Baby Green Iguana

[Brownbear]

I'm working on my post processing skills and found this image, that I like even though the feet and tail are out of focus and a bit blurry. If I had the opportunity to try again I would use a smaller aperture.

Photographed with a Sony 200 DSLR SS 1/500 A 6.3 iso 100

I edited in LR. Cropped to the rule of thirds which may not have left enough room for the iguana to move into? Next I applied an un-sharp mask in Elements and I also added a soft light gradient which seemed to enhance the background. Is there anything else I could do to improve this image via processing?



Thank you.

[Digital]

Christina, nice image.



Bruce

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

He's a fine subject and the OOF area does not bother me as the pose and most importantly the head give this shot it's appeal.

Without seeing or having the original it's difficult to say what can be achieved but I suspect sharpening is one area. I found I could push the sharpening without getting the over-processed look and of course there's always the option of just doing some localised sharpening of the eye.

Are you using the 'Colin Southern' school of sharpening method? It's highly recommended

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

With regard to how much sharpening to use, I often push it until it is too much. I then back off a bit and re-evaluate it.

Any time you have fine details in animals, such as hair or the bumps on the skin, consider adding Local Contrast Enhancement to your normal sharpening. You may need to back off your normal sharpening. Be careful about sharpening out-of-focus areas because doing so often adds noise and other artifacts.

Why did you use Elements to apply an unsharp mask when you could have done that using Lightroom? I mention it because the less you have to switch back and forth between programs, the more effective and enjoyable your post-processing might become.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

I know we usually always say a background should be out of focus and neutral coloured, unfortunately, the (apparently) completely monochrome nature of this one makes it looks false - I am not sure if that's something you deliberately set out for (and got) via the "soft light gradient" or just because it was low in saturation and you white balanced on it.

One other suggestion, if available to you, would be not to crop the toes so close to edge of frame.

Nice lookin' fella/gal, regardless.

HTH,

[Brownbear]

Hi Grahame,

Thank you. As I work through the LR tutorials I'm going to try and post process an image and see if I can make it look better than my jpeg. And in future I will post the original as a reference to see how I did. I have a lot of iguana photos and some are quite nice, either that or I just like them because I think they are cute.

When I worked on this image I thought it was a raw photo because that is all I am importing into LR now, but when I went to find the original I learned it was a jpeg... Below is the original jpeg which I applied an unsharp mask to after I downsized it so the comparison would be equal.

The original...



I have read Colin's sharpening technique but I think I may have switched to Dave Humphries technique, although at this moment I can't remember why.

Since this image was a jpeg, capture sharpening would have been applied by my camera.

In LR I did my usual latest thing and that would be to selectively sharpen just the subject (in anything with sky, water or a plain background) for which I use the selection brush and apply sharpening of .25 and also clarity of .30. (with the preset in LR for sharpening set to zero because I only want to sharpen the subject and not the sky or the water. So if this were a raw file I imagine I would have skipped the capture sharpening and just performed creative sharpening? But there is no need sharpen the sky or water so this process makes sense to me.

Then I export to my pictures folder, without any sharpening, and upload into Elements 9, resize to 1200 pixels and apply an un-sharp mask of a .3 radius of anywhere from 60 to 130 watching carefully to see if I see any halos and/or if the image looks over processed.

I forgot about iris enhance and/or sharpening just the eye, and will try that next time around.

Thank you.

Hi Christina,

He's a fine subject and the OOF area does not bother me as the pose and most importantly the head give this shot it's appeal.

Without seeing or having the original it's difficult to say what can be achieved but I suspect sharpening is one area. I found I could push the sharpening without getting the over-processed look and of course there's always the option of just doing some localised sharpening of the eye.

Are you using the 'Colin Southern' school of sharpening method? It's highly recommended

Grahame

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

Thank you for sharing... I am worried about over-sharpening things but I will try that on my next post-processing exercise and count on you to let me know if I have over-sharpened an image.

I do know and have used Local Contrast Enhancement before but I did not realize it was a good thing to use specifically to bring out fine details in animals, so I will try this too.

I'm not sure. Perhaps because for some reason I know how to do this in Elements and not in LR. In LR I sharpen the subject only by .25 and adding clarity. And then I use Elements for the unsharp mask. I know that I can drag the masking slider in LR to apply an un-sharp mask but for some reason I like to follow the specific numbers set out as guidelines by others on this forum, using Elements as an example..

I will do the Sharpening tutorial in LR today!

With regard to how much sharpening to use, I often push it until it is too much. I then back off a bit and re-evaluate it.

Any time you have fine details in animals, such as hair or the bumps on the skin, consider adding Local Contrast Enhancement to your normal sharpening. You may need to back off your normal sharpening. Be careful about sharpening out-of-focus areas because doing so often adds noise and other artifacts.

Why did you use Elements to apply an unsharp mask when you could have done that using Lightroom? I mention it because the less you have to switch back and forth between programs, the more effective and enjoyable your post-processing might become.

[Brownbear]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for sharing and advising. This photo is from about 1 1/2 years ago. Photographed on a roof top. I lay down and likely tried to blur the background out as it was a unfinished cement house and the sky...

One of my motivations for learning to post process is to be able to improve backgrounds (if possible), and I'm not sure why I tried soft light and/or if it improved the original background, or not. Any suggestions for how I could improve this background or is it just not possible to do well enough?

Yes, if only I could try it again. Hopefully I haven't cropped the toes so closely in my other shots... On my next tropical vacation I will be looking for iguanas.

Thank you.

Hi Christina,

I know we usually always say a background should be out of focus and neutral coloured, unfortunately, the (apparently) completely monochrome nature of this one makes it looks false - I am not sure if that's something you deliberately set out for (and got) via the "soft light gradient" or just because it was low in saturation and you white balanced on it.

One other suggestion, if available to you, would be not to crop the toes so close to edge of frame.

Nice lookin' fella/gal, regardless.

HTH,

[Dave Humphries]

Photographed on a roof top. I lay down and likely tried to blur the background out as it was a unfinished cement house and the sky...

That would explain the grey tone

One of my motivations for learning to post process is to be able to improve backgrounds (if possible), and I'm not sure why I tried soft light and/or if it improved the original background, or not. Any suggestions for how I could improve this background or is it just not possible to do well enough?

I really don't know what to suggest, given (from viewing the original) it doesn't look like the "soft light gradient" has done anything significant to the background. Sorry.

The original being jpg, which below a certain level of image detail (due to DoF), just mushes it all to a plain green coloured skin, hasn't helped the sharpening issue, that's why there are areas with detail and others without - which is another reason you switched to RAW shooting

[AndrewMcD]

I think the composition is terrific. To my eye there is plenty of space for the iguana to move to; he does in fact appear ready to leap.

As I am only just beginning to learn a bit of post processing I don't yet understand what effect the "soft light gradient" has. I assume it has something to do with the gradient of white to black in the background? I find it effective.

Andrew

[jprzybyla]

I didn't think that Green Iguanas were in British Columbia... smiles broadly. Try cropping out what you don't like.

[Brownbear]

Hi Dave,

Yes, indeed... now that you mention it... No worries, I think I have several hundred images of iguanas as I took a fancy to them, and thanks to Cambridge many of them should be in raw too... For my next editing exercise I will choose an iguana sitting in a tree or one without a grey background.

No need to say sorry. It is good for me to know and you can count on me not to take another image with a ramshackle cement building in the background, and also good for me to know that the soft light gradient didn't have any significant effect.

Also good to know... And I'm very pleased to know that I do have raw files stored somwhere, from the days I started taking raw and jpeg just because someone here said it was a good thing to do. At the time I didn't understand why but now I do.

That would explain the grey tone



I really don't know what to suggest, given (from viewing the original) it doesn't look like the "soft light gradient" has done anything significant to the background. Sorry.

The original being jpg, which below a certain level of image detail (due to DoF), just mushes it all to a plain green coloured skin, hasn't helped the sharpening issue, that's why there are areas with detail and others without - which is another reason you switched to RAW shooting

[Brownbear]

I think the composition is terrific. To my eye there is plenty of space for the iguana to move to; he does in fact appear ready to leap.
Hi Andrew,

Thank you. Great to hear that I cropped the little fellow well.

I'm still learning to post process to, and I don't know why I choose this filter, likely just because I wanted to improve the background and liked the sound of "Soft Light"... I googled it and found this description for soft light, for a glamour effect for portraits.

This simple "glamour" technique works especially well on portraits, but don't hesitate to try it on other types of images. The effect produces a warm glow, softening details and diminishing noise and artifacts similar to a soft focus or diffusion lens filter. This technique will work in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements and most other photo editors with layers and blend modes.

That's all I know. Sorry.


As I am only just beginning to learn a bit of post processing I don't yet understand what effect the "soft light gradient" has. I assume it has something to do with the gradient of white to black in the background? I find it effective.

Andrew

[Brownbear]

Hi Joe,

Yes, they are because I loaded my suitcase with several families.. I wish!

Thank you for the suggestion on the crop. I like this critter so I will revisit him in future. Right now I'm just going to pick and choose images to practice processing. I just may have a few birds and bugs that you have never seen! smiles broadly .

I didn't think that Green Iguanas were in British Columbia... smiles broadly. Try cropping out what you don't like.

[Mike Buckley]

I know that I can drag the masking slider in LR to apply an un-sharp mask but for some reason I like to follow the specific numbers set out as guidelines by others on this forum, using Elements as an example..

I'm not positive, but I think the parameters work the same in Lightroom and Elements.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

I just finished 2 mini tutorials on sharpening, and they are similar. However LR does not have a threshold button but it is likely used in some other way that I will no doubt learn about when I finish the sharpening tutorials.

My confusion is more in the process as I process my photo in LR, export to my pictures folder, and from there I upload to elements to resize and apply an unsharp mask. So in LR I am doing input sharpening on the original size photo and in Elements I am applying an output sharpening mask after downsizing. So it is likely just my process. I bought a book on Elements so I will read the sharpening section tonight and try and figure out how they differ and post if I figure it out.

I just learned that I have not been sharpening enough. I could've pushed this iguana to 50 or 60 instead of just 25.. So I am going to finish all the sharpening tutorials and maybe a few more before I post another iguana.

I'm not positive, but I think the parameters work the same in Lightroom and Elements.

[Mike Buckley]

I haven't used Lightroom to sharpen anything and I haven't reviewed any tutorials about that. However...

Hi Mike,

However LR does not have a threshold button but it is likely used in some other way that I will no doubt learn about when I finish the sharpening tutorials.

I would be willing to bet that the three sharpening parameters in Lightroom are the same parameters in Photoshop Elements even though they are labeled differently. I look forward to someone correcting me if I am wrong.

I just learned that I have not been sharpening enough. I could've pushed this iguana to 50 or 60 instead of just 25.. So I am going to finish all the sharpening tutorials and maybe a few more before I post another iguana.

Again, base your final decision on how the image looks. That's why I suggested pushing the sharpening until it looks bad and then back off.

As an example, I can take a picture of the same subject from the same viewpoint using a 70-300mm zoom lens at 300mm and using a 300mm prime lens. The amount of sharpening I have to do on the two images is vastly different because the lenses are different. Every decision about everything ultimately has to be based on how the image looks, not what this or that tutorial suggests; each tutorial is nothing more than a point of departure.

Your decisions about what looks best will come with time, experience, and your changing ideas about how you want a particular type of image to look.

[Stagecoach]

Mike,

You make some excellent points above and I especially like the one to push the sharpening over the top then back it off.

I'm still learning and found Colin's advice on sharpening extremely valuable and have recently been experimenting with other methods covered in a book I have. The most important aspect I'm finding is that whilst the figures are a good starting point critically look at what's happening to the image on the screen at the appropriate size.

[Mike Buckley]

The most important aspect I'm finding is that whilst the figures are a good starting point, critically look at what's happening to the image on the screen at the appropriate size.

Print that. Frame it. Hang it on the wall. Put a spotlight on it.

[FootLoose]

I would be willing to bet that the three sharpening parameters in Lightroom are the same parameters in Photoshop Elements even though they are labeled differently. I look forward to someone correcting me if I am wrong.

You aren't wrong, Mike, but the radius slider in LR5 only goes down to 0.5 pixels whereas in PSE12 it goes down to 0.1. So if you want to apply Colin's 300% at 0.3, then you need PSE 12.

There may be other differences that I am not yet aware of -- I only downloaded a trial of LR today.