Critique Grass Bird - how would you process it

[BillN_33]

Here a crop - taken at ISO400 and 1/160th sec at 420mm - Nikon 300mm +TC14Ell at f5.6 + the DX D300
Hand held, but maybe monopod, so it may be a little soft because of the slowish shutter speed … but I'm happy with that

It was taken early morning at 6:30am with the sun coming up
This is a jpeg straight from the Nikon RAW file … cropped and WB tweaked a little, that's all

The image seems a little duller and flatter than I remember the shot … as the bird "sparkled" in the early morning as it sang

The Grassbird is a Warbler, (Old World) - Sylviidae family

How would you guys process this?

Do any of you Nikon shooter tweak the in camera settings at all?

 

[Joeturner11]

Its a nice shot Bill, this is my take on the PP of it, boost contrast & colours on the saturation, a simple and effective edit and applying the noise reduction to the background to make it cleaner, a basic and quick edit...what you think?

View attachment 25388

 

[BillN_33]

Thanks Joe for your efforts

I'm getting that kind of "look" when I process it in CS6 ........ I just feel that it is over sharpened, especially the bird ....... but it could be that it was soft in the first place because of camera movement

also the whites are slightly blown in the original

and obviously you were limited by the jpeg file

I'm also going through a process of monitor calibration for both my iMac and MacBookPro ...... I have built up a few different "profiles" each of which give slightly different colours, contrast, brightness etc., etc.
Spending time on this site
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php

But again, thanks for posting ....... I find this kind of discussion really useful

 

[gramps]

Auto WB & Levels adjust...

View attachment 25389


*For some reason images are being degraded for me (desaturated) when uploaded here.

 

[BillN_33]

thanks Gramps, looks good

agree about differences (sometimes) between LR and posted on here ...... I always keep mine below 250k on here ......obviously the .psd or adjusted .NEF files will look better in LR and CS6 ...... but even the converted jpegs look better on my screen than when posted on here ......... I host my own images on my site and post a link here ..... so I am not sure why it should happen

That's why I spending time on this recalibration stuff

As far as my image is concerned I find that if I add any sharpening it looks over sharpened

 

[gramps]

I think it will stand a little sharpening Bill, I've adjusted it with a bit more colour and very small amount of sharpening ... the feathering on this particular bird make sharpening look very apparent if overdone

View attachment 25394

 

[BRASH]

I've said before yeh canna polish a turd and this needs flushed, in all it's guises.

 

[BillN_33]

I've said before yeh canna polish a turd and this needs flushed, in all it's guises.

Certainly true …… "once a turd always a turd"

 

[BillN_33]

The best that I could do is hardly any change from the original

 

[fracster]

I can`t improve it Bill and all the other edits, though well meaning, look pants.

I`m afraid that oaf from Aberdeen is right, bin it bud. Go take a better one.

 

[BillN_33]

I can`t improve it Bill and all the other edits, though well meaning, look pants.

I`m afraid that oaf from Aberdeen is right, bin it bud. Go take a better one.

Ade, the purpose of posting the image was not because it was a image that was anywhere near perfect, (as with my other post - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/quiet-night-post-any-bird-for-critique.568044/)….It was to trying to engage us in a discussion about processing etc., etc., rather than just the usual comments.

I have taken and seen enough images to know the level at which the image stands!

Even bird photography is not "black and white" and we seem to be drifting towards good or bad coments in this section rather than opening the discussion further, as I said in my posting ……. if we do "we may all learn something and appreciate why the comments are made"

It could even be part of a process that helps with your posting "How do we sort problems out in this section" - and stop them happening, if we encourage members at all levels to contribute and to appreciate why comments are made and what they mean

As far as I am concerned the image is not bad, but "a turd is a turd" comment may be enough for a few people, as evidenced by "likes", but is not very informative to many others……. the cycle really does take some breaking, indeed it tends to be perpetuated ……… I give up! …. as said " a turd is a turd"

 

[fracster]

You did ask "how would you edit it?" Bill, my reply is that I wouldn`t. So my input into the discussion stands, i`m a firm believer that it can be an utter waste of time processing shots that will never look right, i`ll rephrase that...I won`t waste time on my shots that I cannot get right in processing,cos i`m not the best at photoshopperystuff.

 

[killy]

I've said before yeh canna polish a turd and this needs flushed, in all it's guises.

Oh yes you can

 

[mikew]

Bill not sure what you asking here with you shooting raw

Do any of you Nikon shooter tweak the in camera settings at all?

I shoot raw and have no idea what the camera processing settings are,if i shot jpeg i would certainly alter them and the first would be sharpening as Nikons leave the factory with an stupidly low setting.

 

[BillN_33]

Bill not sure what you asking here with you shooting raw

Do any of you Nikon shooter tweak the in camera settings at all?

I shoot raw and have no idea what the camera processing settings are,if i shot jpeg i would certainly alter them and the first would be sharpening as Nikons leave the factory with an stupidly low setting.

Thanks mike

Probably that is what I am asking

Presumably what you are saying is that there are no in camera adjustment that can be made if you shoot RAW files, but if you shoot jpeg there are some in camera adjustment that you can make.

The reason that I am going through this iteration is as follows

1). 90% of my RAW .NEF files are improved in LR or CS6 on my screens.
2). I am going through a process of screen calibrations - I compared 4 MacBookPros yesterday looking at the above image and they were all sightly different, colours, contrast etc.,
3). I have been looking at the appropriate Display profiles on each of my computers and comparing them……. I used to use Spyder Pro …… but since Apple have "upgraded" their OS it no longer works - I need to get another calibration package.
4). I have been reviewing my settings versus test charts on the web

As far as I can see my Apple displays, iMac and MPB are set up as best they can be

It concerns me, when looking at some of the comments made about images posted on here that some may be seeing different "versions" of the same image and I want to make sure at least my equipment is set up in the most effective and correct way

I am trying to identify all the parameters that effect the image posted and how it is viewed, (appears) on my computers.

Then I need to move onto printer profiles

 

[fracster]

Presumably what you are saying is that there are no in camera adjustment that can be made if you shoot RAW files, but if you shoot jpeg there are some in camera adjustment that you can make.

Absolutely correct mate. The preview on the camera screen shows you a jpeg,not the RAW file,hence why they can look different.

The reason that I am going through this iteration is as follows

1). 90% of my RAW .NEF files are improved in LR or CS6 on my screens.

That is because the camera makes no adjustments ,as above Bill.

Can`t help with your display questions i`m afraid.

 

[mikew]

I could be wrong here but if you are the type of photographer that shoots raw but may need quick jpeg edits on occasion i think there is a nikon program that will apply any jpeg settings automatically if you use it to produce a jpeg from the raw.
If this is the case then even if you shoot raw it could be worth setting the camera up and of course if you shoot jpeg and raw.

 

[u8myufo]

Not sure what this looks like your end Bill as it is just a screen capture from your first image.

 

[BillN_33]

That looks the "best" so far Rich …… you could probably do wonders with the .NEF ….. but a problem that you Canon shooters have is that .NEF is foreign to you

but all this PP stuff allows you to improve an image significantly when it was taken in "bad light"



Thanks

 

[killy]

Thanks mike

Probably that is what I am asking

Presumably what you are saying is that there are no in camera adjustment that can be made if you shoot RAW files, but if you shoot jpeg there are some in camera adjustment that you can make.

The reason that I am going through this iteration is as follows

1). 90% of my RAW .NEF files are improved in LR or CS6 on my screens.
2). I am going through a process of screen calibrations - I compared 4 MacBookPros yesterday looking at the above image and they were all sightly different, colours, contrast etc.,
3). I have been looking at the appropriate Display profiles on each of my computers and comparing them……. I used to use Spyder Pro …… but since Apple have "upgraded" their OS it no longer works - I need to get another calibration package.
4). I have been reviewing my settings versus test charts on the web

As far as I can see my Apple displays, iMac and MPB are set up as best they can be

It concerns me, when looking at some of the comments made about images posted on here that some may be seeing different "versions" of the same image and I want to make sure at least my equipment is set up in the most effective and correct way

I am trying to identify all the parameters that effect the image posted and how it is viewed, (appears) on my computers.

