I just don't seem to be getting Rawtherapee software

[JBW]

[pnodrog]

Up to this stage I think you have received a lot of helpful comments. Now I think if you want to improve as a photographer you should start analysing and evaluating your own photographs more carefully before you post them or at least post them asking for specific feedback on an aspect you may see as a problem that you want some advise on.

Before I comment I would like to know what you think are the faults , weakness or strengths of this image.

[ajohnw]

I think there may be a need to know what settings are being used on the camera as well. If shots are under exposed adjustments will be more difficult.

This shot is odd in as much as there is a strong shadow but the timber the moth is on looks lightly lit and the moth looks poorly lit. Given a perfectly exposed shot this appearance could easily be created via curves and the black slider but as the appearance of the shot changes as they are used it should be pretty clear that the adjustments are wrong.

PP? It doesn't come quickly for anyone really so the only thing to do is keep trying. At least with the 2 I have mainly suggested the effect on the image is seen almost immediately an anchor point is moved about on the curve. If it's in the wrong place remove it. There is a curves tutorial off the home page under tutorials but you may have to search for it and select tutorials only.

Fact though. Well exposed macro shots often need little or no adjustment.

John
-

[shreds]

I think you need to consider the depth of field and focussing as it is decidedly distracting before I get to look at the lighting. Focus stacking may be the answer, but what aperture did you shoot this at?

I would have tried to get a larger aperture, at the risk of needing to put the camera on a tripod and extend the exposure.

Composition of the shot and shooting angle will also play a huge part in a shot like this and you need to consider how this might work better, preferably before you shoot.

(If moths and butterflies are cold as they often are in the early morning, you have loads of time before they start to move or flap their wings. Don't forget they are cold blooded and need an extended period in the sunlight/heat before they can contemplate moving/flying).

[ajohnw]

I suspect you have paddled up a creek following some odd technique that tries to minimise post processing Brian and basically you've lost your paddle and got stuck in a technique that wont work. This one again looks like a severely under exposed shot. I doubt if the camera forces that on you.

Moths often aren't brilliant subjects as the tones are often subtle and really do need a good exposure. However I did suggest a rawtherapee button that will attempt to cure exposure problems in one go, The shot as it comes is only using about 1/2 of the dynamic range the camera has.



Here is a correctly exposed moth. This size isn't a good idea in some ways as part of their wing surface can tend to be fluffy. It was on the window so I placed some balsa wood against the other side - Some people shoot dead ones. Not me.



John
-

[Geoff F]

I think we really need to see the original straight from camera image before making too many suggestions. If the conditions were tricky this could be an extremely good attempt at a virtually impossible subject.

Plus shooting settings. This image does seem to suggest that the camera has focused on the woodwork behind the insect.

When I was using Raw Therapee I did pass my photos on to other software for a final tweak.

ps. Is it a moth or some form of plant bug? If it was a UK species I would be thinking more along the bug lines.

[pnodrog]

Raw Therapee is not going to correct a focus problem.

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

I have two questions for you;

a) Do you look at and use the 'histogram' on your camera (assuming it has one) after taking the shot?

b) Do you look at and analyse the Exif Data of you image?

This image was taken at 1/30s, f8, Manual Exposure and Autofocus.

Edited................

On another aspect of your photography which concentrates very much on bugs and critters it may be an idea to start exploring your compositions. Years ago I read a book by Scott Kelby that states 'never shoot down on flowers', basically meaning it's boring but shoot from the side or under. Of course this does not apply 100% but it is also very relevant for critters.

As an example, you posted a superbly sharp image of the hairy caterpillar a short time ago, just think of the wow factor you could have captured if you had placed it on a twig and shot it side on with a blurred background way in the distance.

Grahame

[shreds]

My last post on the subject.

One of the most common comments that I used to put across at training seminars was always, always, try and get it 'right first time in the camera or reshoot it there and then.'

In film days that was how it had to be, film was expensive to waste even if you did your own processing. So it was a case of take your time, know your camera back to front and ensure you got the composition, lighting, focussing, exposure etc etc right. It might be a week or so before the film came back from the lab. I like most others used to keep a little book with me to record all the details for later analysis. More of that is required nowadays rather than thinking pp will make silk purses out of sows ears.

Having said all of that I am pleased to see the camera being used in manual mode, though the auto focus on a subject like this is just asking for trouble.

A number of learning points here, the main one being to try and not rely on pp to do anything and to try and do everything to get a great shot without any pp.

In answer to Grahame's question; yes it does have a histogram display.

Can't comment on Rawtherapee as I have never used it, (probably never will) but I see that other experienced users have commented; several key drawbacks:

-Very very slow processing
-Overall complexity of workflow
-Challenged ability to work well with noise

But it is free!

A review of camera for those who don't know it:

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...view/comments/

Including:-
"Autofocus is a bit harebrained at moments"

Which may be part of the reason for the out of focus bits, although I would try closing the shutter down a stop for a greater depth of field and take the ISO to 200/400, but no further on this particular camera.

Anyway, don't take all of this too much to heart, it is meant as constructive, since you did put the pic up here for consideration. As ever we all have the opportunity to go and try again, we all get stuff that you can't economically correct and even the best photographer will get ones like that too!

[jcuknz]

I am not a fan of manual focusing and I am pretty sure AF would have done a better job than you did. Digital cameras are not designed to be manually focused, though many do persist in trying to like they used their SLRs [ LOL ] and it is mistaken thinking to believe that to be good you need to focus manually. To be good you learn to use AF the way it is capable of being used.

Really the problem with this shot apart from the focus which is way way off is it was taken from the wrong angle and you should have moved around some way to your right to get more of the front/head of the moth. Instead of using rawtherapee you would be better off with GIMP. Though it doesn't matter what the colour is like, or the histogram shows you were using only half the dynamic range [ if the subject only requires that ... that is what you get ] if the photo is taken from the wrong angle and out of focus

I trust conditions are getting better for you in the Phillipines

PS ... I never look at my histogram in the camera but find it a great help in editing.

[pnodrog]

Digital cameras are not designed to be manually focused, though many do persist in trying to like they used their SLRs [ LOL ] and it is mistaken thinking to believe that to be good you need to focus manually. To be good you learn to use AF the way it is capable of being used.

And some subjects are not designed for reliable auto focus.

[Clive Kirby]

Brian
I'm a bit perplexed here. Yesterday you posted "Moth on a bamboo sunscreen natural light". It didn't attract much comment but it is well focused and nicely lit and at a decent angle. Today you posted something that is poorly lit and focused and at a pretty bad angle, and as it happens you have attracted a lot of comment. I'm curious, why haven't you persevered with the "Moth on a bamboo sunscreen natural light", which is a lot better and worthy of critique.
regards
Clive

[Stagecoach]

I am not a fan of manual focusing and I am pretty sure AF would have done a better job than you did. Digital cameras are not designed to be manually focused, though many do persist in trying to like they used their SLRs [ LOL ] and it is mistaken thinking to believe that to be good you need to focus manually. To be good you learn to use AF the way it is capable of being used.

John,

Unfortunately it's not always down to whether you are a 'fan' of using a certain procedure to achieve results but more importantly which procedure achieves the result you want.

I'm a keen macro photographer and believe I produce results which get the focus/sharpness exactly where I want it and post images that support this, very simply, AF would not achieve this 90% of the time even though I have very good gear.

It's obvious from this moth image that there was a very shallow DoF and the AF has not given preference to the moth, but it may also be that the AF target was not in the right place because looking at the Exif the 'focus warning' states 'Auto Focus Good'. The significance here being that the cameras 'auto' system thinks it's done a good job but here we are saying the moth is OOF.

A solution to getting the moth in focus, if that's what you want, in a shot such as this with Brian's camera is to lock focus near enough and move the camera (your body) back and forth whilst viewing through the viewfinder to determine when those wings/head are sharpest then snapping.

Edited; there is another reason that is applicable with critters at times for not using AF in that the sound of the lens movement can distract/scare them and I have found this noise is far more significant than blasting them with flash which they seem to accept more readily.

