Would you even have bothered?

[James Babbitt]

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• ƒ/7.1
• 500mm
• 1/1250s
• ISO 10000
• Jim Babbitt
• Mon, 31 October 2022 3:29 PM
• DxO PureRAW 2

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• ƒ/7.1
• 500mm
• 1/1250s
• ISO 10000
• Jim Babbitt
• Mon, 31 October 2022 3:29 PM
• DxO PureRAW 2

I took this shot off our porch at the lodge we were staying at in Costa Rica. These are Orange-chinned Parakeets and they were doing what parakeets do-squawking, arguing, cooing, etc. This was a "grab" shot using the R5, 100-500 at 500mm, with the settings I had used the evening before-SS 1/1250, f/7.1, ISO of 10,000. The birds were sitting in partial bright sun with wildly spackled sunlight behind them.
My first question: Would you have trashed this one immediately? Would you even have pushed the shutter button?
Second, if you did keep it, how would you have proceeded with PP.

I took it into ACR, masked the birds and brought up brightness via exposure slider and shadow slider. Then masked the BG and brought exposure and highlights down.
Took in PS, cropped, masked the birds and leaves on L, inverted to protect them, and used Clone Stamp at 35% opacity to tone down specular highlights. Used a Curve layer to bring shadows up slightly on bird on R.
Ran through TDNoise.

To me the birds look to "punched out". Maybe I should have feathered mask more??
Let me know your thoughts.
First image is processed and second is original.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

James, without seeing the RAW in its true 'native' state, it's hard to know where to start. If you care to forward the Raw NOT a tiff or JPEG I will gladly take a look.

1. Are you running the latest version of ACR/PS?

2. If you are, as soon as you import the file into ACR the first thing you ever do is scroll down to DeNoise (Enhance) click that, let it render, depending on the ISO move the % up or down, then let it render, it then produces a DNG file which you then work on, basically a new Raw. If you don't apply Enhance first, will screw the raw up, fact, this isn't a debate option.

3. Do not use Adobe colour in the Profile, change it to Adobe standard.

4. DO NOT apply any more NR to the image after Enhance.

 

[James Babbitt]

James, without seeing the RAW in its true 'native' state, it's hard to know where to start. If you care to forward the Raw NOT a tiff or JPEG I will gladly take a look.

1. Are you running the latest version of ACR/PS?

2. If you are, as soon as you import the file into ACR the first thing you ever do is scroll down to DeNoise (Enhance) click that, let it render, depending on the ISO move the % up or down, then let it render, it then produces a DNG file which you then work on, basically a new Raw. If you don't apply Enhance first, will screw the raw up, fact, this isn't a debate option.

3. Do not use Adobe colour in the Profile, change it to Adobe standard.

4. DO NOT apply any more NR to the image after Enhance.

I am running the latest PS update. I tried your approach on another image. Applied Enhanced Denoise in ACR. Used Adobe Standard. Performed some basic processing. When I was done, at 100% I could see a fine grain noise over entire image. Very fine, but definitely there. When I then applied Topaz De Noise AI at approximately 50% of what Topaz wanted, the noise disappeared and I could not see any loss of fine feather detail. Not sure what I did that created the fine grain noise. This image was shot at ISO 10,000 to maintain SS of 1/1250.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Firstly James, did you increase the % figure ie to 65% and not leave it at default 50%? Personally I have found 50% to be good at 10k, or even 12,800, but have increased it if required.

Secondly, the only real way is to print it, folk often worry saying oh it’s at ISO 3200 you must apply NR, if it’s correctly exposed ETTR and shadows have detail without lifting there will be minimal noise/grain when printed, plus it actually appears more ‘real’, compared to the ultra smooth appearance which has an almost plastic look.

As I mentioned James the only real way is to look at the raw, very often I have found that it’s not just the PP that has some simple adjustments that can easily be addressed, but also from the Exif the camera is not quite correctly set up.

 

[Jonathan Ashton]

James I would not dismiss the image, I think it a worthwhile subject. I understand your logic in processing but would concur that I would start with the raw file and then apply minimal Denoise (before default sharpening) to achieve the desired effect before doing anything at all. After Denoise process using masks and then apply sharpening in ACR but probably find that a minimal amount is required. The use of Selective colour and masking would help make the birds stand out from the background. (Good tutorials Youtube f64 Academy)

 

[Dorian Anderson]

If I think I'm gonna have to do that much processing/masking, I generally don't both taking the picture! Part of that is that I suck at processing, but part is that you can't make an un-ideal situation into an ideal situation no matter how many digital tricks you apply. But that's me.

I will say that I think you've overdone the lighting on the birds as they look very unnatural in the shadowed setting. There are also some edge and NR artifacts from the heavy-handed processing. I totally understand the desire to salvage frames of birds you're unlikely to have another crack at, but everyone draws different lines. I mean, I went to NZ a few years ago and kept 19 pictures from a 19 day trip! I basically keep only the stuff that sets up well at the moment of capture.

 

[James Babbitt]

James I would not dismiss the image, I think it a worthwhile subject. I understand your logic in processing but would concur that I would start with the raw file and then apply minimal Denoise (before default sharpening) to achieve the desired effect before doing anything at all. After Denoise process using masks and then apply sharpening in ACR but probably find that a minimal amount is required. The use of Selective colour and masking would help make the birds stand out from the background. (Good tutorials Youtube f64 Academy)

Thank you. I will look at that YouTube. I go back and forth about when to apply NR.

 

[James Babbitt]

If I think I'm gonna have to do that much processing/masking, I generally don't both taking the picture! Part of that is that I suck at processing, but part is that you can't make an un-ideal situation into an ideal situation no matter how many digital tricks you apply. But that's me.

I will say that I think you've overdone the lighting on the birds as they look very unnatural in the shadowed setting. There are also some edge and NR artifacts from the heavy-handed processing. I totally understand the desire to salvage frames of birds you're unlikely to have another crack at, but everyone draws different lines. I mean, I went to NZ a few years ago and kept 19 pictures from a 19 day trip! I basically keep only the stuff that sets up well at the moment of capture.

Wow! I am very guilty of trying to make every shot look like it was taken in perfect, soft, low light. Then I wonder why the image looks "fake". I need to become more selective, but also to learn that if the light is not good, then take an image that uses that imperfect light to its advantage.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Jim, thanks for your PM and no worries.

Re your monitor, for calibration make sure you are setting the calibration to D65, Gamma at 2.2 and look at what Candelas the manufacture suggests, probably between 80-120, so 100 is a good starting point, but this is all subject to the ambient/available light within the room. If there is a window ensure the monitor back is facing the window and if possible the curtains/blinds pulled, the darker the better so all you see is the screen so to speak.

If you don't have the basics set then any calibration is pointless, but NOT calibrating the monitor is crazy, you are just wasting your time and colours will be off. Having the monitor set correctly is just as important as exposing the shot, you can take the best shot, but screw it all up because the monitor isn't calibrated.

Thank you. I will look at that YouTube. I go back and forth about when to apply NR.

Jim, its simple, providing its well exposed you don't need to apply any NR for images below ISO 2500, folk have this obsession NR is a MUST, wrong and don't really understand why its being deployed. No idea why 'Enhance' is taking as long as you say, it should be 15-30 seconds, depending on your computer, but when used is probably as good as anything else, just move the arrow to scale the %, at 50% ISO6400, ISO 2500 say 20% or less, I'm using it at 100% for files I have just been shooting at ISO25K. Just make sure once your file is imported it is the first thing you do. I would look at ONLY Adobe tuition, as there is too much BS out on the net.

I need to become more selective, but also to learn that if the light is not good, then take an image that uses that imperfect light to its advantage.

Jim, the last two days has been horrendous in terms of light, plus thunderstorms, so light has dictated ISO speeds of 640 to 25, 600, and really pushing the histogram far right, to the point of clipping slightly, then in PP I can retrieve, NOT reconstruct the so called blown/clipped images because there is still data, it's just both the camera and software saying it's clipped because it cannot render. Therefore, contrary to thinking you might have been better to have gone EV 0, or 0.33 if you were minus here, you don't say.

BTW Your camera's working space, it is set to Adobe RGB and not, what a lot of folk have set their camera to which is sRGB?

 

[Steve Kaluski]

One other thing Jim, most folk will have kept Picture style to Standard, P197 on the electronic PDF manual, try Neutral, but zero everything you can in relation to the numbers allocated to Saturation, Contrast, Threshold... etc. It will appear as flat as ditchwater, but a good start it processing your image, however it might not be ideal if you have limited PP knowledge, in the nicest possible sense. :S3: