How far should you go in PP

Compuwight

Compuwight

Messages
1,114
Name
Steve France
Edit My Images
Yes
I am the first to admit my PP skills are no great.
How far would you go with AI tools like Topaz ?
I took a long lens photograph, cropped it heavily in Photoshop then used Topaz De-Noise and Sharpen AI.
I think the results are just about acceptable to get a shot of this beautiful Sea Eagle.

RR Rework Sea Eagle 1.jpgRR Rework Sea Eagle 3.jpg
 
If that is one of the IoW release group then any decent record shots are worthwhile 'working on' to bring out the best you can.........well seen and photographed :)
 
I doubt PP would help here you missed the focus buddy :(

Les
 
Box Brownie said:
If that is one of the IoW release group then any decent record shots are worthwhile 'working on' to bring out the best you can.........well seen and photographed :)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input, it is a young male released here on the Island. They tend to stay well away from populated areas and spend most of their time stationary in a high perch, hence the long lens. And nearly always over water hence the heat haze.
 
You should go as far as necessary to make the image look the way you wanted, but no further. It may not be possible to get to that point with any amount of processing if the image is inherently flawed through being oof or blurred through unintended camera movement. Some shots can't be recovered, and while that's disappointing, it's better to just move on.
 
Compuwight said:
Thanks for the input, it is a young male released here on the Island. They tend to stay well away from populated areas and spend most of their time stationary in a high perch, hence the long lens. And nearly always over water hence the heat haze.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be bothered by comments about technical quality; what matters is that you got the picture.

So far as the original question, just do whatever you think is necessary to get what you want. In my opinion, you can only please some of the people some of the time, so concentrate on pleasing yourself.
 
My five groats worth;

I see photography as art, just as valid as a fresh image created purely with paints or photoshop. I say go as far as you want to in order to create the image want. It’s still art.

There are photographers who see minimal post processing is best and assign higher value to almost ‘straight out of camera’ images. There are others that enjoy spending time in post production, and see it as a challenge to get the exact look they want. There are even those that see the photos as secondary to the image they are assembling, and often create striking images utilising the cut & paste tools.

My advice (if you like that is) - use the tools that you want, in the way that you want, as the images you create are YOUR expression and creativity. Let the camera be just another tool alongside your image editor, printer, scissors etc.
 
If the photo has some importance to you then PP, ToPaz or LightRoom as much as you need to to recover it.

Many years ago a friend of the family ask my to clean up a photo of their son who died on active service in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Though I did crop, boost shadows, cloned pixels etc it was just an OK image in fact still quite poor really, however to the friend it was an amazing photo they will treasure for life !

As for image in this thread, as already mentioned in the thread the focus has been missed and that is it really. No matter what you try and do it is still a blurry image, so just try again and practice with your settings, i.e shutter speed, ISO values, reciprocal rule if you have a big zoom.
You will nail a good image in future, just practice on common birds you have around at that similar distance.
 
I'm a believer in the maxim: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

In this instance the OP seems to have cropped away 90 percent of the pixels to produce an image of an out of focus bird. Personally that is not something that I would do.
 
Go as far as you feel you need. At least you got a record of the bird which is more than I can say about our shots of golden- and white tailed- eagles over 5 trips to Lewis/Harris and the Uists.

Perhaps you cropped too much on this shot?
 
If you had used topaz gigapixel first, it would look a lot better.
 
Thankyou all, for taking the time to comment good and bad. As the Sea Eagle is being re-introduced here on the Island I wanted to get a reference shot in the wild so to speak. They spend a lot of time in a nature reserve and very rarely venture closer than 600-700 m and are always close to a large body of water. Thus with a 600mm lens and 1.4TC it is near impossible (for me anyway) to get a good focus. Heat Haze frustrates AF and distorts any image. I guess as always some will appreciate that I got the shot and others will look for the perfect shot.

IMHO the discussion has been very worthwhile and I will continue to visit them in the hope that they will fly closer and lower so that I can get that shot.......

And for good measure a more recent picture, just to share here, when he flew closer but very high. (No PP just 50% crop)

f Sea Eagle 8-1.jpg
 
Compuwight said:
As the Sea Eagle is being re-introduced here on the Island I wanted to get a reference shot in the wild so to speak. They spend a lot of time in a nature reserve and very rarely venture closer than 600-700 m and are always close to a large body of water.
Click to expand...

If this a reference shot of the bird on the island, I would pull back with the crop, and work a composition that includes the water and a bit of the telegraph pole so the location is identifiable. This would reduce the size of the bird, but still make it recognisable as an Eagle and improve it's overall technical appearance.
 
Re: processing, how much and to what, I recall someone saying that you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter because some people like the sparkles. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top