Processing raw image exercise for February 2012

The first raw processing image for February comes from Mital Patel.

The raw image in dng format can be downloaded from here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/bpnraw/mital.patel.img_9901.dng

The image is well focused, sharp, underexposed by only about 1/2 stop. The challenges as I see it is the bird is small in the frame, so after cropping, noise, and detail will be a challenge to control. Submit your best efforts in replies to this thread with maximum dimensions 1024 wide, by 800 high, sRGB jpegs. The file size limit is currently 256 KBytes but I'll try and get that raised to 350 KB like in the critique forums.

With a good response, we'll do two per month if people do not get tired out. You are also welcome to try your processing on previous month's exercises too.

Roger

I'll have a go. My 20mins in Photoshop and Noise Ninja. Severly cropped to only about 25% of original pixels retained.



(Yes, I flipped it left/right).
As I see it more, I wonder if the water should be more saturated color? But that might distract from the little color in the bird?
Hmmm, is water too cyan??
Tom
and many thanks Roger for your work/help with us on such exercises

Hi Roger- Tried the download using latest Safari and Lion and all I get is garbage text up on the screen. Previous download (egret) works great with same system. Any thoughts?

Update- right-clicked link and chose download linked file and it seems to be working. I'll know more after the download.

Here's my go at it. Cudos for catching this speed devil at this quality!
Main work in ACR 6.3:
16:9 crop
WB adjustment (Daylight preset: 5500, +10)
Exp: +0.25
Clarity: +59
Vibrance +37
Curves adjustment: Black point to 29, white point to 231, reverse S-curve

Sharpness:
Amount 48
Radius 0.8
Detail 38
Masking 31
NR
Luminance 6
luminance detail 50
Color 25
Color detail 50

Further processing in CS5.
Cropped from the right
Removed some debris from water using clone stamp
Selective NR on BG
Selective USM on bird
USM on whole image
Increased contrast and sharpness (USM) on eye
Save for web and devices

Great job so far. Keep them coming.
Roger

Here's Mine

Open in ACR CS5


Camera Standard Profile
Temperature : 4900
Tint : +10


Exposure +60
Recovery 18
Fill Light 15
Blacks 8
Brightness +50
Contrast +25
Vibrance +15


Strong Contrast


Detail Tab
Sharpening 25, 1.0, 25, 10
Noise Reduction 25, 50, 0, 60, 60


OPE IMAGE
Cropped for size


Masked bird
Applied Noise Reduction bg
Default : 6,15,19,8


USM 180,0.3,0


Save As JPG

How can you argue with the artist himself?! Here's my "go". In ACR I bumped default exposure to +1.00, Blacks from 5-10 and ran some capture sharpening and chroma NR before bringing into Ps. I cropped a little tighter than above, because the image was able to take the crop and I wanted the subject to have more of an impact. I ran Topaz Denoise on the BG, increased the saturation in LAB A and B channels one "notch", and sharpened the subject.

Up close the bird is very "ratty" and needs a good moult!

Tom- why did you turn the bird around?

Here's the result of some quick work in Lightroom. I tried to keep more of the background and not make the bird quite so big, especially since the head doesn't have a lot of detail in it. This source seems to work much better as a bird behavior photo (small swallow skimming along the water) than as a bird portrait.

Here is my go at the processing:

open in photoshop acr

Noise reduction:
luminance 25
luminance detail 50
luminance contrast 0
color 50
color detail 65

white balance as shot

exposure 0
recovery 23
fill light 0
blacks 0
brightness +50
contrast +25
clarity +8
vibrance +9
saturation +12

crop

In photoshop:

levels right slider to 230

select dark parts of bird with magic wand tool
refine edge:
edge detection 0.9 px
smooth 12
feather 20
contrast 8
shift edge 8

curves:
in= 192 out= 192
in= 57 out= 75
deselect

curves on whole image:
in= 188 out= 195
in= 102 out= 103
in= 37 out= 24

save as version b.

in ImagesPlus:
Richardson-Lucy deconvolution: 5x5, 25 iterations

Back to photoshop

Bring in new Richardson-Lucy deconvolution as a layer on top of previous version.
select background and delete (noise was enhanced in the deconvolution)

some further selective noise reduction on background (Gaussian blur 0.8)

merge layers.

select back of bird with lasso tool
edge detection 0.9 px
smooth 12
feather 20
contrast 8
shift edge 8
curves tool to lighten back of bird
in= 113 out= 117
in= 47 out= 57
in= 16 out- 18

curves tool to bring out feather detail
in= 126 out= 129
in= 71 out= 74
in= 38 out= 30

some general (minor) clean up (blur tool) on some edges that had residual ringing from processing.

convert to sRGB, 8-bit,
size for web and save for web

Roger

Roger's is the clear winner.
Mine is definitely much too cyan all over. (I must remember to leave an image overnight then review again before posting!!)
"Tom- why did you turn the bird around?" I did that because I feel sometimes it gives the feeling of the subject entering/flying into the image rather than out. For same reason I generally prefer a main light coming from the left rather than right. In this image both subject and light were right. Why left not right? I've heard it is a cultural (western?) habit and associated perhaps with our reading left to right. And, FWIW, for example, Rembrandt is well known for his strong light coming from the left.
Tom

Folks,

Greetings. I tend to like images on the warmer side as a matter of taste. Like the orange-blue color contrast in the image and prefer the yellow orange side to the red orange side of the palette for this image.



ACR
WB 5800 Tint +8

Exposure +2.0
Blacks +10
Brightness 0 /prefer to take brightness in exposure, but am a novice in ACR
Contrast 0

Clarity +10
Vibrance +10

Convert to Prophoto for work in PS

Mostly Topaz for grins

Topaz Denoise - RAW light w/ Adjust Highlight to 0.2 whole image
High Pass Sharpening w/Hard Light Blend - been playing with this again lately for detailing includes sharpening the high pass layer
Topaz Simplify - Buz Sim preset with Simplify Size 0.01 Saturation Boost 1.00 - Essentially NR/Detailing/Contrast/Saturation in Topaz's segmented style - here for color
Topaz InFocus - for detailing
Topaz Denoise - Selective for bg RAW Moderate settings

crop & save to tiff

jpeg w/standard screen sharpening in LR

Cheers,

-Michael-

Personally, I would like to see more comments about the various efforts here. So, here are mine:

Tom - After working on the image the flip just seems strange though I understand the directionality preference. Agree with the color has a cyan edge comment. BG seems a bit noisy. Could be sharper. Good tone & saturation. With some minor color adjustment & detailing...

Jerry - A little dark for my taste. Why the reverse-s curve (flattens midtones, not enough whites to matter)?

Mital - Too cool for me.

John - I think we went in a similar direction. I like the color. Prefer some additional detailing. I think the blue edges on the top wing are a problem (from boosting darks).

Elliotte - There is some appeal to the larger view. The warmth is a bit too far for me (water is no longer predominantly blue). Could use a bit more detail.

Roger - Good detail though a little crispy in spots. Problem blue edges in the darks (to my eye), perhaps lifted a bit too much for my taste.

Mine - Could probably use a bit more room on the right. A bit too crispy in places. Lesser, but still a problem with the blue edges on the top wing. Nice color :w3

JMO...

Cheers,

-Michael-

Hey Michael - agree with you, not enough comments and critique. (Also true of other forums, too much - "I like it", with no reasons). So interesting to have yours on each. The bird is of such strange/unfamiliar color for me that it was difficult to decide what is close to real life. Although I admit for all images I lean towards "make it look good".
Flipping image goes way back for me when I had a 35mm chrome landscape with a path going foreground off into distance. The original (as taken) had path curving in from the right corner. When I put it into club competion the judges told me it would score higher if I would flip it so path lead in from left.
Tom

A couple of comments on the processing.

Be careful with the use of the exposure slider. The exposure slider in ACR is like increasing the exposure in the camera: it acts linearly on the data. The brightness slider increases brightness after the gamma curve is applied. The difference is that it is very easy to drive the highlights into saturation with the exposure slider. The brightness slider is more forgiving. Michael's image, where he increased the exposure to +2 has saturated parts of the image in some channels. The two areas where this is most apparent are the bright areas below the eye and the small white tail feathers. Check, for example, the red channel below the eye, and one will see a lack of detail. Bring the images posted here into photoshop and put small selection boxed around these areas and look at the (all 3 colors) histgram. This will show if some data are hitting the limits.

One does not have the tools in ACR to be certain if a small area is getting a channel saturated, so I prefer to be conservative in ACR and do the adjustments in photoshop where I have more tools to check these things.

Similarly, the black slider: It is too easy to clip the lows, so I set blacks to zero in ACR. If any data gets clipped during the raw conversion, information is lost for the rest of processing. In Michael's image, some areas on the back of the wing are clipped to zero in some channels and in some locations, all 3 channels are clipped. Michael, I'm not trying to pick on you, as I like your overall processing, just do not like clipped highs or lows, and I think it is important to point out the dangers of sliders that can clip data.

Roger

Regarding finding in an image areas of over saturation, 255, or clipped lows, 0. Must be an easier way to find all such image areas in Photoshop other than using the eyedropper and manually scanning the image with it while watching for 255s or 0s readings?
Tom

Tom Graham said:

Regarding finding in an image areas of over saturation, 255, or clipped lows, 0. Must be an easier way to find all such image areas in Photoshop other than using the eyedropper and manually scanning the image with it while watching for 255s or 0s readings?
Tom

Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

The way to find clipped areas is to use the levels tool. Hold down the alt key (on windows) and move either the right or left sliders. The image will go black but as you move the slider away from the limit, if any data are clipped it will show as a color. The color and intensity depends on how many channels and how much it is clipped.

Roger

Roger,

Greetings. Thank you very much. This is exactly the type of comment I was hoping for from this forum. I particularly like the explanation of exposure vs brightness. I've never particularly liked brightness adjustments largely because different tonal areas respond differently to the adjustments. Now, I understand it is the gamma curve which is moderating the adjustments in different tonal areas. Ah, hah! Now I know why I like exposure adjustment better, for me the effect of the adjustment as a tool is just more predictable than the brightness adjustment. Or another way of putting it is I would rather take the overall decrease in contrast from a linear adjustment than the flattening of darks and highlights (no matter the image) that the gamma curve imposes.

Blown single channels in whites in small areas (no obvious banding) doesn't bother me. Under the eye is a bit more of a concern since the blown channel is the predominant color but here I'm not bothered. (especially as it is an expression of a specular highlight where there would be reduced contrast of any sort :w3 ). Most of the blown parts btw came from the +10 in vibrance that I applied after the exposure.Similarly (perhaps, not surprisingly), I don't have much issue with clipping small areas to black.

Since the original capture was underexposed everything has to be boosted w/ brightness, exposure or other means. Boosting darks introduces a problem for color in all cases. All color models show decreased color resolution in the darks. Digitized color models further reduces color resolution. So, when brightening darks, the low resolution in color is expressed at a brightness level that is capable of greater resolution. Visually the colors drift towards primarys (with respect to full color resolution). This effect is illustrated in (all) these images by the blue in the darks of the back wing (not the shoulder layer, but the next layer of feathers) while it is not in evidence in the front wing which is better exposed. The impact of reduced color resolution in darks effectively places a limit on how much they can be boosted, while maintaining "realistic" color balances. How one chooses to render even use the impact of reduced color resolution in darks is of course a matter of taste.

Btw, there is a similar reduction of color resolution in the whites (!), but there weren't any in this image due to underexposure. So, color issues associated with toning down whites (or recovery) aren't in evidence for this image due to underexposure.

Cheers,

-Michael-

Michael Gerald-Yamasaki said:

Roger,

Since the original capture was underexposed everything has to be boosted w/ brightness, exposure or other means. Boosting darks introduces a problem for color in all cases. All color models show decreased color resolution in the darks. Digitized color models further reduces color resolution. So, when brightening darks, the low resolution in color is expressed at a brightness level that is capable of greater resolution. Visually the colors drift towards primarys (with respect to full color resolution). This effect is illustrated in (all) these images by the blue in the darks of the back wing (not the shoulder layer, but the next layer of feathers) while it is not in evidence in the front wing which is better exposed. The impact of reduced color resolution in darks effectively places a limit on how much they can be boosted, while maintaining "realistic" color balances. How one chooses to render even use the impact of reduced color resolution in darks is of course a matter of taste.

Btw, there is a similar reduction of color resolution in the whites (!), but there weren't any in this image due to underexposure. So, color issues associated with toning down whites (or recovery) aren't in evidence for this image due to underexposure.

Click to expand...

Michael,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean with your above statement. For example, what do you mean by "Digitized color models further reduces color resolution." In a digital camera image, the low level signals are pretty linear, even after application of the variable gamma curve (the standard characteristic curve). What I see when lifting shadows is posterization. There is another issue with some raw converters that drop color in shadows. ACR was not great back in CS2 days:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/raw.converter.shadow.detail/
I haven't updated that page in a while, but I have tried a more recent ACR with similarly poor results (think it was CS4, but maybe it was CS3).
Is any of this what your are referring to? If so, this ia purely processing algorithm problems and not anything inherent in the digital data.

Regarding loss of color in the high end, there is loss of color and tonality (posterization) due to the characteristic curve which compresses the data into a smaller range, losing fine tonality levels. If one needs to get more detail (color and/or tonality) in highlights, do a linear conversion (which photoshop's ACR will not do).

Roger

Roger Clark said:

The way to find clipped areas is to use the levels tool. Hold down the alt key (on windows) and move either the right or left sliders. The image will go black but as you move the slider away from the limit, if any data are clipped it will show as a color. The color and intensity depends on how many channels and how much it is clipped.

Click to expand...

Curves also works this way with the right and left sliders.

(Just to be clear) Leaving the slider at 0 or 255 shows you what you have, moving them shows you what you will have if you make that adjustment. The color is which channels are at 255 or 0 for each pixel (for the right hand slider, for instance, white for all three channels, yellow for red and green channels, etc.).

Cheers,

-Michael-

I just check and did some new processing tests for my page
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/raw.converter.shadow.detail/

I previously checked CS3, and no improvement over what is on the page. So I just tested CS5 and it is a small improvement over that from CS2 in figure 8, but only a little, and nowhere near as good as ImagesPlus 2.5. Dcraw results are really close to that of CS5 ACR 6.6

Roger