is the major factor and we can't do anything about that (unless you move down here!). I often find myself shooting at shutter speeds of 1/5,000s or even up to 1/8,000s - you cannot do that in the U.K.

Do you use a "third party" noise reduction program? I have "Neat Image" as a plug-in to PS Elements 6 and it is amazing (the two other contenders are "Noise Ninja" and "Noise Ware") - all better than Photoshop's own in-built noise reduction tools.

Stick at it!!,

Colin :smile:

Edit: James, there is a steep learning curve involved here. If someone gave you £10,000 to go out and buy the best gear (actually, you would now need £14,000!!!) it would not mean that you would immediately take great shots. Use what you have to hone your skills in actually taking the photos and processing the images and think about 'moving up' in terms of gear in the future. What you are doing right now is great (but I will criticise when appropriate!).

Cheers,

Colin

exeter_uk

March 23rd, 2009, 09:35 PM

Thanks colin, one of the drawbacks of my camera, and of "bridge" camera's in general, is that at higher ISO (anything above 400) you tend to get higher levels of noise. I will try shooting at 400 ISO in future though.

At the moment i am using the noise reduction included in PSE, but on your recommendation Neat Image is high on my list of things to buy. This should counteract the noise i can get at higher ISO levels.

Thanks for the advice,
James

Colin Key

March 23rd, 2009, 09:46 PM

James,

Please feel free to send me an image (RAW file) for comments to: chkey@clix.pt (unless you have my other 'prime' email address).

Best,

Colin

AndyB

March 24th, 2009, 05:46 AM

Both these shots posted above: Robin and Stonechat are excellent!

PaulW

March 24th, 2009, 09:00 AM

Hi Colin

Dont know if you've got my txt email but the one I tried to send to chkey@clix.pt bounced saying your mailbox was full!
regards
Paul

Colin Key

March 24th, 2009, 03:01 PM

Apologies to those people trying to send me RAW files to the email address I gave above - apparently several people attempted to do so at the same time and that ("freebie") mail box just overloaded.

If anyone wants to contact me by email with large attachments please PM me here and I will send you my "prime" email address, but I do not want to publish that on open forum.

Colin

MichaelF

March 24th, 2009, 07:47 PM

Is it ok to send COOKED files to that address?

Colin Key

March 24th, 2009, 08:05 PM

Is it ok to send COOKED files to that address?

Yes (but please, NO gravy!), but unless I have the original "straight out of camera" file it is not possible for me to say what is wrong or to have a go at processing the original myself ("double cooking" just makes things worse).

Colin

P.S. I will PM you my "proper" email address.

MichaelF

March 24th, 2009, 10:28 PM

(but please, NO gravy!)Hmmm . . . they'd come with their source :D

What I would like to know is why:
1. I look through my scope, and the field of view is perfectly sharp right out to the edge
2. I take a photo with my camera, and the pic is reasonably sharp all over, but . .
3. I take a photo through my scope, and only the very centre is focussed, the majority away from the centre is blurred with spherical aberration.

Why?

How can I get photos through my scope that are sharper out to the edge?

Pic 37a (left) is cropped from the centre of a photo, pic 37b (right) is cropped from the top left edge of the same photo.

Colin Key

March 24th, 2009, 10:37 PM

Hi Colin

Dont know if you've got my txt email but the one I tried to send to chkey@clix.pt bounced saying your mailbox was full!
regards
Paul

Paul,

Have at last received your RAW file of the Redshank. This is just a quick "bash" at editing the image (literally 30 seconds), I will have another go when I get the time. The original capture is GOOD, I like it:

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/110583906.jpg

I adjusted highlights & shadows in "levels", increased the colour saturation, increased contrast and brightness very slightly, used Neat Image to reduce noise, sharpened with "adjust sharpness" in Photoshop (not quite as aggressive as "Unsharp Mask"), reduced image dimensions to approximately 850x850 pxls, made another pass of "adjust sharpness", and then saved the file as "Maximum Quality JPEG".

It took a fraction of the time to actually do it then it did to describe it!!!