Then I need to move onto printer profiles

The calibration thingy is something that I need to do on my iMac - I recently posted some images on my Flicker page and a mate kept telling me the black backgrounds were terrible.
I could not see it on my screen so I went into System preferences/displays/ settings and in the settings there is an option to change the gamma so I altered it and the cr*ppy backgrounds became all to apparent

 

[BillN_33]

The calibration thingy is something that I need to do on my iMac - I recently posted some images on my Flicker page and a mate kept telling me the black backgrounds were terrible.
I could not see it on my screen so I went into System preferences/displays/ settings and in the settings there is an option to change the gamma so I altered it and the cr*ppy backgrounds became all to apparent

yep, it looks like on the new Mac OS's the only thing that you can change is gamma and white point …… with the earlier OS's there was more to play with

I compared 4 MBP's yesterday from a 4 year old one up to a new Retina Display and an MacAir, surprisingly only my early 2009 MBP was the only one that was anywhere near set up (properly) as I used SpyderPro ….. I then created a couple of new profiles and compared these, plus there are also a few "standard" profiles in preferences. The SyderPro one was better than all the others …… so it looks to me that you need specialised calibration software to do the job properly especially if you want you iMac and MBP to look similar …… up to £200 for the software

You should really look at the test charts in

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php

and see if you have any problems, especially in the Gamma calibration, (older Macs were happy at 1.8, but apparently now they have moved to 2.2), contrast and Black levels ….. blacks seem to be difficult to get "right"

We spend hours twiddling in CS6 and LR to make the image look good on our screen ……. and if the Display profile that we are using is poor we could be making the image look worse when posted on the web and viewed on another screen ……. …… the correct Screen set up can get ignored in all this

I am noticing this more and more on Birds …… the blacks appears as black on here but in nature many are not as they can have a colour tinge ….with the black ……

Also if you look at the images above, all different colours and contrast, but which is the most accurate? and will it be the same on everyones screen

I have just got to decide now which is the "best" calibration software within my budget; you would think that the manufacturers would included good calibration software with each machine, but maybe you also need a piece of hardware, (as with Spyder etc.,), to read the info on the screen?

 

[Rustydon]

Spyder2 works well for me, Bill

Russ

 

[BillN_33]

Spyder2 works well for me, Bill

Russ

The annoying things Russ is that I have a SpyderPro and it worked 2 years ago with the Mac OS but it does not work with the latest Mac OS …… so I have to fork out another £150 ish

"As an owner of the original Spyder design, we thank you for your loyalty and confidence in using our first product design for your color management needs. While this first generation of Spyder products has provided years of reliable service, the physical limitations of the design do not make it upgradeable to work with the Mac OS X Lion software."

 

[Rustydon]

That a great shame Bill - these software companies certainly know how to fleece their customers!

Russ

 

[u8myufo]

Bill, I would be interested to hear your`s or anybody else`s thoughts on the colours in these two pics.


Greenfinch by Richard Venn, on Flickr


Blue tit by Richard Venn, on Flickr

 

[BillN_33]

As usual Rich, your images are just "too good"

What I see on my early 2009 24in iMac screen, (intel)

Quick observations on colours on the Greenfinch ………Beak, eye and feet really good, (especially the control of the highlights that is usually seen on the beak in this kind of light) …….. greenfinch grey good - lighting is bringing out the strong yellows in the bird and maybe the brownish tinge, but there is no real "green" tinge or otherwise to be seen …. whether it be a mixture of the yellow and grey and brown tinge or what, (apart from maybe just a smidgeon of approaching green just over half way up on the RHS of the birds breast and on the back of the neck)

I would think that maybe it is not quite how you (or the camera) saw it and that it has probably been enhanced a little, (one of my points in this thread)………I do find that PP can enhance the shot from what it was to what we might like it to be, if you see what I mean

You seem to have balance the detail in the light and shade areas, LHS v RHS, accurately to bring out the maximum detail.

there is a small area just above the right leg where the whites are blown

The light has influenced the shot significantly but (maybe?) it has it been emphasised further by improving the original dynamic range that is possible when you start to explore the processing possibilities of a (RAW) file.

the only technical reference that i have is the histogram which does go off the chart in the centre for the blues and yellows in particular and greens and reds less so, maybe indicating that you could pull the highlights back a little in the tone curve …. but I am never sure how to interpret histograms apart from the very basics

The shot would be appear to be as good as you can get …….. really nice

The colours in the Blue Tit shot are a greyish yellow, and a dullish blue .. the grey's in the tail feathers are good, the blacks are not too strong and the whites subdued. It is a good shot but the composition will not be to everyones taste …….. it could be said that the composition is more interesting that the Greenfinch as it contains more, but most would definitely prefer the first image.
I would say that if you wish you could enhance the colours, noticeably.

The Greenfinch looks more as if it is coming into the breeding season than the Blue Tit …… but the Blue Tits strong colours are beginning to emerge.

The Blue Tit image is not as sharpe as the Greenfinch image … I reckon that there could be a little head/bird movement in there

Both backgrounds have similar mainly brownish colours, the ones on the Blue Tit image being stronger and the ones in the Greenfinch background have shades of a dark pinkish tinge in some areas. Both bg's have areas of a greenish tinge

The green of the moss on the branch of the first image is brighter and the browns on the branch in the second image are deeper and stronger, with a more reddish influence

Interesting to hear what you and others see on your screen.

 

[u8myufo]

Bloody hell Bill,I was really only after in general M8 As you mention in this thread and has been discussed a thousand times before on TP.Peoples eyes are different,as are monitors, we process from memory when we get home,we try to recall what the light was light at that time,imo no matter how good a camera and lens you have there is nothing to prove that it has captured that moment exactly how it was in real life.Some may well edit there pics using reference pictures from whatever source for all I know,does not mean to say that those are correct either,but what we should accept is if it is close enough then it is good enough. If the colours in a shot look close enough to my eye then I am happy to comment accordingly,however it is only when you get a real colour cast or that the colours are way out that I will say something with regards to that.Some interesting thoughts from you anyhow Bill, did a quick edit which to my eye on my screen is more pleasing,however I have in the past been accused of my images being too dark,you will never win as it is all too subjective.

 

[BillN_33]

Bloody hell Bill,I was really only after in general M8 As you mention in this thread and has been discussed a thousand times before on TP.Peoples eyes are different,as are monitors, we process from memory when we get home,we try to recall what the light was light at that time,imo no matter how good a camera and lens you have there is nothing to prove that it has captured that moment exactly how it was in real life.Some may well edit there pics using reference pictures from whatever source for all I know,does not mean to say that those are correct either,but what we should accept is if it is close enough then it is good enough. If the colours in a shot look close enough to my eye then I am happy to comment accordingly,however it is only when you get a real colour cast or that the colours are way out that I will say something with regards to that.Some interesting thoughts from you anyhow Bill, did a quick edit which to my eye on my screen is more pleasing,however I have in the past been accused of my images being too dark,you will never win as it is all too subjective.

Both images are equally good Rich, the second probably appeals to me more …… but to others maybe the first.

I agree with you Rich though about what we see, what others see, and what we see etc., on the screen

Blacks are really difficult to get true as I reckon that in many cases they are not true black in many a light

As you say I can go on a bit …… maybe it comes from the way that I was trained, (not in photography, but in finance)

Here's a Bird that most of the time looks Black and White ……….. and the cluttered background may not appeal to some ……. but I think that it is really appropriate
Not enough headroom and blown white.

