Jump to content

In Love With A Pic But Not Sure to Upload


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Why is the sky darker in the middle and lighter in the corners? Over-cooked vignette compensation? Looks a bit strange to me, but the bird is great.

 

Mark

 

It is a sky replacement. I will be adding a different sky.  I really want feedback on the noise on the outspread wing.  It has some colour noise in the bottom grey feathers and grain noise in the top of the wing.  Is it too much or reasonable?  Colour noise is something I really try to avoid.

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

It is a sky replacement. I will be adding a different sky.  I really want feedback on the noise on the outspread wing.  It has some colour noise in the bottom grey feathers and grain noise in the top of the wing.  Is it too much or reasonable?  Colour noise is something I really try to avoid.

 

Jill

OK. The wing feathers look a bit unnatural to me with areas that swap between a mottled texture and smooth, but it's a great image, so I'd probably risk it, but IMO there is a risk of a QC failure.

 

Alternatively maybe some here could help get an even more refined result and post their "recipe"? Have a you got a reject RAW image you'd be prepared to upload? By reject I mean where one wing is sharp with similar noise, but where the bird pose or other features aren't sharp making it unsaleable.

 

Out of interest, what tool are you using to try to fix the noise?

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

OK. The wing feathers look a bit unnatural to me with areas that swap between a mottled texture and smooth, but it's a great image, so I'd probably risk it, but IMO there is a risk of a QC failure.

 

Alternatively maybe some here could help get an even more refined result and post their "recipe"? Have a you got a reject RAW image you'd be prepared to upload? By reject I mean where one wing is sharp with similar noise, but where the bird pose or other features aren't sharp making it unsaleable.

 

Out of interest, what tool are you using to try to fix the noise?

 

Mark

 

I'll upload a jpg from the original image totally unprocessed.

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, M.Chapman said:

 

That will be very interesting, but would be even better if it was a RAW....

 

Mark

 

It won't let me upload a RAW so uploaded the jpg.  You can click on the pic to take you to flikr.

 

IMG_3155-1

 

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm.. that's quite a challenge, there's a lot of noise. In reality there's no such thing as an unprocessed jpg, possibly making it even more challenging. I played around with it and couldn't get a result I liked.

 

I think a trick that might help, which would help reduce/conceal the rather abrupt transitions between the totally flat - noise removed areas, and the crackle finish "texture enhanced" areas is to proceed as follows.

 

Produce 2 images of the bird. One with your noise reduction the other without. Put on 2 layers in PS with the NR layer on top. Then reduce the opacity of the NR layer so some of the noise "bleeds" back into the combined image. I use this technique with Topaz all the time and can do all processing in PS.

 

I'll have a bash at combining the noise reduced and "unprocessed" jpgs you've posted.

 

Mark

 

 

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a Fuji file imported/edited in LR? Apologies if this has been mentioned...I think its a good image, and would certainly see what QC decide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay D said:

Is this a Fuji file imported/edited in LR? Apologies if this has been mentioned...I think its a good image, and would certainly see what QC decide. 

 

 Ok i see its not, just Fuji raw files sometimes have had issues similar in LR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/10/2022 at 21:49, Jill Morgan said:

 

Nice work.  I did get a little fuzziness as I did a sky replacement.  My image had a pale blue sky with no clouds.  But I may change that and just up the saturation on the original. I will work on it.  I have another one that is similar but the bird is smaller in the image so tougher to do corrections.  

 

The hawk is catching pieces of chicken thrown up in the air.  This image (and 3,000 others) were taken at the Canadian Raptor Conservancy.  They offer 2 hour photoshoots and it was amazing to be with these gorgeous birds of prey.  Still going through them all.  I hope to go once in the winter as well.

 

Jill

 

I know you didn't ask this but I thought the sky behind the hawk was too busy - I think the original pale blue sky behind would let the bird stand out more. Very cool image. Good luck with the reprocessing! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

i was told this had been greatly improved with newer version

Apparently fixed with 'Enhanced details', not tried it myself. Looking at Graphics cards for Lightroom last night I was surprised to see that 'Enhanced details' leans heavily on the graphics card.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Apparently fixed with 'Enhanced details', not tried it myself. Looking at Graphics cards for Lightroom last night I was surprised to see that 'Enhanced details' leans heavily on the graphics card.

 

thanks. with early "worming" issues and the intro of subscription only i moved to Capture One, which has been fine for me to date, but i was curious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

i moved to Capture One

Capture One is supposed to be very good (according to Thomas Fitzgerald) but I'd miss the LR database functionality, I use Iridient for those images that benefit from it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marianne said:

 

I know you didn't ask this but I thought the sky behind the hawk was too busy - I think the original pale blue sky behind would let the bird stand out more. Very cool image. Good luck with the reprocessing! 

 

I agree Marianne.  I doubt I will be uploading the original image I posted.  The noise is exceptionally high and I doubt I can salvage it for online selling, but may work with it as a piece of art.

 

I did upload the second hawk image last night and removed the busy sky in that one with a plain deep blue sky.  Improved the image greatly.  I'll find out soon whether it made it past QC.  I think it should.

 

Jill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

is this still a fact, i was told this had been greatly improved with newer version

 

 Yeh its been vastly improved...although i did upgrade to the full package so wasn't sure what the original OP was using. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jay D said:

 

 Yeh its been vastly improved...although i did upgrade to the full package so wasn't sure what the original OP was using. 

 

I use PShop, ACR, Topaz Denoise AI and Topaz sharpen AI.  The original image was extremely noisy and a tough one to clean up.

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/10/2022 at 20:44, Jill Morgan said:

Normally I am very good at binning images (even ones I am in love with) but I have one that I truly love and debate on whether it would pass QC.  The main subject - the hawks face beak and eyes - are no issue, but the wings due to noise reduction can look a bit off. 

 

You can see the image at 100% on flikr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/196816036@N06/52454502158/in/dateposted-public/

 

 

Can you guys give it a once over and give my your opinion on whether you think the wings would do me in on this one.

 

harris hawk catching chicken IMG_3115-1

 

 

 

Can't help you with the picture, Jill, but saw some pics, this evening, and thought they may brighten peoples day.  Take a look at 'Comedy Wildlife Photo. com'

Edited by BidC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad the other one passed QC @Jill Morgan It's so frustrating when a great photo isn't as clean as we'd like, whereas if it was on film our expectations would be so different. Hopefully you can find a way to make your capture saleable as art. Capturing birds of prey so difficult - at least for me. I've spent hours in the backwaters near my family's beach house over the years photographing osprey and to date I haven't gotten a single keeper. I didn't even try this summer, the calm landscape was so much more soothing to photograph, but I hope you had a few more keepers. 

 

I found Capture One did a slightly better job on my Sony RAW files - that was back in 2019 - since then LR has continued to improve and I haven't done a comparison since. It took me ages to process in Capture One and I missed the convenience of organizing and processing in LR/PS as well as the increase in speed. I'm very slow and deliberate with my processing and the extra time was just too cumbersome for a final result that probably only I could notice at 200% on my screen, but Capture One is excellent. 

 

I haven't tried the Topaz products but I know people swear by them. I still use the old Nik plugins in LR (which I purchased pre-Google) but haven't upgraded to the D&O set.

LR now has so many presets - though I mostly work on each photo separately, sometimes I'll try out various ones as starting points since I enjoy all the possibilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marianne said:

 

 I still use the old Nik plugins in LR (which I purchased pre-Google) but haven't upgraded to the D&O set.

 

 

I got the new ones from DXO and am wondering if I should try to get the original ones back off my old computer. I need to watch some tutorials because it is more different than expected. I'm also having trouble with the interface because the white lettering against black is almost unreadable in the lists of filters. Not enough contrast. They become readable on mouseover but I'm having to make more effort than I would like. I hope to sort this out because I do like the results when done.

 

Paulette

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Marianne said:

Glad the other one passed QC @Jill Morgan It's so frustrating when a great photo isn't as clean as we'd like, whereas if it was on film our expectations would be so different. Hopefully you can find a way to make your capture saleable as art. Capturing birds of prey so difficult - at least for me. I've spent hours in the backwaters near my family's beach house over the years photographing osprey and to date I haven't gotten a single keeper. I didn't even try this summer, the calm landscape was so much more soothing to photograph, but I hope you had a few more keepers. 

 

I found Capture One did a slightly better job on my Sony RAW files - that was back in 2019 - since then LR has continued to improve and I haven't done a comparison since. It took me ages to process in Capture One and I missed the convenience of organizing and processing in LR/PS as well as the increase in speed. I'm very slow and deliberate with my processing and the extra time was just too cumbersome for a final result that probably only I could notice at 200% on my screen, but Capture One is excellent. 

 

I haven't tried the Topaz products but I know people swear by them. I still use the old Nik plugins in LR (which I purchased pre-Google) but haven't upgraded to the D&O set.

LR now has so many presets - though I mostly work on each photo separately, sometimes I'll try out various ones as starting points since I enjoy all the possibilities. 

 

I love the Topaz software.  If I had posted the original image unprocessed (the noise was twice as bad as that the one I posted of the second image) you would be quite impressed with what the Topaz software did, even with the artifacts that are in the image.  It didn't have a lot to work with.

 

Jill

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NYCat said:

 

I got the new ones from DXO and am wondering if I should try to get the original ones back off my old computer. I need to watch some tutorials because it is more different than expected. I'm also having trouble with the interface because the white lettering against black is almost unreadable in the lists of filters. Not enough contrast. They become readable on mouseover but I'm having to make more effort than I would like. I hope to sort this out because I do like the results when done.

 

Paulette

 

4 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I love the Topaz software.  If I had posted the original image unprocessed (the noise was twice as bad as that the one I posted of the second image) you would be quite impressed with what the Topaz software did, even with the artifacts that are in the image.  It didn't have a lot to work with.

 

Jill


Interesting to hear. Are the new DxO worth it do you think? Hope you’ll share more about your experience when you’ve used it more. 
 

Are the Topaz filters easy or hard/time consuming to learn? Do the work as plug ins with LR & PS or are they stand alone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 


Interesting to hear. Are the new DxO worth it do you think? Hope you’ll share more about your experience when you’ve used it more. 
 

Are the Topaz filters easy or hard/time consuming to learn? Do the work as plug ins with LR & PS or are they stand alone?

Easy to use, and work both as standalone and plugin. However processing is quite slow, so trial and error to get the best result can take some time, especially as the whole image may need to be checked to see if there any unwanted artefacts have been introduced anywhere. However, once the settings that work have been found, I tend to apply them to new images without too many concerns. But I do always apply on a separate layer in PS so I can dial down the effect (to leave a little noise and avoid over-sharpened edges as I find that even on the lowest sharpening setting in the Topaz Denoise, it's too much. Also - I could never get good colour rendering when using Topaz Denoise on RAW files*, so typically apply on 16 bit TIFF or PSD images suing the plugin in PS.

 

*That maybe because I'm shooting with Panasonic though.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Easy to use, and work both as standalone and plugin. However processing is quite slow, so trial and error to get the best result can take some time, especially as the whole image may need to be checked to see if there any unwanted artefacts have been introduced anywhere. However, once the settings that work have been found, I tend to apply them to new images without too many concerns. But I do always apply on a separate layer in PS so I can dial down the effect (to leave a little noise and avoid over-sharpened edges as I find that even on the lowest sharpening setting in the Topaz Denoise, it's too much. Also - I could never get good colour rendering when using Topaz Denoise on RAW files*, so typically apply on 16 bit TIFF or PSD images suing the plugin in PS.

 

*That maybe because I'm shooting with Panasonic though.

 

Mark

 

I don't find the Topaz software takes very long at all.  When deciding, you pick an area of the photo to get your sample rendering.  I of course usually pick the eyes and beak of the bird.  Sample rendering is fairly quick in Topaz sharpen and even faster in Topaz DeNoise.  I also find the DeNoise software over sharpens so you have to put your slider way down, especially if your image doesn't really require any sharpening, just noise reduction.  Final rendering can take a couple of minutes, but that of course can depend on the size of the RAW.

 

I use the Sharpen version the most often as noise generally is not usually a big problem.  It certainly was that day.  The sun was so bright it actually blew out all the highlights on the head and tail feathers of the Bald Eagle.  I had even lowered the aperture setting to compensate, but not enough.

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.