Nature What do you think.. to PP or not PP

normhead · 06-10-2015, 06:06 PM

Minimal PP

Gave it 10 minutes of my time....

Still not sure which I like better.

wildman · 06-10-2015, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by normhead

What do you think

No - too much contrast and saturation makes it lose tonal range and detail.
It looks unnatural on my monitor and to my eyes.

**southlander** · 06-10-2015, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by wildman

No - too much contrast and saturation makes it lose tonal range and detail.
It looks unnatural on my monitor and to my eyes.

+1 on Wildman's comments.

Original image could do with a bit of PP'ing but not so much. Maybe a bit of clarity enhancement and some careful sharpening. Maybe lift the shadows very subtly.

**Tony Belding** · 06-10-2015, 08:34 PM

Personally, I like punching up an image with increased contrast and saturation. . . up to a point. I think what we have here is too much of a good thing. If I were doing it, the result would be somewhere in between these two images.

**Canada_Rockies** · 06-10-2015, 09:30 PM

I'm with the others on this. Perhaps a moderate enhancement - perhaps ¼ of the way between the first and the second. I find the shiny bird in the second looks like a plastic model.

Joe_M · 06-11-2015, 04:50 AM

The question is, is sit too much/ too little or is it the right post processing. The original image just "sits there." It obviously needs to be properly processed. That all depends on your ability with the software and your experience.

On this particular image you could have easily applied a Curves Adjustment Layer and dialed in the Opacity the bring the image contrast and "life." It probably could have used a High Pass Filter, set to soft light, and dialed in with the Layer Opacity Slider. Those are two very simple things that can be done after the regular processing in LR. I am assuming you are shooting in RAW and using LR and PS. (Of course much more can be done to the image to make it more pleasing to the eye.) If not just adjust your work flow accordingly depending on your files and software. If you are shooting JPEG than the camera has done most of the important stuff for you.

**Bruce Clark** · 06-11-2015, 05:38 AM

Good shot of the bird, well posed and clear of any obstructions. Focus on the bird is great with eye nice and sharp. Something to work with.

As far as PP goes, I prefer something between the two. Perhaps tone down the green slightly and lighten up the bird a touch. Other thing to consider is cropping. I would try to cut out a lot of the leaves to make the bird more prominent. Using rule of thirds or "Golden Ratio" you have the eye in about the right spot now. Keep it there but take away some of the surrounding leaves. I am not too sure if you have a photo of a tree with a bird in it or a photo of a bird in a tree.For me the bird is everything. Exposure for the bird, compose for the bird. The tree is background. Blur the leaves, not too much and sharpen the bird, again not too much. Perhaps a mild vignette to focus attention on the bird,

Something like this perhaps.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

normhead · 06-11-2015, 05:48 AM

Lots of good ideas..... Played around with it a bit more... it's a hand held shot and in the end, I'm just not happy with the feather detail or isolation against the background... sometimes you just need a better image to start with. Although some folks seem to think you can just take a bad image and make it into an amazing image with photoshop, my experience is, you can make a bad image good, but not exceptional. I think I might be putting this in the folder for the counter argument. If you don't get a useable file to start with you won't get what you want out of post. When I first looked at this I though," this file isn't useable." But hey.. sometimes you have to try.

audiobomber · 06-11-2015, 07:26 AM

The last one looks best Norm.

Those black buggers are a challenge to photograph, especially against a bright sky. I found a huge one dead on the road yesterday. He was almost always along the same stretch of road, and not as wary as most ravens, so I had lots of photos of him. Looks like he got too engrossed in a roadkilled squirrel and ended up in the same situation.

normhead · 06-11-2015, 07:34 AM

Ya, I'll probably go and try and reshoot today.. I'm putting together a book on Algonquin, and I do want a Raven or Crow image, but this isn't it.

wildman · 06-11-2015, 07:51 AM

Norm,
For this kind of shot really requires RAW but...

WB was off. Important when trying to get black just right. I did a manual WB in Photoshop by tonal range.
Seems to be both OOF and movement in main subject to some degree.

Tried to bring out as much detail as possible but may have gone over the top on that - maybe too much midtone. Yours looks pretty good in that respect.
Note: What I see in Photoshop always looks better then after the same file is posted on the forum. It always looks duller on the forum post. Don't know what that is all about.

Take care,
Wildman

normhead · 06-11-2015, 08:44 AM

Thanks for the effort....

**frogoutofwater** · 06-11-2015, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Ya, I'll probably go and try and reshoot today.. I'm putting together a book on Algonquin, and I do want a Raven or Crow image, but this isn't it.

I will buy a copy (or two) of that book, Norm, when it's ready.

Algonquin is near and dear to the heart of my husband's family.

**Bruce Clark** · 06-11-2015, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I'm putting together a book on Algonquin

It should an interesting book, I will look out for it.

**csa** · 06-11-2015, 04:48 PM

Norm, I also dabbled with your image (hope you don't mind):

I adjusted the shadows and highlights slightly, and added very little sharpening, in FastStone.

06-10-2015, 06:06 PM	#1
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	What do you think.. to PP or not PP Lens: DA60-250 Camera:* K-3 Photo Location: Algonquin Park, Ontario, Canada ISO: 400 Shutter Speed: 1/200s Aperture: F4 Minimal PP Gave it 10 minutes of my time.... Still not sure which I like better.

06-11-2015, 05:48 AM	#8
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Lots of good ideas..... Played around with it a bit more... it's a hand held shot and in the end, I'm just not happy with the feather detail or isolation against the background... sometimes you just need a better image to start with. Although some folks seem to think you can just take a bad image and make it into an amazing image with photoshop, my experience is, you can make a bad image good, but not exceptional. I think I might be putting this in the folder for the counter argument. If you don't get a useable file to start with you won't get what you want out of post. When I first looked at this I though," this file isn't useable." But hey.. sometimes you have to try. Last edited by normhead; 06-11-2015 at 07:33 AM.

06-11-2015, 07:26 AM	#9
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	The last one looks best Norm. Those black buggers are a challenge to photograph, especially against a bright sky. I found a huge one dead on the road yesterday. He was almost always along the same stretch of road, and not as wary as most ravens, so I had lots of photos of him. Looks like he got too engrossed in a roadkilled squirrel and ended up in the same situation. Last edited by audiobomber; 06-11-2015 at 08:22 AM.

06-11-2015, 07:51 AM	#11
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Norm, For this kind of shot really requires RAW but... WB was off. Important when trying to get black just right. I did a manual WB in Photoshop by tonal range. Seems to be both OOF and movement in main subject to some degree. Tried to bring out as much detail as possible but may have gone over the top on that - maybe too much midtone. Yours looks pretty good in that respect. Note: What I see in Photoshop always looks better then after the same file is posted on the forum. It always looks duller on the forum post. Don't know what that is all about. Take care, Wildman Last edited by wildman; 06-11-2015 at 08:56 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PP manipulation. Is this possible to do?	Dewman	Photographic Technique	6	09-10-2014 01:50 PM
What do you think the K70 is going to have?	Painter	Pentax DSLR Discussion	49	07-10-2014 12:55 AM
Sooooooo..Ricoh said that Pentax is just a brand not a company...What do you think ?	DuyNguyen	Pentax DSLR Discussion	76	04-21-2014 04:48 AM
Nature Not bad for using a TC? What do you think?	volley	Post Your Photos!	5	01-20-2013 10:45 PM
If you were just starting, what PP program would you get?	coachteeter	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	27	05-03-2010 03:14 PM

06-10-2015, 06:31 PM	#2
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by normhead What do you think No - too much contrast and saturation makes it lose tonal range and detail. It looks unnatural on my monitor and to my eyes.

06-10-2015, 06:34 PM	#3
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	Originally posted by wildman No - too much contrast and saturation makes it lose tonal range and detail. It looks unnatural on my monitor and to my eyes. +1 on Wildman's comments. Original image could do with a bit of PP'ing but not so much. Maybe a bit of clarity enhancement and some careful sharpening. Maybe lift the shadows very subtly.

06-10-2015, 08:34 PM	#4
Tony Belding Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Hamilton, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 781	Personally, I like punching up an image with increased contrast and saturation. . . up to a point. I think what we have here is too much of a good thing. If I were doing it, the result would be somewhere in between these two images.

06-10-2015, 09:30 PM	#5
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	I'm with the others on this. Perhaps a moderate enhancement - perhaps ¼ of the way between the first and the second. I find the shiny bird in the second looks like a plastic model.

06-11-2015, 04:50 AM	#6
Joe_M Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Raleigh, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 92	The question is, is sit too much/ too little or is it the right post processing. The original image just "sits there." It obviously needs to be properly processed. That all depends on your ability with the software and your experience. On this particular image you could have easily applied a Curves Adjustment Layer and dialed in the Opacity the bring the image contrast and "life." It probably could have used a High Pass Filter, set to soft light, and dialed in with the Layer Opacity Slider. Those are two very simple things that can be done after the regular processing in LR. I am assuming you are shooting in RAW and using LR and PS. (Of course much more can be done to the image to make it more pleasing to the eye.) If not just adjust your work flow accordingly depending on your files and software. If you are shooting JPEG than the camera has done most of the important stuff for you.

06-11-2015, 07:34 AM	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Ya, I'll probably go and try and reshoot today.. I'm putting together a book on Algonquin, and I do want a Raven or Crow image, but this isn't it.

06-11-2015, 08:44 AM	#12
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Thanks for the effort....

06-11-2015, 01:13 PM	#13
frogoutofwater Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 674	Originally posted by normhead Ya, I'll probably go and try and reshoot today.. I'm putting together a book on Algonquin, and I do want a Raven or Crow image, but this isn't it. I will buy a copy (or two) of that book, Norm, when it's ready. Algonquin is near and dear to the heart of my husband's family.

06-11-2015, 04:07 PM	#14
Bruce Clark Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Ocean Grove, Victoria Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,458	Originally posted by normhead I'm putting together a book on Algonquin It should an interesting book, I will look out for it.