The Great Chuck & Colin Bird / Boat Challenge!

[CNelson]

Some really nice shots Theron. I agree with Colin and it would be nice to see them a little larger if possible. Good work!!!

Chuck

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Colin,

I would appreciate the help. I find the site confusing to move around in. It uses different terminology than I am familiar with. I had a bit of a time just learning how to upload a photo because of that. I didn't want to do it wrong and mess up everything.

Theron

Hi Theron,

I must admit that I found the site a bit of a challenge at first too - and it took me a week or two to discover that most of the functionality is there; you just need to know where! If there's anything specific you need help with just start a new thread in one of the open talk forums and we'll get right on it with all the help you need.

Also, don't worry about mucking things up - the site is pretty bullet proof, plus, unlike many other sites, you can edit or delete your old posts here or Sean or I can fix anything up for you as well.

With regards to posting images inline, it's dead easy when you know how (and I struggled with this a bit too until I got the hang of it). In essence the photo has to be uploaded somewhere (either here or some other photo site first - seems you've got that bit sorted). Once you've done that then all that needs to happen when you want to insert the image in your post is you click the "Insert Image" button - put the URL to the image in the box that pops up - click OK, and you're done. The only bit that's sometimes hard is getting the right URL for the image. In Most (but not all) cases all you need to do is display the image - right-click on it - choose properties (which will open up a property sheet) and from there you can highlight the URL - and copy it to the clipboard. Since this will be a COMPLETE URL you also need to delete the "HTTP://" prefix that's suggested in the little box that pops up when you click "insert image".

I'm in the process of co-ordination a "Wiki" guide to inline posting - you can see what we've got so far here ...

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread785.htm# - take a look at post 21 of mine to see some screenshot of what to look for - and there are also some screenshots from other browsers and platforms. It's a long way off being finished, but what's there should help you through the tricky bits.

See how you go - and just sing out if you need more help

[Dave Humphries]

My thanks to rrox, iPillip and Colin,

Herewith a second edit from RAW with far more attention to noise and sharpening



Unfortunately iPhillip, the bird's tail is gone for good!
What can I say, the framing seemed like a good idea at the time

Spent a bit of time healing out random spots and made much better use of ACR noise reduction thanks to Colin's help and reading his book recommendation.

Thanks everyone for feedback, hopefully this is a better attempt.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Dave,

If looks better in that you've taken care of the frosting, which is a big improvement.

To be honest, I think it's probably just one of those types images that loses a lot of visable detail when down-sampled - when you reduce the number of pixels, something has to give, unfortunately

[crisscross]

some nice birdies Theron & Bill - liked the boat too Theron, but add request to post bigger.

[Theron]

some nice birdies Theron & Bill - liked the boat too Theron, but add request to post bigger.

Did I understand that you would like to see a larger view of the picture?

Theron

[Theron]

Here is one more unusual bird for the thread. Check out the droplet of water just before it hits the pond.




Theron

[Azz252]

Ok here are my contributions, hopefully this works...





Both were taken at Nelson Bay, NSW.

[Colin Southern]

Ok here are my contributions, hopefully this works...

Both were taken at Nelson Bay, NSW.

Piece of cake eh?

I can't believe the length of the beak on that bird!

By the way, both are looking a bit dim at my end - just wondering if you bought the white clipping point down if it would brighten it up a bit?

[Azz252]

By the way, both are looking a bit dim at my end - just wondering if you bought the white clipping point down if it would brighten it up a bit?

Yeah they are a wee bit dim however i haven't edited them - i assume white clipping is to do with the contrast/brightness etc, when i autocorrect them in photoshop they look much brighter.

My theory at the moment is that if i can teach myself to take as good a photo in the first instance i won't have to do as much post processing in photoshop etc. I find photoshop a bit of a minefield (i'm only using element but had CS3 on my old laptop) and it's extremely powerful, but quite difficult to teach from scratch. I'll get there tho, as i say - i'm still learning

[Roxy]

Piece of cake eh?
I can't believe the length of the beak on that bird!
By the way, both are looking a bit dim at my end - just wondering if you bought the white clipping point down if it would brighten it up a bit?

Glad I'm not the only newbie tricked by uploading!!
Still can't the image to open straight up in my posts .. just get the URL there for viewers to click first.

BTW .. what and where is a "clipping point)?

RR

[Colin Southern]

Glad I'm not the only newbie tricked by uploading!!
Still can't the image to open straight up in my posts .. just get the URL there for viewers to click first.

BTW .. what and where is a "clipping point)?

RR

I think that inserting images inline is the most common issue relating to the site that we come across. Essentially, if you've got the right URL on the clipboard then all you need to do after that is simply click "insert image" whilst composing your post and paste the URL from the clipboard into the space on the box that pops up and "job done". How far are you getting with this? (ie at what point isn't it working for you?)

The clipping points are what set the initial overall contrast of an image. In general terms, an image looks best if the full range of tones are used (ie areas range from pure black all the way through to pure white), but many images only have a dark gray at one end ranging through to light gray at the highlight end, and suffer from what's termed "looking flat". By adjusting the black and white clipping points (either in the raw converter or a levels layer) you're essentially saying "consider everything below this point to be pure black, everything above this point to be pure white, and scale everything in between so that it's stretched evenly between these two points). It's probably the one thing you can do to an image that makes the biggest difference to how it looks.

Happy to post a demo if it helps.

[Colin Southern]

Yeah they are a wee bit dim however i haven't edited them - i assume white clipping is to do with the contrast/brightness etc, when i autocorrect them in photoshop they look much brighter.

Yes that's what changing the clipping point will do. Would you like me to adjust a copy of your boats one and pot it back here (adjusting just the clipping points) so you can see the difference?

My theory at the moment is that if i can teach myself to take as good a photo in the first instance i won't have to do as much post processing in photoshop etc. I find photoshop a bit of a minefield (i'm only using element but had CS3 on my old laptop) and it's extremely powerful, but quite difficult to teach from scratch. I'll get there tho, as i say - i'm still learning

Definately - I'm very much of the same persuasion (get as much right in camera as possible).

You might like to have a read of a thread I chipped in on with regards to exposure ...

Choosing an Exposure Setting: Dynamic Range vs. ISO Speed

... your boat shot is a good example of how you've probably thrown away up to 7/8 of the information the camera could have captured (to my eye it looks to be around 2 to 3 stops under-exposed (linear gamma); it's not really much of a problem for this image but it you'd tried to recover shadow detail you'd probably find the shadows quite noisy ... it would have been a perfect candidate to use spot metering (meter on the white hull and then shift the reading up until it's around 2 to 2 2/3 stops above (or to the right of) the centre point). It would probably have made it look over-exposed on the cameras screen, but so long as the highlights aren't blown then you can adjust it later in PP, and get far less noise in the shadows (Getting things "right" in a digital camera exposure wise often means having an image that looks a bit over-exposed on the cameras screen).

[Azz252]

Yes that's what changing the clipping point will do. Would you like me to adjust a copy of your boats one and pot it back here (adjusting just the clipping points) so you can see the difference?

If you don't mind i'd appreciate it, it'd also serve as a check to compare what i'm getting on PS.

I'm interested in your comments re exposure, i've found that when i look at some images on the LCD they look overexposed - white is burnt out etc so to compensate i reduce the white balance to -2/3rds (for example) then retake. It then looks darker obviously (from memory that boat pic was taken at -2/3 or thereabouts).

I've also noticed it happens on sunsets, looking back on the lcd there are areas that flash - letting me know where it's burnt out. It must be possible to capture an image perfectly - it's a matter of practice i guess and being able to determine the correct exposure.

I'll keep this in mind in the future, i think i understand what you're saying re the spot metering then moving it up - effectively it would help add more depth to the image by capturing more range of colour/shadow? I might be off track a little.

I'll take a read in the other thread after lunch.

Cheers Colin!

[Roxy]

[QUOTE=Colin Southern;5805]I think that inserting images inline is the most common issue relating to the site that we come across. Essentially, if you've got the right URL on the clipboard then all you need to do after that is simply click "insert image" whilst composing your post and paste the URL from the clipboard into the space on the box that pops up and "job done". How far are you getting with this? (ie at what point isn't it working for you?)
The clipping points are what set the initial overall contrast of an image. In general terms, an image looks best if the full range of tones are used (ie areas range from pure black all the way through to pure white), but many images only have a dark gray at one end ranging through to light gray at the highlight end, and suffer from what's termed "looking flat". By adjusting the black and white clipping points (either in the raw converter or a levels layer) you're essentially saying "consider everything below this point to be pure black, everything above this point to be pure white, and scale everything in between so that it's stretched evenly between these two points). It's probably the one thing you can do to an image that makes the biggest difference to how it looks.


Re image upload >>I believe I'm doing all the above ..but what appears in the post is just the URL.. not an image.

>>Re The clipping points.. I now realise this is the name for the "edges of the hills" in levels layer descriptor.

Thanks, Colin

[Colin Southern]

If you don't mind i'd appreciate it, it'd also serve as a check to compare what i'm getting on PS.

OK ... here we go:



It's actually an interesting image in that one has to decide how far to go - the further the white clipping point is reduces, the whiter the boat hulls become - deciding at what point they're too while is somewhat subjective, but that's what I went for anyway

I'm interested in your comments re exposure, i've found that when i look at some images on the LCD they look overexposed - white is burnt out etc so to compensate i reduce the white balance to -2/3rds (for example) then retake.

As a rule (and there are exceptions to this like back-lighting and specular reflections) the "more over-exposed looking that you can get an image looking on the camera's screen - without getting "blinkies" then the more information you've captured," and (technically) the better the shot (certainly in terms of being able to dig detail out of shadows without getting too much noise) (although I should mention that the theory best applies to RAW captures, not in-camera processed JPEGs).

When you open up the image in photoshop you can then adjust things like exposure and black clipping point and get a much cleaner image. For relatively normal dynamic range shots like the boats it's not a big deal either way, but when you have shots requiring a high dynamic range (range of power in the bright bits to power in the dark bits), but you want to capture as much as possible in a single exposure, then things get far more critical. By the way, when you adjust the exposure you're actually adjusting what's called EC (Exposure Compensation), not white balance (which is something different again).

I've also noticed it happens on sunsets, looking back on the lcd there are areas that flash - letting me know where it's burnt out. It must be possible to capture an image perfectly - it's a matter of practice i guess and being able to determine the correct exposure.

Sunsets are a whole new animal. Usually the range of brightnesses exceed the dynamic range that the sensor is capable of capturing (by 3 or more stops) - so "something has to give". Expose for the shadows and you blow the highlights; Expose for the highlights and the shadows become "a shadow of their former selves!" - sometime you just have to pick whatever works best for what you have. Other techniques involve using graduated filters or capturing a bracket of exposures and combining the image either as a high dynamic range image or by (essentially) blending the best bits in photoshop.

I'll keep this in mind in the future, i think i understand what you're saying re the spot metering then moving it up - effectively it would help add more depth to the image by capturing more range of colour/shadow? I might be off track a little.

To be honest, it makes it a little easier on me if you can read through that first, and then come back with more questions - it's actually a pretty deep subject, and to just lay it on someone all at once is probably a bit overwelming, especially considering there are a few "gotcha's" along the way, and it's easier to explain these as they come up, but essentially yes - I think you're on to it.

Hope this helps!

[Colin Southern]

Yeah they are a wee bit dim however i haven't edited them - i assume white clipping is to do with the contrast/brightness etc, when i autocorrect them in photoshop they look much brighter.

Actually, I must apologise a wee bit with regards to my comment - I initially viewed them on my old/tired home screen - here at work they look much brighter - still probably a little undercooked, but not as bad as I first thought. What makes it harder to process is the fact that the boats are brighter than then sky, which - even with the vagrancies of local contrast - can only be pushed so far. Would probably look better with the sky a bit brighter and the boats a bit darker to "better align with the universal law of the universe" (or whatever the experts would call it!).

[Azz252]

This forum is brilliant. Thanks for taking the time to type all that Colin. The image does look better and it's similar to how i had it looking this morning so thats given me a confidence i'm heading in the right direction.

I've read the other thread as well and got a much better understanding and awareness of this. I'm see where it's coming from, i'll just need to think about it some more and put it into practice by taking some shots.

I tend to shoot only in jpeg at the moment but i may start looking into some raw images to get some practice there too. Once i start on something i tend to want to know everything about it! I can get a reasonable sunset down the back of my place over the Brisbane River so that's as good a place to start as any.

If..sorry when...i have some more questions i'll post them up.

Best get back to work for now

[Bill44]

Azz252 shoot RAW mate, you'll love it.

I was a very serious film user many years ago, but that's another story. Over the past few years I've just been a P&S user and was stuck shooting Jpeg, now I have a D90 and I shot about 50 frames in Jpeg just to get used to the feel and controls of the camera and switched straight over to RAW and can't think of a serious reason to go back.

I'm very much with you on getting as much as possible right in the camera, as an old film man, (old being the operative word), if you didn't get it right in the camera when using Transparencies, then it just wasn't bloody right and that was that. From what I've read, some of the people that have come straight into digital tend to sometimes rely too heavily on PP, and at times can be disappoint with the result.

[Roxy]

Azz252 shoot RAW mate, you'll love it.
I was a very serious film user many years ago, but that's another story. Over the past few years I've just been a P&S user and was stuck shooting Jpeg, now I have a D90 and I shot about 50 frames in Jpeg just to get used to the feel and controls of the camera and switched straight over to RAW and can't think of a serious reason to go back.
I'm very much with you on getting as much as possible right in the camera, as an old film man, (old being the operative word), if you didn't get it right in the camera when using Transparencies, then it just wasn't bloody right and that was that. From what I've read, some of the people that have come straight into digital tend to sometimes rely too heavily on PP, and at times can be disappoint with the result.

Agree with most of the above, not really into RAW yet so try to get the shot correct at the start; I think we are getting a bit lazy at times though.. relying on the Photoshop or whatever to improve the best of a rash of shots taken of any given subject
I just need to comment here Bill on your reference to "Old"; not politically correct mate. Much more appropriate in arenas like this to be experienced!
I can give you a few years but the only reason I might agree to OLD is when the words "Seniors Discount" are used in the same sentence!
BTW I enjoy your photos, especially the "Out" shot but it's going to be hard voting Nikon instead of Other.
Never heard of Gorokan before, but reference via Google suggests you live in a very photogenic region?