critique for tern photos please

[exeter_uk]

Hi everyone,

I would appreciate some critique on these photo's of common tern i took today. They were all shot in RAW and converted to tiff for processing and then saved to jpeg. Havent done anything special to any of them, just the usual shadows and highlights, sharpening etc.

Thanks
James

[MichaelF]

Rotate 5° clockwise?

[Colin Key]

Would agree with Michael about rotating #3 (to get the water line horizontal), but 2º would probably suffice.

#2 is the most interesting shot - I will have a look at it in PS.

Colin

[MichaelF]

For pic#3, a 3° CW rotation would get it horizontal, but pic#1 is 5° out (I measured it, not just guessing)

[Colin Key]

As I have said before, it is difficult to "re-cook" an image and get anything "palatable" - If you want to send me the original RAW file James (you have my email address?) I could do better.

This has adjusted "Levels", "Brightness & Contrast" increased, noise reduction in Neat Image and then a light pass of "Unsharp Mask":

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/Tern.jpg


Colin

P.S. James, I cannot get the Exif info from your shots. It would be useful in future if you added basic camera settings and shooting info (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc.).

[Colin Key]

For pic#3, a 3° CW rotation would get it horizontal, but pic#1 is 5° out (I measured it, not just guessing)

There is nothing in #1 (or #2) to register horizontality against. The grassy profile in the background could be a slope.

Colin

[exeter_uk]

Thanks guys,

Good point about the exif data, i will note this in future.

Thanks for having a go at my image Colin, if you dont mind i have sent you the RAW file to have a play with (you should be able to get the exif data from that),

Colin, when using unsharp mask what sort of numbers do you use? As i is total guess work for me! Also, when processing an image will you have a couple of separate goes at it then choose your favorite, or do you just have the one go?

I think i really need to purchase neat image!

James

[MichaelF]

There is nothing in #1 (or #2) to register horizontality against. The grassy profile in the background could be a slope.

Nothing absolutely definitive, but when the belt of Phragmites reeds (which, growing in a marsh, would be level) and the background tree canopy line are so close to parallel, it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

[Red-eyed Video]

Hi everyone,

I would appreciate some critique on these photo's of common tern.
Thanks
James

James, I hope you don't mind me highjacking your thread, no need to start another one with the same title I hope you'll agree.

These were taken today in Northants. Also does anyone have any suggestions for a programme for processing RAW, I have Photoshop CS and I don't want to go to the expense of CS4 just for RAW processing.

Thanks.

p.s. be as critical as you can I can take it. :puzzled:

[Colin Key]

Dave,

These are nice images (and great compositions), but the file sizes and image dimensions are way too small.

What gear (camera body and lenses) and software are you using?

If you are using Canon, then their own "DPP" software is the best RAW to TIFF converter available.

Colin

[Red-eyed Video]

Dave,

These are nice images (and great compositions), but the file sizes and image dimensions are way too small.

What gear (camera body and lenses) and software are you using?

If you are using Canon, then their own "DPP" software is the best RAW to TIFF converter available.

Colin

That's nice of you to say so, I thought I read somewhere that the maximum size was 640 pixels, I simply exported them from iPhoto to desktop. (I've just notice this applies to GIF not JPEG).

The camera is a Nikon D40 with a Sigma 70-300 AF APO set on manual, 400 ISO at 5.6, 1600 sec, exposure +1 with just a little sharpen and no noise reduction.

This one should be BIGGER.

p.s. I'm looking to upgrade all my gear.

[Colin Key]

That's nice of you to say so, I thought I read somewhere that the maximum size was 640 pixels, I simply exported them from iPhoto to desktop. (I've just notice this applies to GIF not JPEG).

The camera is a Nikon D40 with a Sigma 70-300 AF APO set on manual, 400 ISO at 5.6, 1600 sec, exposure +1 with just a little sharpen and no noise reduction.

This one should be BIGGER.

p.s. I'm looking to upgrade all my gear.

Hello Dave,

That last image was much better. The size limit for image files apertains to uploading onto the main Surfbirds website. There is no limit on the forum (which is quite a luxury!!). I would recommend 800 pixels maximum dimension and saving your final JPEG at maximum quality (never use the "Save for Web" facility, the compression undoes any processing you have made).

All my gear is Canon which makes it rather difficult to advise you at a detailed level. If you are going to upgrade your gear would you consider a change to Canon?

In your earlier post you asked about RAW converters; there are third-party programs available ("Google" for them) but I have always found them inferior to the camera manufacturer's software - I use Canon's "DPP" (Digital Photography Professional which comes free with the camera - I believe that with Nikon you have to buy the equivalent).

Although I am a Mac user I find that iPhoto is a total waste of time. I also have PS CS4 (as a "borrowed" copy) which I never use. I use PS Elements 6 (the latest version for Mac, although PS Elements 7 is available for PC) which does everything I want to do (and probably a lot more besides), and is also a RAW converter (although not as good as Canon's DPP). This is dirt cheap from Amazon and might suit your needs better.

I have posted some general processing guidelines elsewhere on here if you care to search for the threads.

All the best,

Colin

[Colin Key]

Just a bit of noise reduction (Neat Image) and a bit more sharpening:


http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/tern5copy.jpg

But it is very difficult doing anything to a JPEG which has already been "done". There are some JPEG artifacts (white fringes along areas of contrast) beginning to show in this version.

Colin

[Red-eyed Video]

Goodness gracious, that looks stunning, did I take that? It looks 100% better than the original though I do notice a softening of the white underwings, a kind of cotton wool effect.

My main problem with the photos I posted was the amount of shadow and lack of colour on the bill and whether anything could be done about it.

I shoot in RAW but don't fully understand what the reason is for converting until the processing has been done. iPhoto will convert to jpeg or tiff for processing in Photoshop but that defeats the object doesn't it?

I would have bought Canon as I sold my first D40 to upgrade just as the price hike hit and I bought a second hand D40 as a quick replacement and a lens to match.

Money no object (and a pain-free back) I would go for a Canon 1Ds Mark 111 or more realistically a 40D or 450D with a 100-400 lens.

I've read many of your posts giving advice and I know which one you prefer but I've got a zillion SD cards and no Compact Flash!

One other thing I don't understand is histograms but that's another matter. Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'm years behind but catching up quickly I hope. :smile:

[Colin Key]

My main problem with the photos I posted was the amount of shadow and lack of colour on the bill and whether anything could be done about it.



Photographing white birds in bright light is very challenging. I find it best to underexpose a little to avoid "burning" the highlights which is an irretrievable loss of detail. Have you tried using one of the selection tools in Photoshop to make adjustments to only one part of an image (e.g. lightening the shadows to bring out more detail on the underwing, or increasing the hue and saturation of the bird's bill colour, etc)?

Colin

[AndyB]

Hijacking James and Dave's very good tern photos thread with some Forster's shots from today. I have the raw if anyone (Colin) thinks they could make some of these less noisy? Any other photoshop feedback?

Shot with Pentax K20D (55mm lens) handheld

[Colin Key]

Hello Andy,

There is a fair bit of noise in these tern images. I have had a go at one of them - I don't know whether you think it is an improvement or not:

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/IMGP1185.jpg


I have adjusted levels slightly and selectively lightened the bird's black cap. I have done just a bit of noise reduction in Neat Image, but I have not applied any sharpening. It is a pity that there is no "catchlight" in the bird's eye - I could have added one artificially or, what I sometimes preferably do, copy and paste (using a selection tool) the eye from another shot, but that is a bit time consuming to get it perfect.

I would happily have another go but there is no point in sending me the original RAW image since I cannot convert it with my software (I can only do so with Canon RAW images). Are you able to convert the RAW to an 8-bit TIFF and send me that?

I will PM you my email address.

Colin

[Colin Key]

After suffering "post Wimbledon final" syndrome :eek: I have had another tweak at this one Andy:

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/AndyTerncopy.jpg

Cheers,

Colin

[Steve Fletcher]

The problem looks like you have undereposed the shots, and tried to recover them using the photoshop "shadow/highlight tool", this will always give a pronounced halo around the image in the sky, which always looks awful, and will of course increase the noise at the same time. Getting the exposure right in camera will always result in far better images than a spell of photoshopping.
Having said all that, white birds in flight are a nightmare, you always have to cherry pick the good images, as there will always be far more poor ones than good, an image showing upper and lower wings at the same time can never be exposed correctly, something will always be under or over exposed, so just keep trying.

[AndyB]

Definitely looking better Colin. Sent you the RAW with sendthisfile. I recommend this FREE service for anyone who needs to occasionally send very large files (too large for email) - sendthisfile.com has a free service (in addition to paid levels).

Hi Steve, yes I think these shots are what they are and there's only so much photoshop can do. I need to work on getting the exposure right from the start. Your shots are very impressive. We have great light out here in California too. I think I also need to get up earlier to overcome the heat haze I seemed to be shooting through all weekend.

[Steve Fletcher]

Daytime shots are a waste of time here at the moment, as you correctly surmised, the heat haze is impossible to shoot through, early mornings and late evenings are the key, roll on winter when its down to 20 degrees and uninterrupted atmosphere.

[Colin Key]

Andy,

I agree with what Steve says, and I have stated on another thread that shooting white birds in bright sunlight (especially when the bird has a black cap) is a nightmare. Out of 200 shots I would expect to bin 190+.

I have received your RAW file of that tern image and I have to say that your original processing was pretty good. Overall the shot was underexposed (which is better then overexposed) but still the highlights on the right upper wing were "blown". I also hadn't realised how heavily cropped that shot was which you first posted, so I think that you did well. My actions of selectively lifting detail from the shadows and a touch more sharpening after noise noise reduction have only improved it marginally.

The old adage of "get it right in the camera" has a lot going for it, so I think that experimenting with exposure might be worthwhile (just as an aside, there is an excellent book called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, published by Amphoto Books, 2004 ISBN 0-8174-6300-3 which I have found very useful).

Since I have no experience with your camera, it is difficult to advise on a "push this, press that" level. Are you using spot, centre-weighted or matrix metering?

Stick at it!!

Best,

Colin