Grahame

[JBW]

Up to this stage I think you have received a lot of helpful comments. Now I think if you want to improve as a photographer you should start analysing and evaluating your own photographs more carefully before you post them or at least post them asking for specific feedback on an aspect you may see as a problem that you want some advise on.

Before I comment I would like to know what you think are the faults , weakness or strengths of this image.

Absolutely right I have received a lot of help. And under the heading of great minds think alike i have moved from manual to shutter priority and it seems to give me more options and control. Took a lot of shots of the same object at different settings and I have been trying to figure out what is happening.
B

[JBW]

Brian,

I have two questions for you;

a) Do you look at and use the 'histogram' on your camera (assuming it has one) after taking the shot?

b) Do you look at and analyse the Exif Data of you image?

This image was taken at 1/30s, f8, Manual Exposure and Autofocus.

Edited................

On another aspect of your photography which concentrates very much on bugs and critters it may be an idea to start exploring your compositions. Years ago I read a book by Scott Kelby that states 'never shoot down on flowers', basically meaning it's boring but shoot from the side or under. Of course this does not apply 100% but it is also very relevant for critters.

As an example, you posted a superbly sharp image of the hairy caterpillar a short time ago, just think of the wow factor you could have captured if you had placed it on a twig and shot it side on with a blurred background way in the distance.

Grahame

if i had tried to move the large hairy caterpillar she would have curled up into a ball or scooted off, plus i would have disturbed her life. I am working on understanding the histogram. I have started to read and understand the exit data. Science was never my strong subject so taking in all of the factual side will take me a while.

I am working with the composition side. And i am running into a split of opinion. One side says detail detail detail the other says context context context. I am trying to find my own little niche where beauty comes to the front.
B
B

[JBW]

A solution to getting the moth in focus, if that's what you want, in a shot such as this with Brian's camera is to lock focus near enough and move the camera (your body) back and forth whilst viewing through the viewfinder to determine when those wings/head are sharpest then snapping.

Grahame[/QUOTE]

viewfinder or LCD?

[JBW]

Brian
I'm a bit perplexed here. Yesterday you posted "Moth on a bamboo sunscreen natural light". It didn't attract much comment but it is well focused and nicely lit and at a decent angle. Today you posted something that is poorly lit and focused and at a pretty bad angle, and as it happens you have attracted a lot of comment. I'm curious, why haven't you persevered with the "Moth on a bamboo sunscreen natural light", which is a lot better and worthy of critique.

Frustration boiling over?
regards
Clive

[JBW]

I am not a fan of manual focusing and I am pretty sure AF would have done a better job than you did. Digital cameras are not designed to be manually focused, though many do persist in trying to like they used their SLRs [ LOL ] and it is mistaken thinking to believe that to be good you need to focus manually. To be good you learn to use AF the way it is capable of being used.

Really the problem with this shot apart from the focus which is way way off is it was taken from the wrong angle and you should have moved around some way to your right to get more of the front/head of the moth. Instead of using rawtherapee you would be better off with GIMP. Though it doesn't matter what the colour is like, or the histogram shows you were using only half the dynamic range [ if the subject only requires that ... that is what you get ] if the photo is taken from the wrong angle and out of focus

I trust conditions are getting better for you in the Phillipines

PS ... I never look at my histogram in the camera but find it a great help in editing.

I did get a few shots from different angles and they did work better. Things are better over here. And this shot definitely proves there is only so much pp can do.

[Stagecoach]

A solution to getting the moth in focus, if that's what you want, in a shot such as this with Brian's camera is to lock focus near enough and move the camera (your body) back and forth whilst viewing through the viewfinder to determine when those wings/head are sharpest then snapping.

Grahame

viewfinder or LCD?[/QUOTE]

Brian,

I never ever use the LCD/live-view personally to determine focus for three reasons;

a) My eyesight determines that I can see focus/data perfectly in the viewfinder without my glasses on.

b) To use the LCD to determine focus I have to put my glasses on, which means continuously taking them on and off.

c) I find I have far more support for the camera thus reducing movement if my eye is against it and my arms in that position.

But that's just what I do.

Grahame

[jcuknz]

And some subjects are not designed for reliable auto focus.

A lot depends on the equipment you have .... not all AFs are equal.