Sometimes, there is a tendency not "to see the wood from the trees" in bird photography as we aim for technical perfection

That's another subject that is interesting ……. the types of backgrounds that we should aim for ……… lots prefer the smooth, blended totally OOF bg as in your Greenfinch image

I was tring to get us to talk about all these issues in this thread, particularly as when crit is posted it is always interesting to know why things are said and much of it is given and taken in the wrong way

If you look at the "people" images produced by this guy

http://www.danwintersphoto.com/#/P E O P L E/O V E R V I E W/36/thumbs

it would be good to get bird images as "different" as these are from normal people portraits - OK I know it may be impossible from a number of aspects, (not least that they are all "posed") …….. but it would be good to explore and start posting more different types of bird images, whilst maintaining alongside the usual high standard of "record shots" …. I tried to "steer" this a little by posting a few of my "art" images which most thought were crap - but that was not the point of the postings, the point was to try something different ……. just thinking aloud really, before my next (longish) holiday in January/Feb ……when I will have plenty of time to observe nature

But, as you said, there is no correct answer as there are so many variables and there seems to be "lots going on" in this image, but I quite like the branches and the way they point out from behind the bird

 

[u8myufo]

I have never had a problem with backgrounds Bill, after all it is a birds natural environment.The problem is we are limited to how we portray bird shots,it is not in a controlled situation.Ok we can set up a feeding station and change the perches about a bit,other than that we have to capture the subjects doing something different,for that it`s a case of right place right time.The only other thing left then is to stylise the processing,something that I am not that much in favour of myself.Those examples of people shots is a completely different ball game imo.But going back to birds,two situations same subject,which do you prefer?As for me they both work but for different reasons,#1 is a cleaner shot of the two and shows off the subject more for it`s beauty, whereas #2 whilst being a pretty crap shot, has it`s appeal as it has caught the subject doing something you do not see everyday.

 

[BillN_33]

I agree Rich, I like and we all should like both, two different purposes, but if you post the second, (which maybe has a slight warm cast?), on here some of the crit would be negative but it should not be, it should appreciate why the image was taken ……. what maybe I'm getting at is that we should appreciate and encourage people to develop their own style of bird photography which maybe different from the "norm" alongside images like your first of the two …… e.g. maybe something like this, from me

versus the following

 

[mikew]

Bill i think you have summed up why i would be very unlikely to post an image on here,whilst i think the bird studies with the smooth perfect backgrounds look great its not high on my list of achievements,i am perfectly happy with my shots of birds in there environment and being aware of the difference i dont need an image to be pulled down because of my style.
Also i have reached a time of life where i am unlikely to make any outstanding advances in technique in other words i know the limit of my ability and the limitations of my gear,i now rate myself as a happy photographer,i see some great critique in here.
Will not go into what else i see.

 

[BillN_33]

Bill i think you have summed up why i would be very unlikely to post an image on here,whilst i think the bird studies with the smooth perfect backgrounds look great its not high on my list of achievements,i am perfectly happy with my shots of birds in there environment and being aware of the difference i dont need an image to be pulled down because of my style.
Also i have reached a time of life where i am unlikely to make any outstanding advances in technique in other words i know the limit of my ability and the limitations of my gear,i now rate myself as a happy photographer,i see some great critique in here.
Will not go into what else i see.

I hope what I am saying Mike is that you should and we all should be encouraged to post our images in the Bird section, but what we all should do is to try to understand and help each other as birds and wildlife are our common interest.

As I have often said …….. bird photography is part on the process of my bird watching interest …… we all see more with our eyes and through binoculars than we will ever see through a camera viewfinder.

many have a "technical" interest in the image quality which is not a bad thing anyway as long as it does not dominate

At my age, I have found that I can only improve in small steps and a lot of what I have seen and read on here has really helped that improvement, albeit with the odd disappointment

 

[u8myufo]

I agree Rich, I like and we all should like both, two different purposes, but if you post the second, (which maybe has a slight warm cast?), on here some of the crit would be negative but it should not be, it should appreciate why the image was taken ……. what maybe I'm getting at is that we should appreciate and encourage people to develop their own style of bird photography which maybe different from the "norm" alongside images like your first of the two …… e.g. maybe something like this, from me

versus the following

That is all well and good Bill,however photography in general was my hobby.The subject "birds" was my chosen genre,simply because they were available around me,albeit in limited species.However like everything else you only get out what you put in,and I for one was not going to spend my time scouring the country for photo`s of different species just to satisfy my enjoyment of actually taking a picture.