2017 Project 52 - 3rd QTR - Sandy(Skitterbug)

[joebranko]

One area I always pay attention to is Black Point / White Point adjustment. It is something I always adjust. Not sure how it would affect this image, of the flower ?

[Urbanflyer]

Week 34 - Both of these pictures were taken by our koi pond. The first is a water hyacinth. We started with 5 plants and ended up with too many of them. They are beautiful but so very prolific. Sadly, because of space, we have to toss them out regularly or we'd be overrun by them.

The second is a skull that our grandson found in our grove of evergreen trees. We think maybe it is an opossum that may have been injured on the road and then made it to our grove to pass away. But anyway....I decided to see what kind of pic I could create by placing it among the rocks and vegetation. I think the results are interesting so I'll add it to my P52 photo collection for comments.

Basically, with these entries, I'm trying to keep a simple workflow going. Import photos, toss out unusable ones, develop keepers by cropping, reducing noise and sharpening them. Fine tuning what I like to change and I'm done. Suggestions for adding in additional points to pay attention to while doing PP and tasks to add to the work flow will be welcome information. So any suggestions will be appreciated!

#1 - Water Hyacinth - ISO400 - f/5.6 - 1/4000ss (camera chose this speed? Not sure I understand why it would?)





#2 - Skull - ISO800 - f/6.3 - 1/25ss

The flower image has lots of potential. Here are some things to consider in post aside from what has already been mentioned. I work with Photoshop and I remember that you do not, so you will need to find these same adjustments in your program.

1. Flower is a bit washed out by the light as others have mentioned. Given that, this can be helped in Post by two things: 1) Darken the background a bit and 2) increase the saturation in the flower. Both of these are selective adjustments but do not require masking (although masking is always an option). To darken the background use selective color adjustment on the green only and add black to it. This will darken the green but leave it green. To increase saturation in the flower use the saturation adjustment but increase saturation in the magenta, blue and cyan only (purple). The amount of increase is a matter of personal preference.

2. The focal plane has left some of the leaves in the front fairly sharp. That detracts from the flower. Using a blur tool, blur just the edges of those sharp leaves to give the flower an non-competing frame of green. Doesn't have to be a lot. Then burn in just the highlights of those lower front leaves to further reduce the visual competition.

It is fun to see your progress!

[skitterbug]

The flower image has lots of potential. Here are some things to consider in post aside from what has already been mentioned. I work with Photoshop and I remember that you do not, so you will need to find these same adjustments in your program.

I've been working in LR and then moving into Affinity Photo. Affinity Photo has a bit of a learning curve for me since I have to learn the terms for the techniques needed and then how to apply them.

1. Flower is a bit washed out by the light as others have mentioned. Given that, this can be helped in Post by two things: 1) Darken the background a bit and 2) increase the saturation in the flower. Both of these are selective adjustments but do not require masking (although masking is always an option). To darken the background use selective color adjustment on the green only and add black to it. This will darken the green but leave it green. To increase saturation in the flower use the saturation adjustment but increase saturation in the magenta, blue and cyan only (purple). The amount of increase is a matter of personal preference.

I gave your suggestions a try.... I found that trying to tone down the yellow in the leaves was difficult since it affected the flower as well. Finally used the selection tool, inverted and then played with the colors of the leaves a bit. Then inverted again and tried to improve on the flower.

2. The focal plane has left some of the leaves in the front fairly sharp. That detracts from the flower. Using a blur tool, blur just the edges of those sharp leaves to give the flower an non-competing frame of green. Doesn't have to be a lot. Then burn in just the highlights of those lower front leaves to further reduce the visual competition.

I found a video in Affinity's collection that suggested creating a pixel layer, using a grey mask, then overlay and dodge and burn to my heart's content. <lol> What I didn't like was the bright lights still showing on the leaves so I finally took the pic into Snapheal and cloned them out. The final result of my play is below.

It is fun to see your progress!

Thanks! This process reminds me of the movie "The Wizard of Oz" with Dorothy's 'two steps forward and then one step back' ...... I appreciate your support and help very much!

[skitterbug]

One area I always pay attention to is Black Point / White Point adjustment. It is something I always adjust. Not sure how it would affect this image, of the flower ?

Hi Joe ~ I did try this a tiny bit. I'm going to need to "play" with this adjustment to learn what it can do but I think it might be good to add this step into the work flow. Thank you very much!

[skitterbug]

Photo for Week 35. Summer is quickly passing by.
This fellow will soon be in hibernation but obviously not yet. He was sitting on our deck. He had to climb the steps to get there and I would have enjoyed seeing how he did it. But he was secretive and did not demonstrate.
I used Affinity Photo for most of the PP.
Camera settings: ISO250 - f/5.6 - 1/80ss

Toad

[Urbanflyer]

Nice portrait!!
Something to think about since on this portrait DOF might be improved, How slow a shutter speed can you handhold with a specific lens? There are formulas, but they do not take into account our individual abilities. One way to figure this is to take a series of photos of the same thing at a sequence of shutter speeds and see where you begin to get blur. Then you will have a good idea of what your personal limits are. This photo might have been done at a slower shutter speed with a smaller aperture which might have let you get his rear into focus.
This comment does not take away from the fine focus on his head and forelegs! He is a beauty!

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[bnnrcn]

I like the image Sandy. Good texture and good focus on the head

[Wavelength]

An excellent image of frog; what a proud posing!!!

[Geoff F]

I would be wary of using a shutter speed lower than 1/80 on a hand held shot of a live subject, Sandy. The alternative to get a narrower aperture would be to increase the Iso and I suspect you could have gone as high as 400 without any serious problems.

However, you have his head and particularly the eyes sharply focused so that is all which matters. Having the rear end gradually fading into softness was a deliberate intention to produce an artistic effect, wasn't it.

[skitterbug]

Nice portrait!!
Something to think about since on this portrait DOF might be improved, How slow a shutter speed can you handhold with a specific lens? There are formulas, but they do not take into account our individual abilities. One way to figure this is to take a series of photos of the same thing at a sequence of shutter speeds and see where you begin to get blur. Then you will have a good idea of what your personal limits are. This photo might have been done at a slower shutter speed with a smaller aperture which might have let you get his rear into focus.
This comment does not take away from the fine focus on his head and forelegs! He is a beauty!

Someplace I've posted a series of water shots using various settings but it's been a bit since I've played with incremental changes. Most of the time trying to catch a toad or frog in a pic and have them stay in place for any time is a challenge. You'd think they'd get used to me sneaking up on them. LOL
Thank you for the positive comments and practical application of settings. I appreciate them!

[skitterbug]

Thank you John!

[skitterbug]

I like the image Sandy. Good texture and good focus on the head

I did take time to clean out a bit of rubbish that was littered around him but I felt it best to only change the scene a tiny bit. I don't really like to alter pics other than to crisp/sharpen or whatever. I figure what I see is what I capture. My goal is to capture fairly "clean shots" as I try to keep improving on scene setup.
I appreciate that you liked this pic! He is a handsome toad. I think he buried himself in one of my flowerpots!

[skitterbug]

I would be wary of using a shutter speed lower than 1/80 on a hand held shot of a live subject, Sandy. The alternative to get a narrower aperture would be to increase the Iso and I suspect you could have gone as high as 400 without any serious problems.

However, you have his head and particularly the eyes sharply focused so that is all which matters. Having the rear end gradually fading into softness was a deliberate intention to produce an artistic effect, wasn't it.

So to see if I understand what you are suggesting, you figure I could set the ISO at 400, leaving the aperture at f/5.6 and the speed 1/80 or maybe increase to 1/100 and the results might be better given the same situation that is? It might be time to find a stationary object and try out settings again as Judith suggested, to refresh my understanding of what I need to choose! For some reason, I have mental blockage about these three and no matter how much I read about them, I still haven't grasped exactly why I should choose "this and that" setting. So I'm still learning basics.

I do like to always focus on eyes. Keeping them sharp and trying to get a twinkle in them is fun to do.

Of course it all comes down to "deliberate choice of artistic effect" - chuckle! Lucky for me, the results were decent!

Thanks for your thoughts about my efforts. I really appreciate the insight!

[skitterbug]

An excellent image of frog; what a proud posing!!!

Hi Nandakumar ~ Interesting that you mentioned his proud posing. He did seem to puff himself up when he was watching me trying to capture him in photos.

I messed up pics of a bullfrog this past week. That fellow actually raised up on his legs and expanded his body trying to threaten me. Rather ridiculous considering the size of him versus the size of me. It is too bad I don't have a decent pic of him to post. You would have enjoyed him.
So Mr. Toad will have to be it for now!
Thank you for commenting!

[Urbanflyer]

So to see if I understand what you are suggesting, you figure I could set the ISO at 400, leaving the aperture at f/5.6 and the speed 1/80 or maybe increase to 1/100 and the results might be better given the same situation that is? It might be time to find a stationary object and try out settings again as Judith suggested, to refresh my understanding of what I need to choose! For some reason, I have mental blockage about these three and no matter how much I read about them, I still haven't grasped exactly why I should choose "this and that" setting. So I'm still learning basics.

I do like to always focus on eyes. Keeping them sharp and trying to get a twinkle in them is fun to do.

Of course it all comes down to "deliberate choice of artistic effect" - chuckle! Lucky for me, the results were decent!

Thanks for your thoughts about my efforts. I really appreciate the insight!

Sandy, the three, ISO/Aperture/shutter speed are intertwined. Change one and the others will need to change if the image is to remain the same exposure. However each has multiple functions. For me, I often shoot shutter priority since I usually handhold. I know I can generally get a good relatively static image at a certain lens/shutter speed combination. A moving image needs a higher shutter speed. Low light needs a higher ISO. DOF can be improved with a smaller aperture. But each shift of one thing may lead to a shift of another. So when I set my shutter speed I check to see where the camera puts the other two elements.
I think the suggestion of going to a higher ISO in your photo is a good one. That would result in the aperture being smaller and/or the shutter speed being faster to get the same exposure (which was just fine in your great photo!)

[skitterbug]

Sandy, the three, ISO/Aperture/shutter speed are intertwined. Change one and the others will need to change if the image is to remain the same exposure. However each has multiple functions. For me, I often shoot shutter priority since I usually handhold. I know I can generally get a good relatively static image at a certain lens/shutter speed combination. A moving image needs a higher shutter speed. Low light needs a higher ISO. DOF can be improved with a smaller aperture. But each shift of one thing may lead to a shift of another. So when I set my shutter speed I check to see where the camera puts the other two elements.
I think the suggestion of going to a higher ISO in your photo is a good one. That would result in the aperture being smaller and/or the shutter speed being faster to get the same exposure (which was just fine in your great photo!)

I broke this down to three bullet points for myself. #1 Moving image needs higher shutter speed. (yep - understand that one). #2 Low light needs a higher ISO. (does make sense must remember it.) #3 DOF can be improved with smaller aperture. ( Thinking..... Does this depend on the lens used?)

And I am glad you like the photo. That cheers me!
Thank you for your comments always!

[purplehaze]

( Thinking..... Does this depend on the lens used?)

Hi Sandy,
This is only a partial answer, but yes, your depth of field is always going to be "improved" by a smaller aperture, until you reach the point at which diffraction becomes an issue. It is perhaps more accurate to say that decreasing the size of the aperture will always lengthen your DOF; whether or not it is an "improvement" depends on what your aim is. As to the impact of the lens used; it is less a question of the lens used than the focal length used.

Check out this handy DOF calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

If you plug in varying focal lengths for your camera, you will find that the DOF for a subject at 10 feet is much greater with, for example, a 35 mm focal length than for a 105 mm focal length.

Hope that helps answer your question.

[skitterbug]

Hi Sandy,
This is only a partial answer, but yes, your depth of field is always going to be "improved" by a smaller aperture, until you reach the point at which diffraction becomes an issue. It is perhaps more accurate to say that decreasing the size of the aperture will always lengthen your DOF; whether or not it is an "improvement" depends on what your aim is. As to the impact of the lens used; it is less a question of the lens used than the focal length used.

Check out this handy DOF calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

If you plug in varying focal lengths for your camera, you will find that the DOF for a subject at 10 feet is much greater with, for example, a 35 mm focal length than for a 105 mm focal length.

Hope that helps answer your question.

Yes, it does! And thank you for the link to it!

[skitterbug]

For week 36, I think I'll post a spiderweb pic I've been struggling with. Maybe the initial photo isn't what it should be and that's why I can't achieve the look that I wanted. I tried sharpening it and darkening the background. The web was on the outside of a north facing window and looked interesting. The light at the top would be reflection from oncoming traffic. It didn't annoy me much so I didn't mess with that area once I reached this point in PP.
Settings used: ISO200 - 96mm - f/5.0 - 1/60ss (07:38 - early morning for me)

Spider Web




Week 37 and I decided a face full of flowers might be nice. These are blooming behind our home in my "secret area". I like going there for peace and quiet.
Settings used: ISO200 - 49mm - f/7.1 - 1/8ss (19:00 on an overcast evening)

Chrysanthemum