Working on My Birds Shots - Continued

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

I gather from your comment about capture sharpening that you perhaps think all capture sharpening applies to the entire photo. Not so. There is generally no need to apply sharpening to areas that are out of focus and doing so can often partially defeat the purpose of using a blurred background. Applying sharpening to clear blue skies can also be problematic, especially when viewing the electronic file on a large television.

When thinking of capture sharpening, it's important for you to understand whether you are using in-camera sharpening and whether you are eliminating it during post-processing before adding sharpening during post-processing. While you remain in this part of your learning curve, it might be helpful to explain that in your posts that discuss sharpening.

As an example, I use very high in-camera sharpening. Doing so allows me to critique sharpness in my camera's LCD. My very first step during post-processing is to remove all in-camera sharpening. That's for two reasons: The camera applies sharpening to all areas of the image and I may want the sharpening to be applied only to part of it. I prefer to start from a base of no sharpening when using my post-processing software.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Christina,
My very first step during post-processing is to remove all in-camera sharpening. That's for two reasons: The camera applies sharpening to all areas of the image and I may want the sharpening to be applied only to part of it. I prefer to start from a base of no sharpening when using my post-processing software.

Hi Mike,

May we learn from you how you remove sharpening from your images before editing. You mentioned 2 reasons why you do so. The 1st because you want to apply sharpening to certain parts only. Perhaps, I missed the 2nd reason?

Thanks

( Christina, please allow me to inquire about Mike's techniques so we can add his expertise to our editing. Thanks )

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike.. Immensely helpful... To date I have been using the presets for sharpening in raw at 25% in both LR and Elements simply because everything I've read states that all images need sharpening.. This might explain why I'm frustrated with my backgrounds, ie; using a large aperture, hoping to achieve a creamy, blurred bokeh and its not happening because I'm sharpening the entire photo in raw. And also the noise problem in blue skies. Thankfully I still have all those raw photos to back to!

Apologies to anyone who I have shared my sharpening or editing information with... I was trying to be helpful by sharing while learning but I'm just learning to edit and lacking even in just the basics, so learn from my mistakes.

Thank Mike.. You turned on the light bulb in my head... Will do from now on.

PS Victor... My pleasure.. Thank you for asking Mike.

Christina,

I gather from your comment about capture sharpening that you perhaps think all capture sharpening applies to the entire photo. Not so. There is generally no need to apply sharpening to areas that are out of focus and doing so can often partially defeat the purpose of using a blurred background. Applying sharpening to clear blue skies can also be problematic, especially when viewing the electronic file on a large television.

When thinking of capture sharpening, it's important for you to understand whether you are using in-camera sharpening and whether you are eliminating it during post-processing before adding sharpening during post-processing. While you remain in this part of your learning curve, it might be helpful to explain that in your posts that discuss sharpening.

As an example, I use very high in-camera sharpening. Doing so allows me to critique sharpness in my camera's LCD. My very first step during post-processing is to remove all in-camera sharpening. That's for two reasons: The camera applies sharpening to all areas of the image and I may want the sharpening to be applied only to part of it. I prefer to start from a base of no sharpening when using my post-processing software.

[Mike Buckley]

Victor,

I shoot Nikon RAW files and use Nikon post-processing software. That software makes it very easy to remove all in-camera editing including sharpening. It has been too long since I have seen discussions about using third-party software, but I seem to remember that ACR can also remove the in-camera sharpening.

My second reason that you asked about for removing in-camera sharpening is admittedly rather nebulous and certainly not explained well in my previous post. It has mostly to do with the idea that, for me, using a consistent workflow leads to consistently better results. So, to keep things consistent, I always eliminate all in-camera sharpening as my first post-processing step. When I add the sharpening back in during a later step, I don't have to wonder how much sharpening I began with.

Make sense? If not, please don't hesitate to ask again.

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

One question and a point...

Do you use in-camera sharpening? If so, do you eliminate any or all of it before applying 25% sharpening?

I'm gathering from your term, "25% sharpening," that there is a sharpening preset in your software that you are applying at a setting of 25%. That might be fine for this point in your learning curve. However, to master sharpening technique, you will have to eventually use the Unsharpen Mask, which makes use of three very important parameters. They're important because they provide you total control over the sharpening. Those details are explained very well in a CiC tutorial.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

In-camera is set at normal, on my jpegs which I rarely use anymore except for a reference of what the finished photo might look like...

Yes, I'm referring to the software preset in raw photos which is set at 25% and applied to all my photos.

I have been experimenting with the un-sharp masks and local contrast enhancement as learned in the tutorials which I will study again. So my latest photos have the preset of 25% applied in raw to the entire photo, and then the unsharp mask applied to the entire photo at radius .3 threshold 1 at 65-90%.

Are clouds supposed to be sharpened or are they like skies and bokehs and not to be sharpened?

Thank you.

Christina,

One question and a point...

Do you use in-camera sharpening? If so, do you eliminate any or all of it before applying 25% sharpening?

I'm gathering from your term, "25% sharpening," that there is a sharpening preset in your software that you are applying at a setting of 25%. That might be fine for this point in your learning curve. However, to master sharpening technique, you will have to eventually use the Unsharpen Mask, which makes use of three very important parameters. They're important because they provide you total control over the sharpening. Those details are explained very well in a CiC tutorial.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Mike,

Will check it out in viewNX2 and CaptureNX2.

Thanks, appreciate it.

( Thanks Christina, Oh, "Good Morning". Guess we're on the same time zone. 8:13am here)

[Mike Buckley]

In-camera is set at normal, on my jpegs which I rarely use anymore except for a reference of what the finished photo might look like...

I assume you're shooting RAW+JPEG. You're probably aware that your sharpening setting is being applied to both your RAW and JPEG file.

I hope you're reviewing your images in the LCD at 100% to ensure that they are sharp, especially images of birds. If you're having trouble critiquing the sharpness, you might want to increase the in-camera sharpening as I do, knowing of course that you can always reduce or eliminate it in your RAW file as the first step of your post-processing.

So my latest photos have the preset of 25% applied in raw to the entire photo, and then the unsharp mask applied to the entire photo at radius .3 threshold 1 at 65-90%.

My software uses different parameters, so I'm unqualified to discuss those details. However, I do recommend that you not get married to the idea of always using any particular parameter such as 25% sharpening in all of your photos. I wouldn't make that suggestion if you were batch processing your photos, but you're not. So, always applying the same setting defeats the purpose of going to the time and trouble to custom post-process each photo. In a nut shell, most of your photos will work well at a particular setting, but you will surely come across some photos that don't work at all at that setting.

My experience is that settings for local contrast enhancement vary widely from photo to photo. And when using local contrast enhancement, the Intensity parameter of my basic sharpening step has to be reduced considerably. That may or may not be unique to my Nikon software.

Are clouds supposed to be sharpened or are they like skies and bokehs and not to be sharpened?

I suspect that that can be highly debated. If there is a lot of tonal variation in the clouds, I usually apply sharpening to them. If not, I usually don't. However, this has a lot to do (as with everything) about the look that I like. Most important, decide the look that you like. If sharpening makes it happen, use it. If not, don't.

Always keep in mind that sharpening can be applied locally; you can apply a certain amount of sharpening to one part of your photo and a different amount of sharpening to other parts.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike... Very informative and helpful.

I have also been learning and applying selective sharpening (thank you Geoff)... But until this morning I did not understand the whys of it all. I'm learning that I have to outsmart LR and Elements, as well as my camera.

[Mike Buckley]

Just for the record, Christina, I am happy to make the following (albeit obvious) prediction based on the last sentence of your previous post: You are now on the verge of "totally getting it" with regard to your overall outlook on post-processing that will manifest itself very soon if not immediately in very rewarding, personally thrilling ways.

[Dave Humphries]

Can I clarify something for everyone? It might be said to be semantics, but I think it important we understand what is actually happening.

There is no sharpening applied to the RAW data when it leaves the camera - and therefore it is not being 'removed' later).

What is happening in Mike's workflow is:
By default, the Nikon software applies the same sharpening setting it used for the embedded jpg in camera to the RAW image in your computer, it knows this via metadata from the file, and sets the PP control to that value, and that control can then be varied - e.g. be moved down to zero.

When the .nef (RAW file) is opened in LR, ACR or any other non-Nikon editor, it does not use the metadata value to set sharpening (or anything else - except White Balance), instead it applies 0, or whatever preset (or last image) setting was used.

The capture sharpening that Colin uses is applied to the whole image and is typically 300% at 0.3px and 0 threshold, he does this so he's not looking at the anti-alias softened images. By the time we have downsized, it is averaged out and is so output sharpening needs to be applied.
Personally, I don't mind seeing the RAW images 'soft', so unlike Colin, I just don't bother with capture sharpening - and therefore I avoid the need to worry about the effect it has on blue skies, etc. - because as Mike says, you may well want to avoid this.

I also agree with Mike that it is important not to get to set on standard values, at least not if they may affect the image. I have set all my ACR (aka LR) sharpening and noise reduction settings all to zero and saved that as my preset.

Hope that helps,

[Brownbear]

Very, very, helpful. thank you.

Can I clarify something for everyone? It might be said to be semantics, but I think it important we understand what is actually happening.

There is no sharpening applied to the RAW data when it leaves the camera - and therefore it is not being 'removed' later).

What is happening in Mike's workflow is:
By default, the Nikon software applies the same sharpening setting it used for the embedded jpg in camera to the RAW image in your computer, it knows this via metadata from the file, and sets the PP control to that value, and that control can then be varied - e.g. be moved down to zero.

When the .nef (RAW file) is opened in LR, ACR or any other non-Nikon editor, it does not use the metadata value to set sharpening (or anything else - except White Balance), instead it applies 0, or whatever preset (or last image) setting was used.

The capture sharpening that Colin uses is applied to the whole image and is typically 300% at 0.3px and 0 threshold, he does this so he's not looking at the anti-alias softened images. By the time we have downsized, it is averaged out and is so output sharpening needs to be applied.
Personally, I don't mind seeing the RAW images 'soft', so unlike Colin, I just don't bother with capture sharpening - and therefore I avoid the need to worry about the effect it has on blue skies, etc. - because as Mike says, you may well want to avoid this.

I also agree with Mike that it is important not to get to set on standard values, at least not if they may affect the image. I have set all my ACR (aka LR) sharpening and noise reduction settings all to zero and saved that as my preset.

Hope that helps,

[Mike Buckley]

Dave is correct, of course. When I mention that sharpening is being added or removed, I am referring to the image being displayed on the monitor. I am intentionally not mentioning the changes to the electronic information that are making that happen because it is so often understandably confusing to so many people who have not yet wrapped their arms around those details.

[Brownbear]

Please note.. I'm just learning to edit my photos


Here is the swan.. I processed in Lightroom, and zeroed the presets for sharpening and contrast to zero to try and soften the water. Next I tried the adjustment brush and painted on the swan to sharpen by 25% and increase the contrast a little... I learned that you cannot select just the swan and use curves... Whatever curve tools are used are applied to the whole photo which I find disappointing as I just learned how to use this tool.

I think the water looks better but it still looks a little funky.

I also tried uploading to Elements 9 and selecting just the swan to sharpen but could not manage to do it with any finesse. (Ie; obvious lines) so I applied an un-sharp mask to the entire photo. Radius 1. .3 and 85%. I think the un-sharp mask affects the colour of the photo. Also cropped as per the suggestions.













Are these improved? I'm feeling a little overwhelmed with editing.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

I am not completely sure I understand what these latest two pairs of images show us.

Am I correct in thinking these show:

1a original unedited
1b LR 25% sharpening applied to swan only

2a original unedited
2b Elements 9 Sharpening at 85% 1.3 Radius???

For both shots I perceive a subtle increase in feather detail in the second of each pair, but I'm finding it difficult to offer any useful advice as the changes are small.

Don't get discouraged, keep smiling


I did shoot swan and Mallard today

[Brownbear]

The first photo has no sharpening or contrast applied, but the blacks and whites in LR were adjusted to fill the histogram.

The second photos were selectively painted in lightroom, and 25% sharpening applied to the swan only..

Then I downsized and applied an un-sharp mask to the downsized photo using an unsharp mask
Amount 85%, radius .3 and threshold of 1

Thank you. My next step is to do the tutorials for LR and Elements 9.

I look forward to seeing those photos!

Hi Christina,

I am not completely sure I understand what these latest two pairs of images show us.

Am I correct in thinking these show:

1a original unedited
1b LR 25% sharpening applied to swan only

2a original unedited
2b Elements 9 Sharpening at 85% 1.3 Radius???

For both shots I perceive a subtle increase in feather detail in the second of each pair, but I'm finding it difficult to offer any useful advice as the changes are small.

Don't get discouraged, keep smiling


I did shoot swan and Mallard today

[JPS]

Hi Christina,
you are certainly improving with your bird shots, you have posted some very good pictures. Well done.
With your swan shots I personally pushed then a little further, just to try and make them 'pop' a little more.
I hope you don't mind I tried a quick edit to show you my thoughts.
I am loving this thread; enjoying your work and seeing you grow into a fantastic Photograher.
Thanks for sharing and please keep posting more.

[Brownbear]

Hi John

Thank you for your kind words, encouragement and for editing my photo. Seeing your edit helps me see what I need to learn to do.. Yes, I can see how you made it pop... Can you share how you did this, please?

The only thing with your edit that I'm not fond of is that it makes the pink in the swan's body and feathers more prominent. I'm not sure how I made the feathers pinkish but I would like to get rid of it... Now that I think of it, I may have a pink hue set in the LR adjustment brush... I've done this once before and for the purposes of learning to edit it does not really matter. Thank you.

I too, am learning lots from this thread!

[Pentaxopithecus]

This time I tried to follow Joe's advice and find front lighting but it ended up being side lighting more often than not because of the location of the birds, and then it started to rain. I also tried to choose uncluttered backgrounds.

I'm learning to sharpen properly so I sharpened these .5 radius 25% in raw in Elements 9 and then after downsizing .3 radius, threshold 1 85% in elements unsharp mask in Elements 9. Do they look sharp enough?




Fiddled with the WB



I was happy to get this duck in action, but hated (and still do the colour and look of the bokeh) so I decreased the contrast to soften it... I guess this is what they mean by looking for better light?



And another duck in action (I put a orange filter on it to warm the water up because the colour of the water looked blah)






A swan (centered on purpose)... I like the composition because it looks airy... I thought the water was too contrasty so I tried blurring it but I can see my selection lines so will work on it.. Does the blur work?




[IMG]http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g375/ChristinaStobbs/new%20ducks%20geese
/11-swan-5.jpg[/IMG]








All comments and feedback most appreciated. Thank you.

I love the first image because in its simplicity it has somehow nailed the world of the water bird. The set of its head combined with the droplets on its feathers elicit an immediate, albeit subtle, emotional awareness of the lives of such creatures.

What more could you wish to convey in one picture?

[JPS]

Hi Christina,
I'm only using PSE9 and basically opened it into 'Camera raw' editor.
I then adjusted the 'Recovery' to 30, added some 'Fill light' and then adjusted ;Clarity' to 75.

I then opened in PSE9 and sharpened just the swan, @ 130%
I have now selected just the swan and removed the saturation level to zero on the body, and minus 50 on the head.
Does this look any better on your screen?
Kind regards
John