Processing in Lightroom and Photoshop

[davenn]

been doing lots of learning with post processing (pp) in Lightroom and Photoshop

the first I removed all the colour from around the bird ( a Lorikeet) to make it really stand out
The second is as original BG colours

400mm, f5.6, 1/250 sec, camera a Canon 5D3

cheers
Dave

 

[Borek]

Lightroom is an incredible tool.

 

[Borek]

you could up the f-stop a bit and that will increase your DOF, resulting in more of the subject being in focus :)

Only if you can afford using longer times or higher film speed; that's not always the case.

 

[davenn]

Yup, Lightroom is very good and when coupled with PS Elements or the full Photoshop, the pair make a formidable combination

Only if you can afford using longer times or higher film speed; that's not always the case.

Most modern ( last ~ 4 yrs) DSLR's an handle higher ISO's quite well without significant noise problems. I have started doing a lot of event photography ... darkened 4500 seat auditorium. It truly tests camera abilities. commonly using f 2.8 - 5.6, 1/250th sec and ISO 4000. I can happily shoot up to 8000 ISO without any significant noise. Above 8000 ISO I will usually have noise reduction turned on

I's awaiting Andy's response as to what he used to photo those birds

Ohhh I haven't used my film camera since 1999 ;)Dave

 

[Borek]

Most modern ( last ~ 4 yrs) DSLR's an handle higher ISO's quite well without significant noise problems. I have started doing a lot of event photography ... darkened 4500 seat auditorium. It truly tests camera abilities. commonly using f 2.8 - 5.6, 1/250th sec and ISO 4000. I can happily shoot up to 8000 ISO without any significant noise. Above 8000 ISO I will usually have noise reduction turned on

It all depends on the quality you are looking for. For birds I am using EOS 7D and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and I know from experience that taking a razor sharp pictures is tricky.

Sure, if they are presented at lowered resolutions they look great. Not so when you push the limits.

Try a simple experiment - take a picture of an apple. Use a tripod. Make the apple fit whole frame. Make sure it is whole in DOF (won't work in my experience, but try as hard as you can). Then use the same setup, just close the lens to 8, use ISO 100, use whatever time it takes. Compare details of both pictures.

 

[Andy Resnick]

you could up the f-stop a bit and that will increase your DOF, resulting in more of the subject being in focus :)

would be interesting to see the EXIF data for those bird shots

Sure- but there are always tradeoffs: increasing the f-stop also means I have to either increase the acquisition time or ISO. I was already at ISO400 for 1/250s exposure, which is usually too slow- it needs to be at least 1/500s, since animals rarely take direction. For my camera, sensor noise generally becomes distracting between ISO400 and ISO1600 and is truly irritating after that. (Andre clued me in about Neat Image, and that helps a lot- I didn't use that here, tho). I love my camera- it still works great, but it's starting to show its age and there are two bright, shiny, models out there I wouldn't mind upgrading to when the opportunity arises... The longer I wait, the cheaper they get.

EXIF data... you know, I've never looked at it... ever. Here's what I have from http://exifdata.com/ for one of the bird shots (it's a crop, not the full frame): keep in mind the lens is a manual-focus Nikon (400/2.8), so the lens data isn't accurate.

Make: SONY
Model: DSLR-A850
Aperture: 1
Exposure Time: 1/250 (0.004 sec)
Lens ID: 65535
Focal Length: 0.0 mm
Flash: Off, Did not fire
File Size: 1938 kB
File Type: JPEG
MIME Type: image/jpeg
Image Width: 2498
Image Height: 3858
Encoding Process: Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample: 8
Color Components: 3
X Resolution: 350
Y Resolution: 350
Software: DSLR-A850 v2.00
YCbCr Sub Sampling: YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)
Exposure Program: Manual
Date and Time (Original)
2014:05:03 14:21:18
Max Aperture Value: 1
Metering Mode: Spot
Light Source: Unknown
Color Space: sRGB
Custom Rendered: Normal
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Focal Length In 35 mm Format: 0 mm
Scene Capture Type: Standard
Contrast: Normal
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Normal
F Number: 1
Exposure Compensation: -1
ISO: 400
Orientation: Horizontal (normal)
XMP Toolkit: XMP Core 4.4.0

Hey, you asked... :)

I've tried out lots of post-processing programs (Lightroom is indeed quite good)- but it's most important to *start* with a good image. Also, and this is my own opinion/philosophy, I prefer not to do any post-processing other than global adjustments like white balance and brightness/contrast. ImageJ is more than adequate for me.

 

[davenn]

Hi Andy ... cool

thanks for that :)
Do you shoot RAW ( does the camera do a RAW mode?)? or just jpg ?

Had a quick look at your camera on dpReview. About the best place on the web for camera reviews
Yeah that model doesn't have the high ISO abilities of other cameras. Interesting that its so low with a 25mp sensor.
Sony now days are making excellent sensors and their Sony A7 dslr is an outstanding cameraDave

 

[Andy Resnick]

Hi Andy ... cool

thanks for that
Do you shoot RAW ( does the camera do a RAW mode?)? or just jpg ?

Had a quick look at your camera on dpReview. About the best place on the web for camera reviews
Yeah that model doesn't have the high ISO abilities of other cameras. Interesting that its so low with a 25mp sensor.
Sony now days are making excellent sensors and their Sony A7 dslr is an outstanding camera
Dave

I primarily shoot jog. The only time I shoot RAW is astrophotography- for some reason the color is preserved better during the stacking process with RAW.

Indeed- at some point, I'm probably going to upgrade to either the Sony a7R or Nikon D810. Unless I can hold out another few years and get gently used versions of the 90+Mpix a9R or D880... :)

 

[davenn]

You may / should consider always shooting in RAW as well
I shoot in RAW + jpg.
I learn a good few yrs ago ... the hard way .. that shooting in jpg only can lead to the frustration of not being able to recover detail in a badly exposed image ... because jpg's cannot handle too much manipulation before they are totally useless. There is so much greater leeway with RAW image processing to recovering poorly exposed images.

as an example ...

the first one is the jpg out of the camera ... it was horribly blown out and I desperately tried to do some recovery ... it just didn't happen
the second one is the same image but the RAW version tweaked a bit and in comparison looks awesome

This really shows the advantages of shooting in RAW

I cringe when I think back how many pic's I have lost over the years because I wasn't shooting RAW

cheers
Dave

 

[Borek]

If memory serves me well jpg save in 8 bit per channel. My Canon shots in 14 bits per channel (RGB) and saves them all in the raw file (no idea about Sony and Nikon, but for sure they use more than 8 bits as well). That by itself means 64 times wider dynamic range (6 stops).

 

[davenn]

indeed
and you just have to live with that loss when you are resizing and compressing images for general www and other use
for saving with better quality there is the obvious choice of using TIFF

The majority of high end cameras these days are using 16bit, but some programs will convert that to 8 bit when doing conversion to jpg, I know Photoshop Elements 11 does that ...
gonna try full photoshop ...well that's cool ...opened the xxx.cr2 (Canon RAW ) files in LR tis of course 16bit
now when right clicking and selecting edit in PSE11 it gets converted to an 8bit TIFF and all PSE 11 editing is done on an 8 bit TIFF image. ... Elements cannot do 16bit image editing ( knew that) haha

BUT if I select edit in Photoshop CC instead then it stays as a 16 bit RAW file that can be edited and saved in whatever format you want.

I have only just installed PS CC, having used PSE for the last couple of years
so that is a nice major advantage PS CC has !

cheers
Dave

 

[Andy Resnick]

I learn a good few yrs ago ... the hard way .. that shooting in jpg only can lead to the frustration of not being able to recover detail in a badly exposed image ... <snip>
I cringe when I think back how many pic's I have lost over the years because I wasn't shooting RAW
Dave

If memory serves me well jpg save in 8 bit per channel. My Canon shots in 14 bits per channel (RGB) and saves them all in the raw file (no idea about Sony and Nikon, but for sure they use more than 8 bits as well). That by itself means 64 times wider dynamic range (6 stops).

This is exactly why I spent (and continue to spend) time and effort learning to expose properly in the first place, and why stacking a few (say, 40) images is worth the extra bits.

As I said, I prefer to shoot jpg because it's easier for me- YMMV.

 

[davenn]

This is exactly why I spent (and continue to spend) time and effort learning to expose properly in the first place,

Ohh true ... no argument there :)
Getting it right in camera is the aim, but things don't always go to plan as you saw in that above example. If I didn't have the RAW file to fall back on I would have lost a good shot.

Image stacking is the way to go with digital astrophotography and many guys going to the extreme with several 100 short exposure ( <30 sec each) and a few blacks, images.

its all good fun and the challenges of learning new things

cheers
Dave

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
its all good fun and the challenges of learning new things

cheers
Dave

True that!