ID help please and some post processing help

[Bert]

Morning to all of you, I shot this bird early morning just when the sun came up. The little ones always get me confused. Some help would be much appreciated. It´s probably a warbler but ..............

Thanks

Bert

[Colin Key]

Looks like a Stonechat (female and/or juvenile) to me Bert.

Colin

P.S. There is a lot of "noise" in the last few images you have posted (hence my previous comment about I.Q.) - are you making any attempt to remove it with post-processing software?

[Bert]

Hi Colin,

No I don´t. Only thing I do is crop the images. My camera does not have the possibility to make RAW files, only jpeg. But any suggestion would be much appreciated.

Bert

[michael23]

out of curiosity bert, what camera are you using?

[Bert]

Hello Michael,

I use the Olympus sp-590uz and since a few days together with the tcon 17 lens. I know it is not the best, and I´m not aiming to become a profesional but this camera has so many options that I´m still trying to figure everything out. Unfortunately it does not have the possibility to make RAW files, but that I only found out after buying the camera.

Biggest problem however is probably the enormous zoom function. I walk around almost everyday and hate to bring the tripod along. So keeping the camera steady is a bit hard.

But I´m still learning. Where are the good old days when I was shooting slides and got much better results. But that was of course with another camera :smile:

Bert

[michael23]

you have the options of standard, high and super high on that then.
I would imagine you have got it on the super high setting,
Also have you considered a monopod, might be very useful with a camera of this type,

[Bert]

I did the last shoots with Iso auto high. Lowest Iso I can use is 64. We do have an awfull lot of light here, but I´ll shoot some birds today with different settings and hope it gets better. And I´ll try to keep the camera still.

A monopod might be a very good idea.

Thanks,

Bert

[michael23]

from what i have seen on olympus cameras, the noise reduction is very agressive, therefore losing any fine detail, stick to the lower isos if you can, you should see a little improvement in image quality, from what i have read, anything above iso 400 is suffering, but you are lucky with getting superb light. will be interesting to see what you can get out of this camera.

[Bert]

I´m also convinced that this camera should take better photos, I have seen some examples on google. So I´ll take some photos today with different setting and post them here.

Thanks for helping out.

Bert

[Colin Key]

Hello Bert,

Since I am not at all familiar with your camera I cannot make any suggestions as to how to improve your images, other than that you really need to do some processing either with the software that came with the camera or a third-party program (Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, Paintshop Pro, etc.).

I have rather crudely run the Stonechat image through PS Elements and applied noise reduction with 'Neat Image'. Unfortunately, the strong light has "blown" the highlights on the bird's breast, and that is irretrievable. You would be better off under-exposing in those sort of lighting conditions.

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/P8202340.jpg

I am sure that with a bit more practice you can improve upon what you are getting at the moment.

Colin

[Bert]

Thank a lot Colin.

I have been out of photography too long obviously. I didn´t even now I had to do some post processing after shooting with a digital camera. You should expect that it would not be needed.

Well, I got a lot of work to do now :smile:

Let´s see what I can come up with in the future.

Thanks again,

Bert

[Colin Key]

I didn´t even now I had to do some post processing after shooting with a digital camera. You should expect that it would not be needed.

Bert

A lot depends on the camera, the lens and the subject matter Bert.

I always shoot in RAW format (the so-called "digital negative" which has the maximum amount of digital information) which requires a lot of manipulation with a software processing program - the original RAW images actually look bloody awful.

Professional photographers (from news photographers to sports shooters) who have a deadline to get reasonable images to their picture editor's desk as quickly as possible will almost always shoot in Large JPEG format because that allows for a considerable amount of in-camera processing (colour saturation, white balance, sharpening, noise reduction, etc) which does not occur with RAW files. Top-end pro bodies can have a wireless transmitter which send the images directly to a remote workstation without the need to download to a computer first.

But, for nature photography RAW is the way to go; it is also a "lossless" format so the original file is unaltered whatever you do to enhance the derivatives and you can always go back to it when better software becomes available and/or your processing skills improve.

It is a BIG subject, lots to learn, and getting good images of birds is the most demanding of all types of photography.

Colin :smile:

[Bert]

A lot depends on the camera, the lens and the subject matter Bert.

I always shoot in RAW format (the so-called "digital negative" which has the maximum amount of digital information) which requires a lot of manipulation with a software processing program - the original RAW images actually look bloody awful.

Professional photographers (from news photographers to sports shooters) who have a deadline to get reasonable images to their picture editor's desk as quickly as possible will almost always shoot in Large JPEG format because that allows for a considerable amount of in-camera processing (colour saturation, white balance, sharpening, noise reduction, etc) which does not occur with RAW files. Top-end pro bodies can have a wireless transmitter which send the images directly to a remote workstation without the need to download to a computer first.

But, for nature photography RAW is the way to go; it is also a "lossless" format so the original file is unaltered whatever you do to enhance the derivatives and you can always go back to it when better software becomes available and/or your processing skills improve.

It is a BIG subject, lots to learn, and getting good images of birds is the most demanding of all types of photography.

Colin :smile:

Thanks again Colin,

Unfortunately my camera does not have the RAW option but on the other hand it is rather good and saves me a lot of time. I have two businesses to run also. I can shoot 12 megapixels and since I´m not a professional it has to work for me. Just have to sort the b.....y thing out.:laugh:

But I went back to basics and refused all options the camera has and just did my own thing and did my own manual settings. Thanks to Michael, who remembered me about iso, or rather I used to shoot slides with iso as high as possible and with manual focusing, now I have to shoot with the lowest iso possible and digital focusing. This is a complete different story.

I´ll run one of the photos I shot just before sundown through the program delivered with the camera and you will see that I do get better photos. I´ll post the photo here.

Perhaps I´m a bit optimistc :laugh::laugh:

Bert

[Bert]

Hope this is a bit better but I need to spent more time in processing.

Bert

[michael23]

optimistic is the only way...
I read a brief review of your camera, and looks as if iso 64 and 100 are the best, noise is evident in images over iso200, but the images do seem to take sharpening and noise reduction quite well,

[Bert]

I do think now that the main problem is the enormous zoom of 1.100 mm. Well perhaps not the zoom but keeping the camera steady.

I run the photo through several programs but noise reduction doesn´t seem a big problem. The camera itself allready has noice reduction.

Here is a not post processed photo of a bee-eater. I only cropped it and that´s all.

This was shot with iso 125.

I think it doesn´t look too bad:smile:

[michael23]

now for such a zoom length and being hand held, i would be really happy with that. im interested in what colins opinion would be, he has far more knowledge of editing with photoshop and the like.
:beer:

[Bert]

Don´t you worry, I am happy with it. But I agree, let´s wait for Colins opinion and perhaps he can make it perfect.:smile::beer:

Bert

P.s I´m now waiting for my friend the Short Toed ¨Snake¨ Eagle. Normally he visits every day. Can´t wait to shoot that raptor with my new setting and the Tcon 17.

[Bert]

Here is another shot of a Stonechat I shot this morning at 8.30.

Zoom at 1.144 mm, ISO 64, shutterspeed at 1/160.

But this time the camera was not handheld but solid resting. I only cropped the photo the first photo.

On the second photo I did some processing.

Please tell me which you think best.

Bert

[Colin Key]

Hello Bert (and Michael),

Sorry that I do not have time today to answer each of your recent posts except to say that some of the images are a great improvement.

As I stated above, I find it difficult to give precise advice since I am not familiar with the camera which you use. I am amazed to hear that you are taking these photos at a focal length of 1,100mm. I presume that this camera has both optical and digital zoom and that you are using the latter at maximum extent; BIG mistake! Optical zoom changes the focal length of the lens, digital zoom just magnifies an area of the camera sensor resulting in fewer pixels (rather like looking at newsprint through a magnifying glass) and a great reduction in digital data and image quality.

I note that your photo of a Bee-eater at 1,100mm FL has a file size of only 36KB. Here is one of my photos of a Bee-eater at only 525mm FL but it has a file size of 360KB - i.e. ten times the amount of digital information that yours has:


http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/111708911.jpg


My image dimensions are slightly larger than yours, but not much (850 x 796 pxls).

So for now I would offer two pieces of advice:

1. You need to get closer to your subjects and try to use only the optical zoom on your lens, not the digital zoom in your camera (this is no better, and probably worse, than cropping the image during processing).

2. Experiment with some non-bird subjects (beer can or wine-bottle label :beer:) which have some fine detail, at various distances and with the camera on a tripod, using different focal length, ISO, shutter speed, noise reduction, etc.

I was also wondering whether or not you are using a filter (UV or neutral density) on your lens? If you are, take it off and throw it away!

Hope this helps a little - keep at it :smile:.

Colin

* Admin or Mods might consider moving this thread to the Photo-critique section?

[Bert]

Hello Colin,

Great advice, thanks. Just want to mention that I did not use the optical or digital zoom. If I use digital zoom with my telelens I would go up to 3.300 mm.

There is no way to shoot clear photos with that zoom I presume.

Now I think the problem lies in the fact that if I crop the image I lose almost all pixels. The photos I take are normally 5 Mb with around 4.000 by 3.000 pixels. Looks like my crop program is killing it all.

So your advice it much appriciated.

Here is an example of a not cropped not post processed image. It was shot at 676 mm. Would you mind working about it a bit? That would prove that it is not the camera but my post processing program and in that case I´ll just have to buy another one.

Thanks in advance,

Bert

P.s I wish I could take photos like that.

[Colin Key]

Hello Bert,

I have had a very quick attempt at your last photo (literally 4 minutes in Photoshop Elements). The original is a nice shot but the bird is very small in the frame and you really need to be closer . Anyway, it shows that your camera is capable of good images so there is something wrong with your processing which is deterioration the image quality.

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/P7231708a.jpg

All I did was:

1. Adjust levels (shadows & highlights)
2. Increase colour saturation very slightly
3. Reduce noise with "Neat Image"
4. Sharpen with "Unsharp Mask"
5. Crop to 800x693 pxls
6. Sharpen again very slightly using the "Adjust Sharpness" tool in PS
7. "Save As" (NOT "Save for Web) a maximum quality JPEG (466 KB).

Must rush off now - Saturday and I have a load of "jobs" to do. Will reply to any questions you might have later.

Colin

[Bert]

Thank you so much Colin.

I´ll start working on the processing and try to figure it out. Very glad to hear that it is not the camera.

I will first try the program delivered with the camera, otherwise I have to buy a good program.

Have a good weekend,

Bert

[exeter_uk]

Hi Bert,

First off I am a beginner too, so feel free to ignore what I am about to say, but I have a similar camera to your's (super zoom "bridge" camera) albeit with less zoom (mine is 18x, 486mm equivalent) i hadn't realixed that they were making bridge camera's with 26x optical zoom now! :eek:

I doubt it is your processing software that is causing you to loose image quality, but more the fact that you're cropping the image too heavily (this is the only thing that will cause you to loose pixels). The best way to sort this problem out is by getting closer to the subject in the first place, I was amazed (and annoyed) when i first bought my camera at how close i needed to be to the birds to get good pictures.

I have read a quick review on your camera and it mentioned that at full zoom the maximum aperture is f/5, meaning only a relatively slow shutter speed can be achieved unless you increase ISO, which will result in noise. Super zoom camera's inherently suffer from bad noise anyway, when choosing my camera all the reviews I read said that at anything above ISO 200 noise started to become present. A good noise reduction programme will help a lot here, the one Colin uses "neat image" seems to be pretty good and can be used in photoshop elements. You can get a free trial, which i have at the moment, but i would say its definitely worth getting the full programme.

Lastly at full zoom and especially with the teleconverter you are using i would say you probably need to be using a tripod, as the image stabilization in the camera will be struggling at that distance.

The last thing i will say is that personally i would be very happy with the shot that Colin has posted up after he processed it, so you can definitely take good shots, i expect you just need to get closer to the subjects more of the time.

James

[Colin Key]

Hello again Bert,

Firstly, don't ignore what James says - I remember working on some of his images and was quite pleasantly surprised at the quality from a so-called "bridge" camera of which I have no personal experience. Having just had another look at the last image of the juvenile Stonechat, I also would be quite pleased with that myself; it is a wonderful composition (Stonechat on a stone!) and the dry grass in the background has a nice "bokeh". To have cropped that any closer would have been a mistake, and to sharpen it any more would also have spoiled it; with more time and effort I could have selectively sharpened parts of the bird (the head and bill, and maybe the legs), and also added a "catchlight" to the bird's eye which would have improved the image.