I might sharpen it a bit more if I were to have another go, but there is a real danger over-sharpening introducing JPEG 'artefacts' and producing a synthetic image

Best wishes,

Colin

michael23

March 24th, 2009, 10:38 PM

hi michael, what setup do you use for your digiscoping?

MichaelF

March 24th, 2009, 10:48 PM

what setup do you use for your digiscoping?
Camera is a Fuji FinePix E550, scope is a Kowa TSN somethingorother (can't remember the model number) with a 20x wide angle eyepiece and 60mm objective. I just hold the camera up to the scope by hand (haven't got one of those gadgets for clamping the camera to the scope).

Just occasionally when the bird is very close I get some tolerably decent pics, but if it is anything more than about 15m away, it comes out ..... And of course it is very rarely that birds are that close, and staying still enough!

Colin Key

March 24th, 2009, 10:54 PM

Hello MichaelF,

I would also like to know what "set up" you are using for digiscoping ('scope, camera and adapter).

I had what I thought at the time was the best combo: Swaro ATS80HD + Nikon Coolpix 4500 + various adapters - it is (at the risk of offending some members) a total load of $hit in photographic terms. Digiscoping has "come and gone", RIP.

You might get lucky with a few shots under ideal conditions but, as a photographic medium/technique it is rubbish.

But, the alternative is very expensive (and also very rewarding). Not everyone can afford to indulge.

Colin

PaulW

March 24th, 2009, 11:30 PM

Thanks Colin, I shall endeavour to achieve another 'Good'! I've got lots of pics of this little Redshank as he was being most obliging, I even convinced my partner that he only had one leg and got battered when he strolled off!!!
regards
Paul

michael23

March 25th, 2009, 12:11 AM

Camera is a Fuji FinePix E550, scope is a Kowa TSN somethingorother (can't remember the model number) with a 20x wide angle eyepiece and 60mm objective. I just hold the camera up to the scope by hand (haven't got one of those gadgets for clamping the camera to the scope).

Just occasionally when the bird is very close I get some tolerably decent pics, but if it is anything more than about 15m away, it comes out ..... And of course it is very rarely that birds are that close, and staying still enough!

hi michael, your main problem regading the focus will be down to following factors, you are hand holding , giving you camera shake, and the other thing that is deffinately posing a problem is that your e550 lens is not flush with your eyepiece, the best thing for you to do is invest in an adapter. there are plenty of these around to suit all budgets, the one i use was purchased from lce but can also be found on ebay, here: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Universal-Scope-Digital-Camera-Adapter-digiscoping-h202_W0QQitemZ330315395462QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Te lescopes?hash=item330315395462&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1690%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318
as colin says you will get mixed results, i have gone from pathetic to acceptible! so keep on trying. with the right light and adapter you can pull off some good images.
here are a couple of my my "better" images, straight from my fuji f40,
http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv283/michael23_photo/scillypart3020.jpg

http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv283/michael23_photo/bluetit.jpg
blue tit was taken in dull daylight at iso 1600! the buff bellied pipit was at iso 400, a fairly bright day but no sun light.
also focusing is a pain! unless u can switch ur camera to mf, but not many do that, unless you spend more money

MichaelF

March 25th, 2009, 12:56 AM

Can't see that I'm likely to get an adaptor, putting it on and taking it off all the time would reduce even further the number of pics I can get. At least hand-holding is tolerably fast when needs be. And what does "suit all budgets" mean? Can I get one for a fiver? Or preferably, a bit less?

On the subject of pipits, here's one of my better pics, Rock Pipit. It was nice and close, which helped!

Colin Key

March 25th, 2009, 10:56 AM

MichaelF,

That is not at all bad for a digiscoped shot, especially under those lighting conditions. I have made a couple of adjustments in Photoshop: altered "shadows & highlights" to bring out more detail on the bird's back, increased colour saturation, brightness and contrast slightly, removed some noise with "Neat Image", and slightly sharpened.

There are limits to what you can do to a JPEG (as opposed to a RAW or TIFF image) that has already been "cooked".

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/110606241.jpg

When I was digiscoping with my Swaro 'scope and Coolpix 4500 I had both the Swaro DCA (just a tube connecting camera to scope) and that ridiculously overpriced DCB (the swing-away digital camera base) - I gave up with both. I now carry a Panasonic DMC-FX9 for which I have made an adapter (a cut down pill box of the appropriate diameter) which slides over the extended camera lens and I then just hold it up to the scope if I want to take a "record" shot - it produces better images than the Coolpix with Swaro adapters ever did, and takes seconds to set up.

Colin

Joe Ray

March 25th, 2009, 07:06 PM

...but on your recommendation Neat Image is high on my list of things to buy. This should counteract the noise i can get at higher ISO levels.
Hi James

A basic version of Neat Image is free to download on the Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com/) website. If you want a more advanced version, pricing details can be found here (http://www.neatimage.com/purchase.html).

Joe

MichaelF

March 25th, 2009, 08:18 PM

That is not at all bad for a digiscoped shot, especially under those lighting conditions. I have made a couple of adjustments in Photoshop: altered "shadows & highlights" to bring out more detail on the bird's back, increased colour saturation, brightness and contrast slightly, removed some noise with "Neat Image", and slightly sharpened.
Thanks! Can see it's slightly different (and better!)

Forgot to mention, the original is larger, I reduced it to 50% height & width so as to be able to get it inside the posting size limit of the forum.

Colin Key

March 25th, 2009, 09:32 PM

..... I reduced it to 50% height & width so as to be able to get it inside the posting size limit of the forum.

There is no image size or file size limit on this forum.

Is your camera capable of shooting RAW images?

Did you get my PM with my email address - if you ever want to send me a large, original "out of camera" (uncooked) file I will be happy to advise on processing.

Colin :beer:

exeter_uk

March 26th, 2009, 12:23 AM

Hi James

A basic version of Neat Image is free to download on the Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com/) website. If you want a more advanced version, pricing details can be found here (http://www.neatimage.com/purchase.html).

Joe

Thanks Joe, have downloaded and had a play with it! I have noticed that the demo version only allows me to apply noise reduction to 1024 x 1024 of an image. This would mean to reduce the noise of an entire image, i would have to resize it first, is this a problem?

James

MichaelF

March 26th, 2009, 02:56 AM

There is no image size or file size limit on this forum.

Yep, there is: go to the 'Go Advanced' reply, click on 'Manage Attachments', and you'll see the size limits

Is your camera capable of shooting RAW images?

Not that I know of - but as I said, I don't even know what a raw image is :puzzled:

Did you get my PM with my email address - if you ever want to send me a large, original "out of camera" (uncooked) file I will be happy to advise on processing.

Yep thanks! You should've had a reply already, did it not arrive??

admin

March 26th, 2009, 06:20 AM

looks like we need larger upload limits especially for this subforum so just upped it to 5mb and no image size restrictions for jpegs.
________
Landy (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_Landy)

Colin Key

March 26th, 2009, 10:20 AM

Thanks Joe, have downloaded and had a play with it! I have noticed that the demo version only allows me to apply noise reduction to 1024 x 1024 of an image. This would mean to reduce the noise of an entire image, i would have to resize it first, is this a problem?

James

James,

As I recall, the free download is just a trial version to show you what the program is capable of doing - it will not allow you to apply NR to an entire image.

For the price, I reckon it is worth investing in the full version (I only have the "Home" not the "Pro" version).

Colin

Colin Key

March 26th, 2009, 10:27 AM

Yep, there is: go to the 'Go Advanced' reply, click on 'Manage Attachments', and you'll see the size limits

Ah, I was thinking of upploading images to the gallery for which there is no restriction

Not that I know of - but as I said, I don't even know what a raw image is :puzzled:

RAW is a large "lossless" file format which contains the maximum amount of digital data and allows much more leeway for processing in Photoshop, etc.

Yep thanks! You should've had a reply already, did it not arrive??

Nope.

What are you using to process images? (you have probably said elsewhere, but I have forgotten).

Colin

MichaelF

March 26th, 2009, 10:32 AM

What are you using to process images? (you have probably said elsewhere, but I have forgotten).

Photoshop (I'm assuming that's what you're asking!)

Colin Key

March 26th, 2009, 01:59 PM

Photoshop (I'm assuming that's what you're asking!)

Is it the full "Photoshop CS" (now on version 4) or "Photoshop Elements" (latest version is 7 for a PC, 6 for a Mac)?

Colin

MichaelF

March 26th, 2009, 10:00 PM

Is it the full "Photoshop CS" (now on version 4) or "Photoshop Elements" (latest version is 7 for a PC, 6 for a Mac)?
Sorry, no idea! Ah, looked, it is "Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0"

michael23

March 26th, 2009, 10:53 PM

does neat image work with any of the elements series?

Colin Key

March 27th, 2009, 02:51 PM

does neat image work with any of the elements series?

Yes, it does. I never had PS Elements 5, I went from v4 to v6. I think that you would find the new features of v7 (available for PC but not Mac) are a great improvement on v5; I am nor sure whether you can buy an "upgrade" (via download) or if you have to but the whole package again. The Adobe site should tell you.

Colin

Colin Key

March 27th, 2009, 02:56 PM

Michael,

Neat Image is not the only NR program available. The other two front runners are "Noiseware" and "Noise Ninja" (Google them). Noiseware gets very good reviews but I found it was not fully compatible with a Mac. All of these have a free trial download if you visit their websites.

Colin

PaulW

March 28th, 2009, 10:18 AM

Colin Key

March 28th, 2009, 02:24 PM

http://surfbirds.com/albums/data/500/medium/Robin3.jpg

hi Colin

first time I've tried this insert lark so if it doesnt work its a Robin in my album! I tried to follow your suggestions on my Redshank in PSE7 the only thing missing is NR software. I hope you dont mind but I have sent to you the NEF of this so as you have something to compare it to! look forward to your comments
cheers
Paul

Hello Paul,

Received the RAW image O.K. via email.

To insert an image into a post you need to have it uploaded to a photo-hosting website such as Photobucket, Flickr, etc (I use Photobucket and PBase - hate Flickr) which will assign your image a unique URL (Uniform Resource Locator), a string of words, codes and numbers which identify your image on the Web. You then copy & paste that URL into the drop-down box which appears when you click the image icon (postcard of mountain with stamp) in the second line of the header. BUT, you must ensure that the URL ends with "-------.jpg". Some URL allocators do this, some don't.

When you do upload an image I would suggest that the image size is no greater than 850 pixels on the longest edge (unless it is a "pano" when you could go to 1200) but at maximum file-size (i.e. image quality).

Your shot of the Robin is very good but I felt that: 1. It is too small in the overall picture and a lot of the twigs and foliage are distracting, and 2. The fact that it is a back-lit "contra jour" shot leaves little room for manipulation.

So, I have heavily cropped the image, adjusted "highlights & shadows" to lift more detail from less well-lit parts of the bird, increased colour saturation, brightness and contrast, applied noise reduction with Neat Image, and sharpened with "unsharp-mask" as much as I could to make the image "crisp" without introducing JPEG artifacts (false bright pixels at edges of high contrast). I then reduced the image dimensions and applied another pass of "adjust sharpness" (not as vicious as "unsharp mask") before saving as a maximum quality JPEG.

This processing (in PS Elements 6 on a Mac) took me less than 30 seconds because I missed out my usual interim step of converting to a TIFF file (it is Saturday and my Mrs. has other things for me to do!!. If I get time I might have another "bash" at it. If you look at the few areas which are well-lit you can see a fair bit of detail, but the areas in shadow (the bird's breast) are rather bland - there is no solution for this.

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/110683306.jpg

It is also on my PBase site with a frame and against a black background which improves the appearance:

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/110683306

Colin

PaulW

March 28th, 2009, 05:04 PM

looks great, I really appreciate your giving me your time. I'll get one of the hosts you suggest. Thanks again learning slowly!!
regards
Paul

Colin Key

March 28th, 2009, 06:55 PM

Paul,

I had intended having another go at this but realised that my RAW converter (Canon's Digital Photography Professional) will not work on Nikon files to convert them to an 8-bit TIFF. It is the TIFF file that I do all the post-processing on before converting to a JPEG for web publication (by the way, never use the "save for web" option as it compresses the file too much and undoes a lot of the processing - always use "save as" and choose JPEG, Maximum Quality).

The important thing is that if you shoot in RAW format you always have the original "lossless" file to go back and work on when you get better software and your skills improve - that is not the case if you shoot in JPEG (which already has some irreversible in-camera processing done to the images).

As a web-hosting site Photobucket is very good, and free. If you want to start creating your own professional-looking galleries then I would suggest PBase or Zenfolio (there is an annual charge for both, but not very much - I think I pay $23 US for my PBase site). I have been looking at Zenfolio and took out the trial version - it has some advantages over PBase, but not quite so easy to use. Or, if you have 25 hours a day to spare you might consider creating your own website! - I am considering doing so.

Cheers,

Colin

Joe stockwell

March 29th, 2009, 05:31 PM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3394838683_06e83e6718_o.jpg

had a 40D for a bit now, higher ISO is so much easier to use with this

ISO 800, F8, 1/1000 usual treatment
Joe

PaulW

April 10th, 2009, 07:55 PM

Colin Key

April 11th, 2009, 09:29 AM

http://surfbirds.com/albums/showphoto.php?photo=7935

Hi Colin

As it seemed that my Robin attached itself I've tried the same again, I would appreciate your comments both on the image itself as well as composition

regards
Paul

Hi Paul,

If you have sent another image to me via email, I have not as yet received it - did you use my "sapo" address?

Colin

Colin Key

April 11th, 2009, 02:20 PM

Hello Paul,

Received your images. Your attempt at processing isn't at all bad, but I think you need to resize and save the edited JPEG at a much small size (image dimension, not file size).

Here is my version:

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/111173581.jpg

If you want to see it with a frame on my PBase site go here: http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/111173581/large

I have not cropped quite as closely as your version since the "setting" is quite attractive. With the bird being so small in the original image it would not be advisable to crop any further without losing image quality.

The processing I did (in PS Elements 6) was:

1. Applied automatic "shadows & highlights" tool

2. Increased colour saturation by +10

3. Increased brightness and contrast by +6 and +4 respectively

4. Applies noise reduction in "Neat Image" using "auto-profile

5. Sharpened with "Un-sharp Mask"

6. Resized to 900 pixels maximum dimension

7. Applied a weak pass of "adjust sharpness" to re-sized image

8. Saved as a JPEG at maximum (12) quaility.

This image would have been much better if you had been closer to the bird. Exposing correctly for a bird with pure white and dark plumage in bright lighting is a nightmare, but this isn't at all bad - the whites on the upper breast are "blown" and cannot be recovered, but no matter (it is always better to under-expose and try to lift detail from the darker parts in processing).

I note from the exif that this was shot at 1/800s f/5.6 and ISO 200. Increasing the ISO to 400 and stopping down the aperture to 6.3 or 7.1 might have increased the sharpness slightly.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes,

Colin

PaulW

April 11th, 2009, 03:33 PM

Hi Colin:notworthy:

learning slowly!! one thing though did you convert to a Tiff and do the processing at that point, ie nef:tiff:jpeg and was it still a tiff when you noise reduced?

cheers
Paul

Colin Key

April 11th, 2009, 05:26 PM

Hi Colin:notworthy:

learning slowly!! one thing though did you convert to a Tiff and do the processing at that point, ie nef:tiff:jpeg and was it still a tiff when you noise reduced?

cheers
Paul

Hello Paul,

No, I did not convert to TIFF. I think I said last time (with the Robin shot) that my software will not convert Nikon RAW files to TIFFs so I had to import it straight into PS as a RAW file and work on that. There may be a way around this but I haven't found it yet! Through choice I would always work on an 8-bit TIFF (converted from the original RAW using Canon's Digital Photography Professional) - PS Elements cannot cope with 16-bit TIFFs, which would be better still.

I posted the results on here rather sending you an email since I thought it might be useful to others. As I said, there are limitations to what you can do when the bird occupies such a small proportion of the original image and although processing software is very clever, it cannot work miracles. I would suggest taking a bag of old bread to a gull or duck locality, get some "frame-filling" shots, and practice your processing on those.

All the best,

Colin