Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK

  
 
alaskandood
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


OK, I have this picture that I love. It's about a 30-40% crop. I adjusted the exposure and contrast a little bit, boosted the clarity slider by about 20 and vibrance and saturation by 10. I then tried to clean up the purple and magenta fringing in the seaweed. I then brought it into Viveza 2 where I increased the structure around the head and lightened the eyes slightly.

I still see a magenta hue in the darker portions of the picture, but my main issue is that it looks like a film picture to me. (I did use an old film lens and TC).

Is there a way to make this image look more contrasty? Like I see in so many other bird pictures? Or is this just the result of using an older lens, wide open with a TC?

D750 & TC-16a & 300/2.8 AIS by justinwbroyles, on Flickr


Here's another picture I took a few minutes after with almost no PP. It looks pretty much the same to me. Flat.

D750 & TC-16a & 300 2.8 AIS Eagle, Homer, AK by A.Laskan, on Flickr

Thanks for any help



Nov 27, 2014 at 03:04 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Something more like this? (For more color, add another vibrance layer to the image below and yank the slider to the right, but notice it makes the background blotchy. Better to do these adjustments earlier in the process and apply them to the raw image when there's more bits to play with.)

















Nov 27, 2014 at 07:35 PM
alaskandood
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Thank you very much! That's definitely the "pop" I was looking for. Have always been scared to push the slider that far over.


Nov 27, 2014 at 07:59 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Do not fear experimentation. You're only burning some electrons and a little time.


Nov 27, 2014 at 08:20 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


I am glad Karen (AuntiPode) was able to illustrate the look you want and explain more how to get there.
But I would be thrilled with the image as originally processed and it appears to have plenty of contrast on my screen. Color, detail, action, highlights, shadows...you pulled it together very well.
The last version looks a bit more vibrant/dramatic, at the expense of somewhat unrealistic, over-saturated blues. A matter of taste. Realistic/artistic, accurate/interpretative, different appeal to different folks.
Scott



Nov 27, 2014 at 08:41 PM
alaskandood
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Sbeme-- I agree, I prefer her first version better than the second as well. I think she was just illustrating just how far you can take it. Her first version jumps out at me like I can see the eagle getting a little bit of that 3D type effect. I just didn't know what function gave it that edge.

I've had a camera almost a year now (now have two) and I still struggle with the very basics like WB. I can never tell which is the most appropriate setting, despite reading tons of internet literature. I am able to discern the magentas and greens more easily now though. It's a fun process for me (someone with ZERO artistic background) though.

Karen-- Just wanted to let you know I appreciate you taking the time to show me the sliders you used. Now I need to study up on Gamma Correction. I've seen it but still have no idea how it works.



Nov 27, 2014 at 09:33 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Baldies are tough/ Hard to keep the whites from blowing while keeping feather detail in the darker areas. I used to use a 500f4 and still had trouble getting the balance right. Ambient light makes a large difference too.

These look good to my eyes for an older lens. Some white is hot in the tail. I just downloaded it and will see what I can do with the feathers.

My take. I opened in ACR and used the eyedropper on a white part of the tail to adjust WB. I then went into LAB and used shadow highlight to lighten up under the wing and to pull down some white highlights and add midtone contrast.

I then sharpened in LAB but being a pre processed small image just a tiny amount could be used.

I finished by selecting shadows and used boosted levels about 5 (increased black point). Then selected midtone and ran a liner curve to add some contrast to the midtones.

Not much, a RAW would be needed for full treatment.

This is a good image by the way. Good pose, great eye an the detail is very suitable.







Nov 27, 2014 at 09:34 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Nothing constructive to add other than that I love the shots.

Beautiful creatures!

Jeff



Nov 27, 2014 at 11:01 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


alaskandood wrote:
Now I need to study up on Gamma Correction. I've seen it but still have no idea how it works.


Gamma is basically mid-tone contrast adjustment, although it also seems to often increase the appearance of saturation. The best way to learn what the controls do is to take images and add a layer and play with its sliders. That way you get a *feel* for what they do and what you can do with them using real images. Intellect is good, developing feeling and intuition for the tools is usually more useful.



Nov 27, 2014 at 11:37 PM
alaskandood
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Ben--- I really like what you've done. I had to google LAB (I had never heard of it) and found it interesting. You've really brought out the detail of the image. I think it looks a little crunchy, but I think that's probably a result of editing the jpg vs raw. It did get rid of a lot of the magenta I was seeing in the darker parts of the wings and I hadn't even noticed the blown out part of the white in the tail. Thought you brought it back seamlessly.

One thing I'm learning about photography is that you really need to be somewhat anal retentive when reviewing pictures. It is coming more naturally to me though. (I'm very ADHD by the way). The more images I thoroughly look over, the more OCD I get, it seems. I'm guessing that's a photographer thing though. Up til 11 months ago, I had never even heard of lightroom, and never actually played in photoshop before. I couldn't even tell you what a clipped highlight was. Thank you Ben!

Thank you Beavens!



Nov 28, 2014 at 06:32 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Excellent captures ... gotta have that before you can do anything else.

Gamma is the amount of exponential change being applied. A mid tone value of 127 (or .5) with a Gamma of 1.0 remains 127 as .5^1 = .5 (127). Change the gamma to 2.0, and the value of .5 becomes .5^2.0 = .25 (or 64). Similarly a applying a gamma of 2.0 to a value of .9 (230) becomes .9^2.0 = .81 (207).

Depending on which adjustment tool we access in PS, sometimes the program uses the gamma inversely ... meaning that .5 and 2.0 are exponential complements, but the point to realize is that gamma is an exponential adjustment, while other adjustments are linearly applied or multiplication/division to change the numeric values.

Once you understand the mathematical implications of gamma as exponential compared to multiply or levels, then you have the liberty to choose which tool will most effectively garner your intended results and how it will differ from the other tools available.

Gamma really isn't a midrange contrast booster, it is an exponential alteration to ALL VALUES across the entire range.

Taking a value from .1 (25) to .1^2.0 = .01 (2.5) is really crushing down your shadows pretty hard. If you are using gamma for the purpose of midrange contrast boosting, you are generating even more dramatic change in your lower decimal values. If that's what you want, that is fine, but the contrast that is occurring is ranging from the fact that larger decimal values are closer to 1 and thus are less impacted by the exponent being applied as 1 raised to anything is still 1 ... while the lower decimal values are more radically impacted by the exponential change.

This can give increased contrast, but it is not a midrange attribute, it is a gradient attribute throughout the entire range as a byproduct of the decimal math. It may be that we more readily notice when a midrange value changes, but particularly when being used in conjunction with other adjustments, there can be issues with thinking that gamma is oriented to midrange contrast while it can be challenging from some folks to perceive the magnitude of greater change occurring in the lower values and/or lack of change in the upper values.

Gamma can be extremely powerful with the ability to alter the values on magnitude of ^2, ^3 ... and even greater. It also has significant power in the other direction of ^.5, ^.3 and lower. How dramatic or judicious we apply gamma is of course highly subjective, but I find it to be important to know what it is doing throughout your entire range, even if you don't recognize it can be the culprit for blocking up your shadows or flattening your highlights in the process.

Anyway, back to the pic ... took a stab (+1 @ Ben, prefer the raw to work from)







Nov 28, 2014 at 01:23 PM
alaskandood
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


RustyBug-- Thank you for the thorough explanation of Gamma. Easily the most concise, yet understandable explanation I've read.

I've read your post about 10 times to better understand what you're saying. (it makes perfect sense now).

Also, would you mind sharing what changes you made? This is my favorite edit so far. You've managed to bring out a lot of detail in the eagle without changing the tone of the background/forground. It's very subtle and more natural looking than what I had done, but everything seems so much sharper.





Nov 28, 2014 at 04:16 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Thanks.

A few different concepts that I applied.

1) I took the image into 32 bit and applied multiple layers of multiply through blue channel masks to try and create differences in the highlight values followed by some USM. Then, pulled back on the opacity of each layer to taste for the head/tail feathers. "Blend if" was used to restrict the changes to the highlights and transition into the lower, unaffected tones.

I used 32 bit whenever I am going to perform multiple aggressive math operations ... to minimize rounding since there will be additional math operatives applied back in 16 bit.


2) Back into 16 bit, it was mostly the regular stuff @ push/pull of sat/desat through channel masks so I can readily separate areas I want to change. Same for applying some USM, vibrance, etc. ... tweaking opacity of masks, etc. to iteratively balance things.

3) Last was to apply a slight amount of lens blur to the non-subject areas and a last touch of USM to the a few different areas of the subject.

Because I merge layers coming out of 32 bit, I don't have those to show like Karen does ... but I hope that helps at least a little.






Nov 28, 2014 at 05:31 PM
alaskandood
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


RustyBug-- I don't even know where to begin, but I really appreciate you taking the time to detail your process. The results are magnificent! I'm almost done with my second 18 hour work shift in two days and not quite as coherent as would normally be. I can't wait to get into photoshop and "tinker". I've had pixelation issues working in 32 bit, but I obviously need more practice. Definitely need to bone up on my math.

Also, I looked at all of your Top 15 and wanted to let you know your work is absolutely stunning. Particularly love "the Study" for some reason. I don't know enough about composition to understand why, but there's just something about it. I'm grateful there are people like Karen, Ben and yourself that take the time and effort to assist others on here.



Nov 28, 2014 at 07:20 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Bald Eagle -- Homer, AK


Thanks for the kind words ... but do not discount the excellence of your own work as captured here. It is rather stunning itself.

"The Study" is a piece that is a capture of my study that I'm putting together as a mini-retreat (spare bedroom) for a proximal reminder / ode to the old world methods of understanding light, shape, form, color, etc.

The masters before us (and before photography) knew of such things in a way that I struggle to find very many folks giving any real credence to in today's realm of our beloved craft. It is meant to be a reminder to me to think about those who thought such things ... and subsequently study to learn how to employ them well (instead of over-cranking the saturation/contrast slider, etc.) with hopefully a growing degree of "command & control" for rendering our message.

At times I have a bent toward double entendre' in my image/messages. "The Study" is one such piece as well. While it obviously is a picture of my study, it is the study of the picture that is the real message.

As a starter hint/teaser ... how many triangles can you find in the image? Can you find the lines/squares/rectangles/circles. What else can you find that would relate to the fundamental attributes/elements of image making in our beloved craft?

Some folks don't ever really go there with this piece (or some of my others) that have included sublime elements (too sublime ). "The Key" is another such piece that is really more about an effort to entice the viewer to start asking questions and studying the pieces with a degree of thought provocation.

I find that there is a difference between being entertained by a piece and having a piece to study. My experience has been that there are fewer folks that enjoy the study of a piece than the instant gratification of an immediately entertaining piece ... but I reckon' that's just human nature. I know I really dig seeing pieces that are chocked full of opportunity for study, but that's just me.

If you do study "The Study", I hope it rewards you even more along the way.

Thanks again ... and again, your captures here render me a bit envious.




Nov 29, 2014 at 12:44 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.