I don't know what the Olympus processing software is like, but I think you should consider investing in Photoshop Elements 7 for PC (I presume you are using a PC and not a Mac?) which Amazon U.K. are currently offering at £50 (almost half the recommended price). A third party noise reduction program is, in my opinion, essential; in addition to the "Neat Image" which I use there is also "Noiseware" and "Noise Ninja" - I found Neat Image to be the best, but they all do the same thing and much better than the camera's own noise reduction software. The "Neat Image Home+" edition for a PC (which is a "plug-in" and works within Photoshop Elements) costs $50 as a download.

I still think that you need to "explore" your camera's possibilities by shooting some static objects (or find some easy birds such as gulls, ducks or pigeons) with different settings and comparing the image quality.

One other piece of advice: before you start doing anything to an original image make sure that you are working on a copy. JPEG is a "lossy" format (unlike RAW and TIFF files which are "lossless) which means that each time you open the file, make any adjustment, and then save it, there is an automatic compression which reduces image quality. If you have kept the original (a Large or Fine JPEG) you can always go back and make another copy if you mess things up - other wise the image just gradually deteriorates. I would also make sure that you do not overdo any in-camera sharpening, colour saturation, noise reduction, etc. - you have much more control over this later using Photoshop.

And, NEVER, NEVER, EVER use the "Save for Web" option - this also compresses the file and generally undoes any enhancements that you have achieved in post processing.

And there you were, thinking that you just point the camera at a bird and get a wonderful image!!! :ohdear:

Colin :smile:

[MichaelF]

a nice "bokeh"What's a "bokeh"? I thought it was a Jewish prayer book or similar, but can't see one in the pic??
And, NEVER, NEVER, EVER use the "Save for Web" optionI've run into one situation where one has to - if one wants to convert a .tif file into a .jpg file, the only way photoshop will allow that is via the 'Save for Web' option; .jpg isn't offered by the 'Save As' menu working from a .tif file.

[exeter_uk]

What's a "bokeh"? I thought it was a Jewish prayer book or similar, but can't see one in the pic??
I've run into one situation where one has to - if one wants to convert a .tif file into a .jpg file, the only way photoshop will allow that is via the 'Save for Web' option; .jpg isn't offered by the 'Save As' menu working from a .tif file.

Which version of photoshop are you using Michael? Because i am able to "save as" to a jpeg from PSE 7

[MichaelF]

Photoshop Elements 5.0

[Colin Key]

What's a "bokeh"? I thought it was a Jewish prayer book or similar, but can't see one in the pic??

I've run into one situation where one has to - if one wants to convert a .tif file into a .jpg file, the only way photoshop will allow that is via the 'Save for Web' option; .jpg isn't offered by the 'Save As' menu working from a .tif file.

1. "Bokeh" is derived from a Japanese word for "blur" or "haze" (your photos demonstrate it perfectly!!! :laugh::wink:). In photographic terms it means the out of focus background which accentuates the main subject which is in focus. For this reason most nature photographers shoot in Av (aperture priority) mode in order to select a depth of field appropriate to the size of the subject; if everything is in focus (very small aperture values) the shot will look too "busy" due to the distracting background and foreground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

2. There must be something amiss with your copy of PS Elements 5; I have PSE 6 (the latest version for Mac) and previously had PSE 4 - both have the "Save as" option if you select "File" from the header menu. If my memory serves me correctly, you can (with a PC) also right-click on the image which should also bring up the "Save as" option.

Colin :smile:

[PaulW]

I've just had fun with this, if you save your RAW as a 16 bit the 'Elements@ removes the JPEG option, its only there for 8 bit images!:eek:


:beer:

Paul

[Colin Key]

I've just had fun with this, if you save your RAW as a 16 bit the 'Elements@ removes the JPEG option, its only there for 8 bit images!:eek:


:beer:

Paul

PS Elements can only process 8 bit files (I think), so there is no point in saving as 16 bit :err:.

Colin

[PaulW]

aahh over enthusiasm on my part as usual! still the practice was good even if I had to scrub it all and start again!:ohdear:

:beer:

Paul

[Bert]

Hi James and Colin,

Thank you so much again for explaining in detail how I can improve shooting with my new camera. If I would have known this before I would have made sure I bought a camera that could take RAW photos.:err:

But anyway, I did some test shooting yesterday and today and your advice is most helpfull. I also will look into the programs you sugested. I have tested the olympus post processing program now quite extensively and I´m not very satisfied with it.

But one thing is for sure. As soon as you can get close enough to the birds this camera makes rather good photos.

I´ll keep on trying and will for sure post some photos in the beginners ID section because I still have to learn a lot. I wish the young ones grew up fast, makes life much easier to identify.

Thanks again for your help.

Bert

[Colin Key]

Olá Bert,

Always pleased to help out, but VERY disappointed that you have gone over to "the other side" (Birdforum :ohdear:).

I hope that when you want some proper advice (as opposed to the musings of a load of "fish-wives") you will come back to Surfbirds forum:

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/106458358.jpg

Um abraço,

Colin

[Bert]

Olá Bert,

Always pleased to help out, but VERY disappointed that you have gone over to "the other side" (Birdforum :ohdear:).

I hope that when you want some proper advice (as opposed to the musings of a load of "fish-wives") you will come back to Surfbirds forum:

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/106458358.jpg

Um abraço,

Colin

Bon noite Colin,

Now how do you know I posted one message there? You must be following it then :laugh::laugh:

Nah, I just didn´t want to bother this perfect forum with another 2 of my photos of which I was unsure. But I think they got the second one wrong. Looks more like a lark to me. But then again..... Those juveniles:puzzled:

Fantastic photo again by the way.

Now I made some nasty discovery today. A birding friend came along and we compared cameras. He brought his Nikon with 200 mm zoom and guess what? My supposed to be 1.100 mm is probably 210 mm compared to his lens. So I bought the wrong camera for sure.

I´m thinking now about a Canon or Nikon but what would you suggest? Development in cameras goes so quick that it is hard for me as an amateur to make a good decision.

In my younger days I had a canon with 80 - 210 mm zoom lens with a 2x converter. I thought it was perfect because it gave me a zoom range from 160 - 420 mm.

I made some seriously good shots (slides) of birds with it. Must still have some 700 nature slides somewhere.

Any suggestion is welcome but please bear in mind that I do this for fun and am not willing to invest 5.000 euros or more :smile:

Thanks in advance.

Um abraço grande,

Bert

[Colin Key]

Now I made some nasty discovery today. A birding friend came along and we compared cameras. He brought his Nikon with 200 mm zoom and guess what? My supposed to be 1.100 mm is probably 210 mm compared to his lens. So I bought the wrong camera for sure.

I´m thinking now about a Canon or Nikon but what would you suggest? Development in cameras goes so quick that it is hard for me as an amateur to make a good decision.

In my younger days I had a canon with 80 - 210 mm zoom lens with a 2x converter. I thought it was perfect because it gave me a zoom range from 160 - 420 mm.

I made some seriously good shots (slides) of birds with it. Must still have some 700 nature slides somewhere.

Any suggestion is welcome but please bear in mind that I do this for fun and am not willing to invest 5.000 euros or more :smile:

Thanks in advance.

Um abraço grande,

Bert

Hello Bert,

I am not sure that you have got your maths correct regarding the FL of your zoom lens, but that is something that you can check.

It is a fact of life I'm afraid that a good quality birding lens is going to be expensive, and the more you pay the better it is. It is also a fact that buying Canon or Nikon (or anything else coming out of Japan) gear at the moment has become more expensive due to the strength of the Yen.

A 200mm lens is not long enough for bird photography - I would say that 400mm is the shortest you can get away with. If you were going for Canon my immediate advice would be to try and get hold of a used 40D body and a 400mm f/5.6 prime lens, and possibly a x1.4 TC (a x2.0 TC reduces image quality too much). The lens would hold its value very well should you wish to sell it at a later date. I don't know what the second-hand market for camera bodies is like in Portugal (I never buy anything, either new or used, here since it is just about the most expensive country in the E.U. for 'non-food' items) but you might like to have a search on ebay.

I wouldn't give up on your current camera just yet though. That last shot of the Stonechat which I had a "fiddle" with wasn't at all bad for a small bird at that distance.

Colin

[Bert]

Hello Colin,

Thanks again. I´ll have a look around and see if I can find a 40D body. But it has only 10.1 megapixels?

I did some other tests today and here are the results. But first another question from a digital amateur:smile:

The first attachement, is this noice or movement and what can you do about it?

I´m not sure about the bird in the second attachement though.

In the third photo it is too bad that the eye is in the shade.

The fourth is quite good I think.

And I found a way to crop the photos without losing pixels but when I want to resize them I loose almost all. Still haven´t figured that one out.

Bert

[exeter_uk]

Hi Bert,

In that First Pic it looks like you have cropped it really heavily, hense the poor quality.

I quite like the third photo, but i think it could be improved with some post processing, the fourth photo too is quite noisy. (Colin, i remember that in another thread somewhere you posted a picture of a swallow pre and post noise reduction, which shows really well what noise is and how effectivly it can be removed, perhaps you could link to that thread (i forget which one is was) or repost the pictures here) (Dug the photo's up myself, hope you don't mind me re-linking to them)

Original
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/0C0J6699.jpg

With noise reduction

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/0C0J6699a.jpg


Bert, it is impossible to crop an image without loosing pixels. When you start off with an image it will be say 3648 x 2736 pixels in size and when you crop part of this image you are only using the pixels in the cropped area, therefore the smaller you crop the smaller the pixel count and the greater the reduction in quality. Ideally you shouldn't be cropping to bring the bird closer, only to reshape the image to compliment the photo.

I'm going to take a guess at the bird in the second attachment and say woodlark (that is almost definitely wrong)

James

[Bert]

Hi James,

That first photo was a detail (crop) of a very large photo, because when I look at a lot of my photos full size I see red and green details. I+m still not sure where that is coming from. I can´t seem to get rid of them with noice reduction.

And what I meant when saying cropping without loosing pixels I meant that the cropped part does remain with the same amount of pixels for that area. I cropped them before with another program and I lost a lot of pixels.

Resizing I need for my webstes but you do loose a lot of quality then unfortunately. Cropping is also necessary because my websites do need to have the same photos layout.

But I´m learning and your help is much appreciated.

I´m quite convinced now that my so called 1.100 mm camera does only 200 somewhat mm and in the near future I will by me a real camera. In the meantime I´m definately out of practice so this camera is a good training job.

Fantatic swallow photos though and you can see the difference. But I think you can only do a good job post processing when the original photo is of real good quality.

My guess is also woodlark but for sure Colin will prove us wrong.

Bert

[exeter_uk]

That first photo was a detail (crop) of a very large photo, because when I look at a lot of my photos full size I see red and green details. I+m still not sure where that is coming from. I can´t seem to get rid of them with noice reduction.

Ah i see what you are referring to, this is often referred to as purple fringing, and is not related to noise. I dont think you can remove this is post processing, and some camera's / lenses suffer from it more then others. (i think using the tele converter will make this worse)

I´m quite convinced now that my so called 1.100 mm camera does only 200 somewhat mm and in the near future I will by me a real camera. In the meantime I´m definately out of practice so this camera is a good training job.

hmm, i doubt it is as small as that but i do agree with you that on the type of camera we are using the quoted numbers dont give you as much zoom as the equivalent (or lesser) lens on a DSLR would. For example my mums 100-250 mm lens on her canon 450D gets almost as close as my camera can (486mm)

Fantatic swallow photos though and you can see the difference. But I think you can only do a good job post processing when the original photo is of real good quality.

Your Stonechat photo shows that you and your current camera can take some good images, i say stick with what you have until you get as far as you feel you can with it and then make the move to a DSLR (its what i plan to do)

My guess is also woodlark but for sure Colin will prove us wrong. :laugh: probably

Cheers, James

[michael23]

Hi bert, your olympus camera has a zoom of 26mm upto 676mm, this is compared to the 35mm format (your normal film negative or slide)
Adding your tcon 17 to your camera extends your zoom range to 44.2mm upto 1149.2mm (35mm format), so you are deffinately shooting at the stated focal lengths,
You mentioned your friend had a nikon and a 200mm? In 35mm terms that is 300mm, so you are getting more magnification with your camera.

With regards to the purple fringing, (cromatic abberation) I have corel paint shop pro which does have an option to remove it, it does a fairly good job, but does not remove all of it. This is caused by the lens, you will find it gets significantly worse when you are photographing strongly backlit or high contrast scenes,
Colin does elements have this option?

[Colin Key]

My guess is also woodlark but for sure Colin will prove us wrong.

Bert

The prominent supercilium is good for Woodlark, but the bill looks too 'heavy' (maybe due to the angle of the shot?) - any other photos of that bird?

Could you post the original (straight out of camera with no cropping or processing) image of that Stonechat, Bert. There is something going on with your processing which I do not understand; that image is 50KB when I think, at the dimension you have posted, it should be around 450KB.

I have not a clue as to what is causing the colour fringing in the first image, but it is not something I would want to try and rectify - just bin it!! (I bin at least 95% of the images I take, and deciding on which are "keepers" is the most time-consuming part of post-processing).

Since I know very little about your camera Bert, and absolutely nothing about the processing software you are using (except that it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job), I would suggest that the first step should be buying PS Elements 7 and a third-party noise reduction program - these will still be needed whether you decide to keep your current set-up or buy a DSLR and telephoto lens.

* There are other photo-processing programs such as Paintshop Pro, Lightroom, etc. (I think they have a trial download) which I have tried but I personally find PS Elements to be the best and prefer it to the cumbersome and time-consuming PS CS4. I see that Amazon U.K. have just knocked another £5 off PSE 7 (now £45 - a bargain) whereas PS CS4 is £528 (the full "extended" version is over £800 :eek:).

Colin

[Bert]

Thanks again James and Colin.

James, I´m very dissapointed with the range. We tested the 200 mm nikon lens against my 1.100 lens and there was hardly any difference.

Colin, hereby the original shot of the Stonechat. Let´s see what you can make of it. I ordered PS Elements 7 and will try it out soon.

I allready have the trial version of Neat Image.

Regarding the color fringing, I can bin almost all my photos then :err:

The Stonechat was shot at about 15 meters only.

Bert

[Colin Key]

Bert,

Just a quick "fiddle" - I could do better tomorrow when I have more time:

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/P8253278a.jpg

All is not lost!!

Boa noite,

Colin

[Bert]

Hello Colin,

I´m quite astonished what you are able to do with a quick fiddle. Whatever I try I never get the photos this sharp.

How do you resize and crop the photo so you don´t loose anything. Is that all with PS Elements?

Bert

[Bert]

Hello Colin,

I had another try. Please judge. But somehow when I resize I loose all pixels.

Bert

[exeter_uk]

What are you doing when you crop and resize? I don't understand why you are loosing file size, your image is about 6 times smaller then Colins!

[Colin Key]

Hello Bert,

Your current software is doing something which I do not understand, and without "hands-on" experience I cannot sort that out.

Your last version of this Stonechat at 800x603 pxls is only 46 KB. You have overdone the noise reduction which has "smoothed out" and removed some detail of the bird's plumage - it has to be used with care. I have made another attempt just now with smaller image dimensions (a smaller image can take more sharpening than a large one) and rather harsher sharpening:

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/P8253278b.jpg

The file-size of this image is 195 KB, about four times the file-size of yours but at smaller dimensions. So, I do not know what the problem is. When you get PS Elements it will be easier to give you more precise advice - at the moment this is liking poking about at midnight with a black stick!!

I would also like to see you post the shooting data (can't seem to get the Exif on my Mac) - aperture, shutter speed, focal length, ISO, etc. with each shot, if possible. Also, are you using a tripod or monopod?

Colin

[michael23]

Bert, can you tell me the exact software it is, im just curious as my brother has an olympus camera, it may be the same software.

[Bert]

Hello James and Colin,

I´m using Ulead and Neat Image now and I think I have indeed overdone the noise reduction. I´m still trying to get better :smile:

Colin, the info of dat photo is:

ImageDescription - OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Make - OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Model - SP590UZ
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Version 1.0
DateTime - 2009:08:25 10:34:59
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
ExifOffset - 996
ExposureTime - 1/320 seconds
FNumber - 5.00
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 64
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2009:08:25 10:34:59
DateTimeDigitized - 2009:08:25 10:34:59
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 4 (bits/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.80
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 197.60 mm
UserComment -
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3968
ExifImageHeight - 2976
InteroperabilityOffset - 5522
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 0.00 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 1144 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
GainControl - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal

Maker Note (Vendor): -

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 9204
JpegIFByteCount - 5050

I can´t find in my Ulead program how to resize however, just how to crop. When I use another program like Irfanview to resize I loose all pixels.

Perhaps it´s better to wait until I have PS Elements?

Thanks,

Bert

[Bert]

Hi bert, your olympus camera has a zoom of 26mm upto 676mm, this is compared to the 35mm format (your normal film negative or slide)
Adding your tcon 17 to your camera extends your zoom range to 44.2mm upto 1149.2mm (35mm format), so you are deffinately shooting at the stated focal lengths,
You mentioned your friend had a nikon and a 200mm? In 35mm terms that is 300mm, so you are getting more magnification with your camera.

With regards to the purple fringing, (cromatic abberation) I have corel paint shop pro which does have an option to remove it, it does a fairly good job, but does not remove all of it. This is caused by the lens, you will find it gets significantly worse when you are photographing strongly backlit or high contrast scenes,
Colin does elements have this option?

Thank you Michael.

[PaulW]

i hope this isnt a "hijack":eek:

what settings do you use in Neat Image Colin? I'm now using a 1D mkii and there are plugins on the neat image site for the camera and set ISO levels 100, 200 etc are they good bad or indifferent?

:beer:

Paul

[Bert]

Hello Colin,

How about this Crested Tit?

Any better?

Bert

http://birdwatchingalentejo.com/images/Crested%20Tit,%20Kuifmees,%20Haubenmeise,%20Herrer illo%20capuchino.jpg

[Colin Key]

what settings do you use in Neat Image Colin? I'm now using a 1D mkii and there are plugins on the neat image site for the camera and set ISO levels 100, 200 etc are they good bad or indifferent?

Paul

Hello Paul,

I have never seen the point in using other people's noise profiles in Neat Image.

I normally use "Auto Profile" for each image (the manual states that this is the best method) by moving the sampling box to an area on the image which has a "mid tone" and no detail (you can expand or contract the box to fit an appropriate area) - if the match is better than 80% then I just press "Apply".

If the match is very good (95% or better) then I would "Save" that noise profile for future use on an image shot at the same ISO but in which there is no clear area to create an auto-profile; in this way you build up your own set of profiles which you can then "Load" and "Apply".

Hope this helps.

Colin

[Colin Key]

Hello Colin,

How about this Crested Tit?

Any better?

Bert

http://birdwatchingalentejo.com/images/Crested%20Tit,%20Kuifmees,%20Haubenmeise,%20Herrer illo%20capuchino.jpg

Much better Bert, congratulations on getting such a close shot of this wonderful bird. I only ever see them flitting about in the cork oaks in the Monchique area and have never managed to get any sort of shot.

Any chance of posting the original, unaltered image?

Colin

[Bert]

Hello Colin,

Yes it was real suffering. Sitting under a tree looking at Stonechats, Finches, Great Spotted Woodpeckers, Jays, Comon Ravens, White Wagtails, Red-Legged Partridges, and of course this Crested Tit. He was sitting in the tree right above my head less then 2 meters away but I could not make the shot.

And it refused to sit in the sun near the lake. So the shot was in shadow.

Here is the original attached.

The photo here under I processed with Irfanview in about 2 minutes.

http://www.birdwatchingalentejo.com/images/Crested%20Tit,%20Kuifmees,%20Haubenmeise,%20Herrer illo%20capuchino.jpg

Bert

[Colin Key]

Hi Bert,

Thanks for posting the original file. Another "quick fiddle" with PS Elements and Neat Image - could do better with more time - great image of one of my favourite birds:

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

Colin

[Bert]

Thank you Colin,

Now here is my last succes:

http://birdwatchingalentejo.com/images/Nuthatch,%20Boomklever,%20Kleiber,%20Trepador%20az ul.jpg

I might have overdone the processing though, I´m still learning.

I tried to attach the original but for some reason I can´t. I´ll try again tomorrow.

The attachment, is that a Common Raven?

Bert

[MichaelF]

Gave the Crested Tit a go (from the original); main edits were to reduce the blue tone a bit to make it a 'warmer' colour, and clone out that worst bit of blue fringing along the crest

[Bert]

Nice job Michael :smile: