[normhead]

a definition brush ???

Micro contrast.

[normhead]

Today at Algonquin Park

K-3 and Tamron AF 300 2.8 and HD DA 1.4 TC

A squirrel proof bird feeder attachment thingy..



Near the feeder or on the feeder.






At the beaver pond, K-3 and Tamron AF 300 2.8 and F1.7x AF Adapter

With the K-1


A little bit closer, slightly different angle with the K-3, just incase you were wondering how much difference 24 MP APS-c makes. Less background, more subject.

[ccc_]

a definition brush ???

thanks for the suggestion

I do minimum pp with the basic Windows 10 program

still learning

just glad I didn't pick up reflections

coloration looks true to life to my memory

norm gave some great advice

I use on1
there it is called a detail brush
either way the brush only affects the "painted" areas

an old school solution might be to use one of the flexible lens hoods from yesteryear
that would allow you to put the lens on the glass with no noise and no reflections/flare from side lighting

anyway like he said...

[aslyfox]

norm gave some great advice

I use on1
there it is called a detail brush
either way the brush only affects the "painted" areas

an old school solution might be to use one of the flexible lens hoods from yesteryear
that would allow you to put the lens on the glass with no noise and no reflections/flare from side lighting

anyway like he said...

as I say, I am just learning pp

I use the " photo " editing program in Windows 10 and I don't think it offers what you guys are talking about

thanks for all the help

I admit the " after " looks better as a photo but it isn't true to life in my opinion and that is what I am attempting to do, record true life

to each his own

[normhead]

I think he only did the "detail" thing to show you what effect it has. I'm guessing he didn't do a white balance and bump the saturation to bring up the orange in the tiger's fur. You might say it doesn't look "true" but my original point was, that what you posted didn't look true. And I gave you things to do to correct that.

As a former photography teacher, my classes went out and shot images on day one, then got on the computers to start learning the software on day 2. It's simply not optional if you want life like photos. But, I've heard that excuse lot's of times. The simple truth is, the camera doesn't get it right, especially if it's been shot in RAW. If you aren't working with decent post processing software, maybe 1 in 500 images will come out looking right. And that's not even starting to discuss artistic license.

I found using Photoshop that just using the "auto adjust" was all I needed for 90% of everyday photos. Since then I've learned to create presets for Aperture, "fall colours mild" "boost shadows" a base preset for each camera and presets for many common shooting circumstances.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that you are the guy doing "true to life" because you don't post process. Most of us learn to post process because we want to do "true to life". We want the image to look like what we "saw". Unfortunately, the eye adjusts to things like colour balance etc. so quickly, the brain applies it's own filters, so what we "saw" is not what was there. It's what you saw after your brain tried to do a white balance, emphasized the parts its genetically programmed to find interesting like curves lines, all the elements of composition. So basically what you saw is not what you saw. It was your brain's interpretation. Post processing lets others see what you saw, not what was there in a scientific sense.

Each to his own for certain, but let's not hold ourselves up as guardians of some kind of truth. And in the case of an animal behind glass, there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to post process so it's looks like the glass wasn't there. It may not be the truth of someone on the outside looking through the glass, but it would be the truth of someone inside the glass looking at the animal. Which truth is it you are trying to preserve? . And the truth of that tigers fur was that brilliant orange. The orange you're calling truth looks muted and washed out.

My advice, forget the truth, it's way to complicated, create a compelling image

That's what artists do.

[aslyfox]

I think he only did the "detail" thing to show you what effect it has. I'm guessing he didn't do a white balance and bump the saturation to bring up the orange in the tiger's fur. You might say it doesn't look "true" but my original point was, that what you posted didn't look true. And I gave you things to do to correct that.

As a former photography teacher, my classes went out and shot images on day one, then got on the computers to start learning the software on day 2. It's simply not optional if you want life like photos. But, I've heard that excuse lot's of times. The simple truth is, the camera doesn't get it right, especially if it's been shot in RAW. If you aren't working with decent post processing software, maybe 1 in 500 images will come out looking right. And that's not even starting discuss artistic license.

I found using Photoshop that just using the "auto adjust" was all I needed for 90% for everyday photos. Since then I've learned to create presets for Aperture, "fall colours mild" "boost shadows" a base preset for each camera and presets for many common shooting circumstances.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that you are the guy doing "true to life" because you don't post process. Most of us learn to post process because we want to do "true to life". We want the image to look like what we "saw". Unfortunately, the eye adjusts to things like colour balance etc. so quickly, the brain applies it's own filters, so what we "saw" is not what was there. It's what you saw after your brain tried to do a white balance, emphasized the parts its genetically programmed to find interesting like curves lines, all the elements of composition. So basically what you saw is not what you saw. It was your brain's interpretation. Post processing lets others see what you saw, not what was there in a scientific sense.

Each to his own for certain, but let's not hold ourselves up as guardians of some kind of truth. And in the case of an animal behind glass, there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to post process so it's looks like the glass wasn't there. It may not be the truth of someone on the outside looking through the glass, but it would be the truth of someone inside the glass looking at the animal. Which truth is it you are trying to preserve? . And the truth of that tigers fur was that brilliant orange. The orange you're calling truth looks muted and washed out.

My advice, forget the truth, it's way to complicated, create a compelling image

That's what artists do.

thank you for the suggestions

but I am not an artist, nor do I claim to be

nor am I trying to sell any photos

and I was there, you were not

so how do you know how the tiger appeared?

[normhead]

thank you for the suggestions

but I am not an artist, nor do I claim to be

nor am I trying to sell any photos

and I was there, you were not

so how do you know how the tiger appeared?

Typical glass colour cast and loss of contrast and micro contrast.? I was working on similar images just last week. The look is unmistakable, I've seen it a million times.

Hey, it's no sweat off my back, do what you want. I'm just letting you know, stuff like this is apparent to anyone with experience. We are seeing it. I guess maybe you don't care. Fair enough.

[aslyfox]

Typical glass colour cast and loss of contrast and micro contrast.? I was working on similar images just last week. The look is unmistakable, I've seen it a million times.

Hey, it's no sweat off my back, do what you want. I'm just letting you know, stuff like this is apparent to anyone with experience. We are seeing it. I guess maybe you don't care. Fair enough.

thanks for the advice

[tim60]

norm gave some great advice

I use on1
there it is called a detail brush
either way the brush only affects the "painted" areas

an old school solution might be to use one of the flexible lens hoods from yesteryear
that would allow you to put the lens on the glass with no noise and no reflections/flare from side lighting

anyway like he said...

So this explains my dissatisfaction , I was comparing my pictures without this processing with the ones others of you have put up here, after adjustment.

[jonhock]

one of the first photos taken with my new K 3 II

Sumatran Tiger at the Topeka Zoo and Conservation Center

hand held, natural light

photographed through window of the enclosure

All of that wonderful advice aside, I think it's a great photo!
I'd be glad to just have the opportunity to get it. I've been shooting Pentax's cameras and lenses since 1978 when I
got my first K1000 and post processing just was not available. I took a lot of shots of the same subject (now called "bracketing") to be sure to get the shots I wanted. I have a K-3 now and I still do it, being much less expensive with digital and all. My only suggestion would be to take a few extra shots but like I said... I'd just be Glad to get The photo at all rather than be worry about processing. But that's just me I guess. 😀

[jonhock]

Here's a couple "drive-by" shots (as a passenger) with my K-3 and my Pentax DA 18-135mm........... They are all resized to post them but that's all I did.

[Nitrogliserin]

More pics from Skye

[Erd§]

I'm just letting you know, stuff like this is apparent to anyone with experience. We are seeing it. I guess maybe you don't care.

Norm - your elitist comments are patently unfair...particularly in a thread not meant for critiques...and particularly from someone who posted an image of a purple beaver. Let the man post his images without being told how unrealistic it looks to you. And before you claim that you were just trying to help, have a closer look at your comment that I quoted. It was clearly meant to ridicule.

[aslyfox]

All of that wonderful advice aside, I think it's a great photo!
I'd be glad to just have the opportunity to get it. I've been shooting Pentax's cameras and lenses since 1978 when I
got my first K1000 and post processing just was not available. I took a lot of shots of the same subject (now called "bracketing") to be sure to get the shots I wanted. I have a K-3 now and I still do it, being much less expensive with digital and all. My only suggestion would be to take a few extra shots but like I said... I'd just be Glad to get The photo at all rather than be worry about processing. But that's just me I guess. 😀

thank you

I am a newbie, no denying that

trying to learn

so i seek knowledge and I award useful knowledge by giving " bonus points " which are useful world wide to purchase beverages ( when added to an adequate amount of local $ ) at a " diner " of the recipient's choice

normhead and ccc_ are awarded bonus points for their advice to me and through me to others.

____________________

considering I am 8 months away from solely using the " green " setting on my DSLRs when using it, and I had rarely taken photos in the film era, I think I am making some progress

I know that I have a lot more progress to make- in the mere taking of the photograph, composition, use of pp and other techniques,


so I don't expect that my attempts will match or even come close to those posted by others with more experience, knowledge or talent

there is no denying that.

Some of the photos I see on the forums are amazing, both solely from the ability to get the shot and the pp done after the image has been captured

________________________________

it was a " rough " day yesterday and if I caused offense with my remarks to anyone, I apologize

[aslyfox]

as a joke, while sipping coffee killing time

I decided to document my " covert surveillance " technique from the driver's seat of my Suburban

[ and yes, I made a rookie mistake getting my thumb and fingers into that first photo ]