Critique Butterfly on flower after feedback

LCPete

LCPete

Messages
9,192
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi I've decided I need to make an effort with macro / close up to improve and try new things
I tend to do the same thing with insects just try to get as close as possible and get it in focus:D
so here's the first effort from the other day at the Butterfly house
its intentionally over exposed (plus 1 1/3)
I spent an hour photographing this butterfly partly because I was struggling for light and people kept walking past causing movement
(was on tripod and mirror lockup shutter speeds of about 1/6 and f4)
But mainly I was waiting for it to move into a good position and get the background I wanted
in the end I got one shot that I was happy with before another one landed on it causing it to fly off!

I don't really have the eye for composition especially while I'm actually shooting am trying though
biggrin.gif

Which is the best composition the first shot or the second which is cropped from the first?
I prefer the second crop but interested in what you guys think
smiley.gif

butterfly-1-3aweb.jpg


butterflyrightcropweb.jpg
 
The clarity and colours are good, and the background has a lovely texture. I don't know about the detail and texture of the subject (or the flower it is on) - the image isn't really big enough (for me at least) to tell.

I'm curious about the over-exposure. Is this ETTR in action? When benefits do you hope to get/did you achieve from this approach? (The reason I ask is that I almost always under-expose, sometimes by as much as a couple of stops, or more, in an effort to avoid blown highlights. I imagine this is much less of a problem for you than me, because presumably your larger sensor has significantly more latitude than my tiny sensor, which is quite prone to blow highlights.)

As to the crop, given that the subject is pointing to the right, I would tend to put more space on the right than on the left, in front of the subject, so it is pointing/looking into the frame rather than out of the frame. The balance you have used is the other way round, with more space behind the subject. It's not a rule or requirement of course (I'm not keen on rules), and is a matter of taste, but FWIW (and perhaps it is out of habit, or laziness, or lack of imagination) that is how I tend to balance my images, unless there is some special factor which suggests doing it differently.

I admire your patience in working in such a concentrated manner for a particular shot. I have a more scattergun approach. Not at all admirable, but it's the way I am. :)
 
Thanks very much for the excellent feedback that's just what I was after
I was trying something different went for a bright image with a pale background
I don't normally shoot that much overexposed
On cloudy day's I to ETTR tho by about 1/3 to 2/3 this normally puts the histogram bang in the middle
I do find on the 7D at high ISO it its best not to underexpose
You are right about the composition I've got a few shots with different exposure and composition although not 100% sharp will post them up:)
 
LCPete said:
I don't normally shoot that much overexposed
On cloudy day's I to ETTR tho by about 1/3 to 2/3 this normally puts the histogram bang in the middle
Click to expand...

Useful context. Thanks.

LCPete said:
I was trying something different went for a bright image with a pale background
Click to expand...

I'm curious. How would over-exposing so much help get this effect? Wouldn't this risk blowing some of the lighter areas - indeed, are there petals on the flower, far side, top/centre/left that are blown? Wouldn't it be less risky to expose normally (eg with your normal ETTR as long as that doesn't blow anything out) and then, to get the lighter effect, push up in PP where you have complete (and fine) control over the changes?

Genuine questions btw. I feel I may have missed something here.

LCPete said:
I do find on the 7D at high ISO it its best not to underexpose
Click to expand...

What are you thinking of as high ISO here? The reason I ask is that my techniques+equipment require me to deal frequently with high noise levels, both because of using a small sensor and additionally as a side-effect of bringing up under-exposed images. It's not ideal by any manner of means, and it does put more of a burden on the post processing side of things, but I do find it workable. I'm wondering where your boundaries are, noise-wise. And perhaps there is some other issue about underexposing? Surely not an issue specifically with the 7D? I understood it has a really nice sensor.

LCPete said:
You are right about the composition I've got a few shots with different exposure and composition although not 100% sharp will post them up:)
Click to expand...

Good. Perhaps make a reference to the sharpness to avoid taking unnecessary flak? (as in "we're looking at composition, exposure here - I know they're not fully sharp") :)
 
Nice images Pete with lovely DOF, the only thing I'd do is increase the blacks/darks a little as the images look a little to light.

@GardenersHelper I get exactly what you're saying about the exposure comp settings, I dial in -1/3 stop when doing landscapes as it seems to stop highlights getting blown but then lightening the shadows is said to bring in noise (something the 7d is "said" to be poor with)....not that I've noticed this increased noise.
The general advice seems to be to dial in + exposure comp as darkening as apposed to lightening does not bring in the extra noise....I guess I'll give it a go and see what happens
 
Hi Pete,used to see you on the Fred Miranda forum occasionally, but since the idiot moderators comments and veiled insults about image quality,a lot of the frequent posters including myself have now left.With regard to your image, I personally wouldnt over expose as the blown highlights are quite obvious,but the main thing is the image is spoiled by the vertical stem that travels the full length of the butterflies wing.I have seen plenty of your work and you know what you are doing but this spoils the image for me.No insult intended,best regards Mick
 
Martyn D said:
@GardenersHelper I get exactly what you're saying about the exposure comp settings, I dial in -1/3 stop when doing landscapes as it seems to stop highlights getting blown but then lightening the shadows is said to bring in noise
Click to expand...

Lightening shadows does indeed bring in noise, but if the alternative is blown highlights, I'll take the noise. I can deal with noise, in fact I can deal with rather a lot of noise, especially as it is more noticeable in plain-ish areas, which are typically in the background, where loss of detail doesn't matter (they will often already be oof to a greater or lesser extent). On the other hand, dealing with blown highlights? If they aren't recoverable, then cloning is (I think) the only alternative. And cloning isn't always even possible/practical, especially for areas of non-trivial size.

Martyn D said:
The general advice seems to be to dial in + exposure comp as darkening as apposed to lightening does not bring in the extra noise....
Click to expand...

Fair enough, as much as you can (ETTR), but it is the recoverability of highlights that (for me at least) limits the extent to which that works. In fact, I work from what I can see on the LCD (I always work in live view using the LCD) rather than what the camera's exposure meter tells me. I judge from what I see on the LCD as to whether the highlights are ok. I increase the exposure as far as I can. So in a sense, I suppose I'm sort of using ETTR (expose as much as possible without blowing the highlights) but going about it in a different way.

Martyn D said:
I guess I'll give it a go and see what happens
Click to expand...

That's the acid test of course. Find out what works, for you, for your equipment, for your type of images.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
Useful context. Thanks.



I'm curious. How would over-exposing so much help get this effect? Wouldn't this risk blowing some of the lighter areas - indeed, are there petals on the flower, far side, top/centre/left that are blown? Wouldn't it be less risky to expose normally (eg with your normal ETTR as long as that doesn't blow anything out) and then, to get the lighter effect, push up in PP where you have complete (and fine) control over the changes?

Genuine questions btw. I feel I may have missed something here.



What are you thinking of as high ISO here? The reason I ask is that my techniques+equipment require me to deal frequently with high noise levels, both because of using a small sensor and additionally as a side-effect of bringing up under-exposed images. It's not ideal by any manner of means, and it does put more of a burden on the post processing side of things, but I do find it workable. I'm wondering where your boundaries are, noise-wise. And perhaps there is some other issue about underexposing? Surely not an issue specifically with the 7D? I understood it has a really nice sensor.



Good. Perhaps make a reference to the sharpness to avoid taking unnecessary flak? (as in "we're looking at composition, exposure here - I know they're not fully sharp")
:)
Click to expand...

Thanks was trying something new and wondered what people thought but do agree its over exposed, i don't normally go that far just try to get the histogram bang in the middle. i do find that I often need to go + 1/3 or 2/3 to do that
actually you're right i probably don't need to ETTR for insects at low ISO but have found that for subjects at higher ISO, greater than 800, I do need to get the exposure right as lightening afterwards does cause noise
The 7D (and 550D) is excellent i find if I get the exposure correct, I don't need noise reduction certainly not at 800 and below
thanks again its very helpful to get feedback:)
i will post up a couple more with normal exposure when I've sorted them out:)
 
Martyn D said:
Nice images Pete with lovely DOF, the only thing I'd do is increase the blacks/darks a little as the images look a little to light.

@GardenersHelper I get exactly what you're saying about the exposure comp settings, I dial in -1/3 stop when doing landscapes as it seems to stop highlights getting blown but then lightening the shadows is said to bring in noise (something the 7d is "said" to be poor with)....not that I've noticed this increased noise.
The general advice seems to be to dial in + exposure comp as darkening as apposed to lightening does not bring in the extra noise....I guess I'll give it a go and see what happens
Click to expand...
thanks Martyn you are right I,ve over done the lightness a bit:)
 
michael kilner said:
Hi Pete,used to see you on the Fred Miranda forum occasionally, but since the idiot moderators comments and veiled insults about image quality,a lot of the frequent posters including myself have now left.With regard to your image, I personally wouldnt over expose as the blown highlights are quite obvious,but the main thing is the image is spoiled by the vertical stem that travels the full length of the butterflies wing.I have seen plenty of your work and you know what you are doing but this spoils the image for me.No insult intended,best regards Mick
Click to expand...

Hi Michael yes i do remember you from Fred Miranda
I went on there recently after not doing macro for ages and noticed that a lot of people had left
Its a real shame don't know what the mod on there was trying to achieve but its not the same there now:(

thanks for the C&C you are right about exposure and the stem I have got some more shots with better exposure and the stem behind the butterfly will set them out:)
 
Hi here's another one not 100% sharp but the exposure is right now I think also a better composition:)

butterfly-1-11web.jpg
 
LCPete said:
Hi here's another one not 100% sharp but the exposure is right now I think also a better composition:)

butterfly-1-11web.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh yes, the flower is lovely now, and everything looks more "solid" to my eye.

I see you have "Edit my images" as "Yes", so, just a thought on the cropping front. (I've made a couple of other minor local changes, but quite possibly not noticeable, and - like the crop of course - a matter of personal taste anyway. So all FWIW. :) )


NOT MY IMAGE - LCPete - butterfly-1-11web LR1-6 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Thanks again Nick I like the crop you've done looks better like that:)
The butterfly looks s bit brighter too I guess a bit of curves adjustment:)
 
LCPete said:
Thanks again Nick I like the crop you've done looks better like that:)
The butterfly looks s bit brighter too I guess a bit of curves adjustment:)
Click to expand...

Lightroom does have Curves, but I don't believe I've ever used it. I used to use Curves a lot in CS, but now I use Lightroom for most of my PP I don't seem to need Curves, or Levels (which Lightroom doesn't have).

I brought up the shadows a bit in the whole image. I also used two rather small radial filters. One was around the head and upper thorax, and it upped the shadows a bit more. The other one, on the abdomen, upped the shadows a bit and took down the highlights quite a lot.
 
Thanks Tony appreciated:)
Thanks Nick for explaining the adjustments:) will have a look at doing local adjustments not tried it before
I also now mainly just use lightroom
Just use photoshop for a slight final sharpen
And stacking which I do with the healing brush
 
LCPete said:
Thanks Nick for explaining the adjustments:) will have a look at doing local adjustments not tried it before
Click to expand...

The Adjustment Brush and Radial Filters are well worth looking at. I seem to recall there are Adobe TV videos of both, and very useful I found them too.

The Adjustment Brush has a really nice "intelligent" selection mechanism - masking pretty much without layers, with variable opacity within a selection, as with a layer mask.

I use Radial Filters more now - I just find them very convenient for a lot of what I want to do, emphasising and de-emphasising areas of an image.

You can do the same quite wide range of adjustments with both the Adjustment Brush and Radial Filters, the only weakness in my book being that the amount of any effect you can use can be more limited than I would like sometimes.

LCPete said:
I also now mainly just use lightroom
Just use photoshop for a slight final sharpen
Click to expand...

Same here with the sharpening. I also use a CS (2 in my case) together with Lightroom for strong, selective noise reduction. After processing in Lightroom I send two copies of an image across to CS2, one with no noise reduction and one with enough noise reduction to deal with the worst of the noise (some of my images are extremely noisy). With these two as layers, I then use the eraser to reveal the noise-reduced layer where appropriate, with variable opacity if necessary. Then resize and sharpen (I don't do any sharpening in Lightroom at any stage of the process.)

I also use CS2 for occasional warping to balance backgrounds. Where one side or the other (or even both) is too narrow, I stretch it (them). Where I want one side narrower but I don't want to crop because of the content, I squeeze.

And any other than trivial clone/heal I do in CS2.

LCPete said:
And stacking which I do with the healing brush
Click to expand...

I use Zerene Stacker for stacking. I don't do a lot of stacking, although that's one thing I'm intending to do more of this year. I think Zerene works really well. I can throw a set of images across to it from Lightroom in one simple move, with automatic conversion to 16-bit tiff.
 
Thanks Nick for taking the time to explain that much appreciated:)
I will have a look at the radial filters
I do a similar thing with noise reduction use neat image on the background combine the two and use the erase tool
But don't normally do it on insects
This time of year I photo big cats at the zoo and sometimes am at high iso for that but with ETTR I only need it at ISO 1600
With sharpening I now do a small amount in lightroom on raw conversion and use the mask tool it works really well means that the background isn't sharpened
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top