Old Goose BIF, New Software

[NorthernFocus]

I continue to plod through cleaning up my hard drive. It's slow going due getting side tracked down memory lane. This cackling goose in flight is one of my early reasonably successful BIF images. It was shot with a Nikon D300 at ISO800 which I considered to be about its useful limit. Back then I had not yet learned that to minimize noise raising ISO is a better option than under exposing and pushing it in PP. So the image was about a full stop under exposed and pretty darn noisy. It was originally processed with Nikon ViewNX(base processing and NEF to TIFF conversion), Neat Image(NR), and PS Elements(8-bit). Quality was adequate for an 8x10 print with minimal noise.

When I ran across this image in my files I couldn't help but take a stab at re-processing it with my current work flow using LR and On1 PPS9.5. This version of On1 doesn't do so well with NR so I ran it through Topaz DeNoise6. Here are the results. The main difference in color is due to my improved understanding/ability to correct WB. The increased detail in the dark areas is all thanks to lifting the shadows in LR and On1's "dynamic contrast".

1) The original 8-bit version.



2) The re-processed version

[IzzieK]

It is warmer and very nicely processed. The original is not bad at all considering how improved your system is now with the D810.

[Shadowman]

Agree with Izzie, however the redo does separate the head a bit more from the wings, I wonder if this could have been done with just using the clarity slider?

[John 2]

I like Topaz Denoise and use it as one of a four noise reduction programmes that I have. I find that one will be more effective than another depending on the image (I don't know why). It is particularly effective used in conjunction with a High Pass Filter sharpening technique for removing sharpened noise artefacts. Some of the first wildlife images I saw and much admired from you were BIF. Try as I might, I have never achieved the anything of that standard. I clearly have not mastered the technique. My only thought about what you have done here is that the white balance in both versions is slightly off. I prefer the first if I'm honest. I tried correcting for white balance in the second and it gave me a blue sky as a BG and a colder rendition but of course I have no knowledge of the actual colouring of the birds or the sky at the time. All that musing apart, it's still a good image in either version.

[NorthernFocus]

... the redo does separate the head a bit more from the wings, I wonder if this could have been done with just using the clarity slider?

One downside of clarity in LR is that it tends to enhance noise. "Dynamic contrast" in On1 is very similar to clarity but with more control. It has three sliders for large/medium/fine detail. The large setting avoids enhancing noise. The slider for fine detail is what some would call "micro contrast" and pretty much like sharpening. A skilled technician no doubt could accomplish the same thing with various contrast and sharpening tools used on several layers and blended together at various opacities. At the end of the day the competing software packages don't really do anything new/different. They just make it (arguably) easier.

...I tried correcting for white balance in the second and it gave me a blue sky as a BG and a colder rendition but of course I have no knowledge of the actual colouring of the birds or the sky at the time...

"Correcting" WB is an interesting thing. Per above, with no knowledge of the scene nor a neutral reference point, where does one begin? Some assumptions must be made. For example in this image the lighting is obviously soft and the BG has a bit of a mottled appearance so it must be a cloudy/grey sky. But in fact the BG is not sky at all. It is a distant hillside in early spring covered with leafless birch/aspen forest.

That time of year the trees are covered with new shoots and buds which are greenish yellow blending to red tips. There was also still snow on the ground under grey branches and white(ish) tree trunks. Lit by the bluish light of an overcast day all of that color blurred together into a mottled purplish bokeh. The auto WB function of the camera apparently over corrected for all of the red in the dominant BG and made the image much too cool rendering both the hillside and the bird bluish grey rather than purple and silvery brown respectively.

The first time I processed the image back when, I wasn't at all knowledgeable about WB much less how the camera's auto WB function behaves. Even so, now when I "correct" WB I don't attempt to render cloudy day photos into sunny 16 scenes. My goal is to render the image as close to "reality" as I can. But that will be my reality as influenced by many things, not the least of which may be my rose colored glasses

[Shadowman]

One downside of clarity in LR is that it tends to enhance noise. "Dynamic contrast" in On1 is very similar to clarity but with more control. It has three sliders for large/medium/fine detail. The large setting avoids enhancing noise. The slider for fine detail is what some would call "micro contrast" and pretty much like sharpening. A skilled technician no doubt could accomplish the same thing with various contrast and sharpening tools used on several layers and blended together at various opacities. At the end of the day the competing software packages don't really do anything new/different. They just make it (arguably) easier.


"Correcting" WB is an interesting thing. Per above, with no knowledge of the scene nor a neutral reference point, where does one begin? Some assumptions must be made. For example in this image the lighting is obviously soft and the BG has a bit of a mottled appearance so it must be a cloudy/grey sky. But in fact the BG is not sky at all. It is a distant hillside in early spring covered with leafless birch/aspen forest.

That time of year the trees are covered with new shoots and buds which are greenish yellow blending to red tips. There was also still snow on the ground under grey branches and white(ish) tree trunks. Lit by the bluish light of an overcast day all of that color blurred together into a mottled purplish bokeh. The auto WB function of the camera apparently over corrected for all of the red in the dominant BG and made the image much too cool rendering both the hillside and the bird bluish grey rather than purple and silvery brown respectively.

The first time I processed the image back when, I wasn't at all knowledgeable about WB much less how the camera's auto WB function behaves. Even so, now when I "correct" WB I don't attempt to render cloudy day photos into sunny 16 scenes. My goal is to render the image as close to "reality" as I can. But that will be my reality as influenced by many things, not the least of which may be my rose colored glasses

I always denoise first before applying clarity. I've tried so many different packages myself, they always show such easy conversions in the tutorial but for some of my images I have to revert to some trickery to overcome distortions. For instance, if I shoot skin tones on an overcast day and the subject is also not facing the light source; much care is needed to keep the skntones from looking muddy especially for a print.

[John 2]

........................................... But that will be my reality as influenced by many things, not the least of which may be my rose colored glasses

We've all been there at one time or another.

A lesson really in the limitation of, in this case, PS CC. This is what setting the white and black point did using the white flash on the birds head and the black in the tail feathers. From your description, the BG is clearly way out.

[NorthernFocus]

...This is what setting the white and black point did using the white flash on the birds head and the black in the tail feathers...

Ooph Not even close. But understandable. Feathers on birds are rarely true white. In my experience they typically trend to red/orange which was clearly the case here based on the results. Similarly the blacks are rarely true black when viewed closely. This is why I mentioned scenes like this with no neutral reference point

[Brev00]

The first seems muddy to me with a certain vagueness. Little pop. The second has the pop. That is for sure. But, to me, it seems somewhat manufactured and hard. Dynamic contrast has that tendency, I feel, although I often do use it in my onOne workflow. I might drop the opacity 25% of that layer. The warmth is nice but, again, a bit strong for my taste. I almost always use the color enhancer filter to adjust colors as one of my last steps. Here, maybe darkening reds a tad. Just a little more restraint, I think, and it would be a major improvement.

[NorthernFocus]

... it seems somewhat manufactured and hard...

One of the things I like about this photo is that it looks like a studio shot. Pretty rare among BIFs. Mine at least. Due to the BG looking like a portrait studio I think. If that's what you mean by manufactured. Not sure about the "hard". I struggle with the concept of spending thousands on lenses to get as sharp as possible and then going for a soft look in PP

...maybe darkening reds a tad...

Red didn't do much. Orange made a bigger difference. Here's the result. I think it did help a bit.

Darkened red/orange.


As posted the first time.

[Brev00]

The darkening looks very good to me. By manufactured, I am trying to use a pleasant synonym for fake which you may see positively as studio. So, it is all a matter of taste. By hard, I can also use stiff. Which seems unnatural to me for a bird in flight. I think there should be something in a BIF that conveys motion. Like propellor blur in an airplane shot. Too hard and one wonders how it managed to get off the ground. I think your recent edit looks more natural. Keeping aspects dark tends to seem more natural while too much brightness can seem unnatural. To me. Generally. The light in the scene seems muted or, at least, the goose seems backlit. So, some shading seems appropriate. I wasn't there. Just guessing. I am not suggesting you create soft images but best if much of the crispness is produced at the time and not mostly 'manufactured' after the fact. Then, with good focus and sharpness, enhancing the detail can seem natural. Dynamic contrast has a nice effect but, if I have a really nice image with good detail, I will use Topaz Detail for that extra oomph. Lots more control than Dynamic Contrast. I tend to use Dynamic Contrast for those images that need a bigger boost.

[NorthernFocus]

...I think there should be something in a BIF that conveys motion...

Professional wildlife photographers the world over will be dismayed that they've wasted their money on high end equipment which allows them to freeze motion. I've always assumed that to anyone who has spent time outdoors a bird suspended in midair with wings spread in and of itself conveys a sense of motion. I guess I thought that the wing position, curved primaries on the near wing, and ruffled feathers elsewhere were enough to suggest motion. But being an open minded kind of guy I'd love to see some examples of your own which demonstrate the concept. After all this is a learning forum. I'll not take offense if you post them in this thread.

[Brev00]

I am at a disadvantage. I don't know professional wildlife photographers the world over nor do I think you can use them as some sort of evidence against me. Not sure you can speak for them. I wouldn't. I just share my perspective.

Here is a link to the one semi-professional wildlife shooter I know. He is a full-time chef. He has more BIF's earlier in the stream as ospreys left Connecticut for the season. He has two primes he uses regularly but is currently testing out the new Tamron 150-600.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn

I am not a dedicated bird shooter and I use a consumer zoom for most of my BIF shooting. So, no ambitions for pro status at this time. Here is one example:



I used Nik Viveza and Nik Output Sharpening here. The emphasis was on the wing's near tap on the water along with the drops of water to the rear.

[NorthernFocus]

That's a nice one, Larry. Beautiful water. And some excellent stuff on the linked site. I still have no idea what you point is about "conveying motion". Particularly in the context of PP/sharpness adding/detracting from same. I suppose "what we have here is a failure to communicate" So let's move on.

[Brev00]

Let me elaborate one more time before moving on as I have thought about this over the last couple of days. I think I am noticing a difference between the sharpness inherent in a shot (which may be subtly but not noticeably enhanced with pp) and the sharpness that is noticeably added to a basically soft shot (which may seem manufactured to me). I think I am sensitive to this because it is an issue I deal with all the time with my photography. Do I pop a soft image into some software and make it acceptable? Sometimes I do. Can I do that without losing the naturalness of the shot? Sometimes it is sacrificed and I go beyond what I consider natural for another effect. I may even add other stuff into the shot (i.e., saturation) so naturalness is no longer the goal.

In terms of motion, I am referring to that artificial quality again. If a bird loses the fluidity of its essential nature, then it may no longer convey motion or seem to be actually flying. Now, you are saying we want to freeze action. That is true. But, we want to leave a sense of life in the bird in the process. In general, I don't want to sacrifice naturalness for enhanced detail. It is a tough conflict but I try to fall on the side of nature as much as possible. I hope this explains my perspective so there is no failure to communicate.

[NorthernFocus]

Larry, first off, we've gotten way off topic of the intent of the thread which was about changes in software capabilities. It was intended to compare the two versions of PP, not relative to an absolute standard. However, now that I believe I understand your points, they are interesting and potentially thought provoking for people other than the two of us. So perhaps worth a bit more time.

.... I think I am noticing a difference between the sharpness inherent in a shot (which may be subtly but not noticeably enhanced with pp) and the sharpness that is noticeably added to a basically soft shot (which may seem manufactured to me). I think I am sensitive to this because it is an issue I deal with all the time with my photography...

Yes there is definitely a difference in an inherently sharp image and one that has been recovered in PP. That seemingly intangible difference that we inherently detect is underlying detail in a truly sharp, well exposed image versus one that is a poor capture that has been painstakingly worked in PP. Even when an image is downsampled, the difference usually persists. I tried to make this point a couple of years ago in this thread.

There are many photographers with inferior equipment who attempt to achieve a level of perfection similar to professionals. Regardless of how we may try to convince ourselves otherwise, it will never be. And it is due to this very issue. High end equipment simply captures more of that underlying detail. That's not opinion. It's physics.

In terms of motion, I am referring to that artificial quality again. If a bird loses the fluidity of its essential nature, then it may no longer convey motion or seem to be actually flying. Now, you are saying we want to freeze action. That is true. But, we want to leave a sense of life in the bird in the process. In general, I don't want to sacrifice naturalness for enhanced detail. It is a tough conflict but I try to fall on the side of nature as much as possible...

Now this is a completely different issue. What is "natural"? We all have a different definition of this based on our experience. By its very nature, still photography produces images that can never be seen by the naked eye. If that is your context then I understand your description as "manufactured". Perhaps the only other way to see an image like the one posted here is via taxidermy. The next closest thing would be the view that a hunter sees just before pulling the trigger on a goose coming in to decoys. That may be why I like this particular shot. Been there, done that. Looks very "natural" to me based on my own experience. Following are a couple more examples. The first shot will look natural to pretty much anyone whose ever been to a zoo. The second shot indeed looks "manufactured". In a literal sense it is completely natural. But experientially for 999 of 1000 people it probably looks like a photo of a mounted bird. So (I think)I get what you're saying. It's your opinion of what looks natural. Which no doubt will change with your life experience and your BIF portfolio.

At any rate, enough esoteric discussion for now. Tomorrow AM I'm headed out for a week alone to shoot a few birds. And if intricate detail and/or sharpness make images look unnatural, then I hope to manufacture as many images as possible

Natural


Manufactured?

[Brev00]

Both look fine and the eagle is terrific.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk