Reading mode: Light Dark

Opinions Please!!!!!!!!!!

Go to last post
M

MOBUCK

Senior Member
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
0
Location
MO, US
I took this shot of a Redbelly Woodpecker yesterday and straight from the camera it had the best Detail and sharpness I've ever seen. I'm trying 2 different PP programs (Adobe PS 5.0 & Corel Paint XI) and used Corel on this and use 1 Step Fix with a tweek here and there. My question is do you think this is a little over sharpened? Now first I know the bird was in the shadows and the colors are not what they should be if She was in total Sunlight but I was still amazed with the Detail straight from the camera. I'm just playing and so far I think I like Corel PS XI best. I'll include the orig shot cropped first and then the Corel shot second, and by all means tell me your thoughts. ISO 80/[email protected]. Also the shot was from 10-12 feet with DH 1758 full optical Zoom.
Thanks..................
Dave



 
--
Joel Kifer
Anacortes,Washington
Mavica 73 - V3 - H1 - H5 - P200
Hyperdrive 80 40 gig

'Quantity has a Quality all of it's own.....'
 
I think I like the second shot a little better..but both are great.

What a problem...Staright out of the camera the shot is excellent!!!!

Then, maybe you decide you want to make it a little lighter..you use PP.

I'm not sure that the shot needed ANY sharpening. I'd just add a little fill-lighting and it would probably be just fine. Sharpening not needed IMHO.
richg99
 
Hey Guys thanks for the replys. To be honest when I took this shot yesterday I didn't feel anything was special so I didn't download them until this afternoon. I was stunned with the detail, especially the color in the eye. I guess the sun was just right to get the color! Usually all I ever get is Black eyes! I'm not sure with the Corel 1 Step Fix that it really sharpened the shot anymore? R2, why did you like the first shot better? Just curious. I like the second better just because the lighting was adjusted better(in my eye). I'm just learning this editing stuff and this is why I post these shots, because you guys teach me. Thanks for the comments............and keep em coming.
Dave
 
Maybe #1 with a touch of fill light? No sharpening..What was the cam setting for sharpening,defaut? Maybe I shoulda' kept my H5..Oh well,my H1 is very good also..I'm waiting for the new H30,,,Bob
 
Lol Bob. I have the Sharpness set to (+). When I first got the H5 my shots seemed a little Mushy. I just didn't feel I was getting the detail I wanted so I changed it to +. Bob at 10 feet you would think with the 1758 I should get some detail, Huh :-). Thanks for the reply............and don't start talking about an "H30" my wife will kill me ;-).
Dave
 
If you are using Smart Photo Fix, it will show you if any sharpening was done, as you can see below. Nice thing about this tool is all the options are adjustable. I use SPF alot, gets me in the ballpark and then a little tweaking and I'm there. Play with the clarify tool while you're at it...



--
Rich
Young Harris, GA
 
At first blush, I liked number two, but...

Zoomed in, I see artifacts particularly just above the bird's head and along the tree branches. The eye has suffered a bit too. In number two, the brightening looks a tad artificial to my eye, and the color (especially the red) is less appealing.

I would go for perhaps a small amount of fill light, staying closer to the original than to number 2. I would also address the green fringe in the wood on the left side.

In the shade, against the sky, you met the exposure challenge head-on. And the detail -- incredible. Beautiful capture!
--
George B
C&C always welcome. PP and repost OK.
 
Opinion 1) I like the first shot better. I like more contasty shots, myself.

Opinion 2) I don't think there's a need for multiple "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in post titles.
 
richg99 said:
I think I like the second shot a little better..but both are great.

What a problem...Staright out of the camera the shot is excellent!!!!

Then, maybe you decide you want to make it a little lighter..you
use PP.

I'm not sure that the shot needed ANY sharpening. I'd just add a
little fill-lighting and it would probably be just fine.
Sharpening not needed IMHO.
richg99
Click to expand...
--
L. Kirk Benedict
 
GHB said:
At first blush, I liked number two, but...

Zoomed in, I see artifacts particularly just above the bird's head
and along the tree branches. The eye has suffered a bit too.
Click to expand...
Well I liked the second one better because it was sharper. I wanted to cast at least one vote for sharpness!

George, I wonder why you zoom in and look for artifacts instead of taking the "first blush" impression. It seems like we are applying a standard that would not work for prints held in the hand or hung on the wall.

I think maybe I don't know what an artifact is! I confess that I don't see any, even zoomed in. Could you do a novice a favor, and describe what you see in the second print that you don't see in the first?

--
L. Kirk Benedict
 
Kirk Benedict said:
GHB said:
At first blush, I liked number two, but...

Zoomed in, I see artifacts particularly just above the bird's head
and along the tree branches. The eye has suffered a bit too.
Click to expand...
Well I liked the second one better because it was sharper. I wanted
to cast at least one vote for sharpness!

George, I wonder why you zoom in and look for artifacts instead of
taking the "first blush" impression. It seems like we are applying
a standard that would not work for prints held in the hand or hung
on the wall.

I think maybe I don't know what an artifact is! I confess that I
don't see any, even zoomed in. Could you do a novice a favor, and
describe what you see in the second print that you don't see in the
first?

--
L. Kirk Benedict
Click to expand...
Kirk Benedict said:
GHB said:
At first blush, I liked number two, but...

Zoomed in, I see artifacts particularly just above the bird's head
and along the tree branches. The eye has suffered a bit too.
Click to expand...
Well I liked the second one better because it was sharper. I wanted
to cast at least one vote for sharpness!

George, I wonder why you zoom in and look for artifacts instead of
taking the "first blush" impression. It seems like we are applying
a standard that would not work for prints held in the hand or hung
on the wall.

I think maybe I don't know what an artifact is! I confess that I
don't see any, even zoomed in. Could you do a novice a favor, and
describe what you see in the second print that you don't see in the
first?

--
L. Kirk Benedict
Click to expand...
First off, let me say that I think it has somewhat to do with the way I look at photos. In a gallery, for example, I am initially drawn to an image by its overall impact. Then I like to get closeup and spend some time to take in the details. I just enjoy doing that. I'm not saying everyone should.

With these two shots, I soon started looking closely and comparing them. The first thing that I noticed was that I didn't like the texture of the red area as much in the second. Then I noticed the area where the red meets the sky. On either side there is a sort of waviness, something like the heat rising off of dark pavement on a hot day. Noticed the same thing just above the birds head. (I think I would look at an 8x10 print and see these things.) Zoomed in and saw more of the same all along the bird's back and along the tree to the left. Then zoomed in on number 1 and didn't see the same distortion. Saw wider sharpening halos also.

That being said, these are not the main reasons that I prefer the first. The extra light in the second looks too exaggerated to me. The bark of the tree no longer looks as if it's in shadow. Too even. The area of red feathers is not as appealing. The eye seems less striking. Number 1 has an overall smoothness that I like; the second seems a bit harsh. Just my personal preference. And, I must add, my taste has changed over the years. Not better now, just different.

Hope I have explained myself well.

Regards,
--
George B
 
George

Thank you so much for helping me see the way you look at photos. It was generous of you to give me so much attention. I will study the photos and your reply.

I started taking photos in the late 50's for a high school yearbool. For many years I had cameras and lenses which were not capable of sharp photos. I did not have the money to buy them or the skill to use them. Perhaps that is why I enjoy lenses and post-processing techniques that make it so easily attainable these days.

Likewise, I learned in an era where direct flash was the only way to get enough light for a photo indoors. I remember what a boon it was when Tri-x was introduced. I sometimes laugh when pepole complain about the noise in their high ISO photos- nothing compared to pushing Tri-x in Acufine!

I fight the urge to over-sharpen and I fight the urge to ignore noise. I find it easy to agreee with most other photographers about what is a pleasing composition, but more difficult to reconsile my opinions on the technical aspects.

In spite of the low resolution of our computer monitors, it seems to me that a lot of the flaws we see in images there are not so obvious in the print.

Thank you again for your thoughtful reply.

Kirk
 
and some will like version #3 better. ;-)

To some extent it depends on how it will be used/viewed but the bottom line is which one YOU like.

--
Busch

Take the scenic route! Life is too short to do otherwise.

http://www.pbase.com/busch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top