And give me some advice/comments
newbie advice welcomed
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
dave_putty
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:26 am
- Location: sheffield
newbie advice welcomed
Hi please have a look at this
And give me some advice/comments
And give me some advice/comments
Last edited by dave_putty on Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nikon D80
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23215
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Dave,
Lots of promise here! It's a pretty butterfly in a good pose, well framed.
Three things come to mind:
1. Your HTML is forcing the image to display at 1272x1112. That is the image's natural size, but forcing it prevents my browser from automatically resizing the image to fit my laptop display. I had to jump through a few hoops to see the whole image at once.
2. Overall the image is darker than I'd like. There are hardly any pixels with value over 210, and all of those belong to the blown-out flash reflections near the wing veins. Try playing around with a Photoshop level adjustment layer. You'll have to compromise overall appearance against blowing out a few more pixels near the reflections. Also bear in mind that I haven't seen the actual butterfly or the leaf that it's sitting on. Perhaps they really are dark, and brightening the image up would just make it look unnatural.
3. The image also seems a bit soft. It's got lots of DOF, so perhaps the problem is that the aperture was stopped down too far and the whole thing blurred out a bit from diffraction. (If you've missed recent discussion in the technical forum, see this topic and the links in it.) Given the current image, you might try sharpening it, say with unsharp mask in Photoshop using a narrow but strong filter, maybe around 80% at 0.7 pixels. That will bring out detail, at the cost of increasing the noise also. Which is better is a matter of personal preference.
Is that the sort of advice/comments you were looking for?
--Rik
Lots of promise here! It's a pretty butterfly in a good pose, well framed.
Three things come to mind:
1. Your HTML is forcing the image to display at 1272x1112. That is the image's natural size, but forcing it prevents my browser from automatically resizing the image to fit my laptop display. I had to jump through a few hoops to see the whole image at once.
2. Overall the image is darker than I'd like. There are hardly any pixels with value over 210, and all of those belong to the blown-out flash reflections near the wing veins. Try playing around with a Photoshop level adjustment layer. You'll have to compromise overall appearance against blowing out a few more pixels near the reflections. Also bear in mind that I haven't seen the actual butterfly or the leaf that it's sitting on. Perhaps they really are dark, and brightening the image up would just make it look unnatural.
3. The image also seems a bit soft. It's got lots of DOF, so perhaps the problem is that the aperture was stopped down too far and the whole thing blurred out a bit from diffraction. (If you've missed recent discussion in the technical forum, see this topic and the links in it.) Given the current image, you might try sharpening it, say with unsharp mask in Photoshop using a narrow but strong filter, maybe around 80% at 0.7 pixels. That will bring out detail, at the cost of increasing the noise also. Which is better is a matter of personal preference.
Is that the sort of advice/comments you were looking for?
--Rik
Looks like my picture I posted in the old forums...from Costa Rica? They are pretty cool looking butterflies
Last edited by beetleman on Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda
Doug Breda
-
dave_putty
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:26 am
- Location: sheffield
thank you
wow yes that is brilliant advice
this pic was taken in http://www.butterflyhouse.co.uk/ it was very humid inside and my lens was constantly steaming up but I will try photo shop on it
thank you for your superb advice
this pic was taken in http://www.butterflyhouse.co.uk/ it was very humid inside and my lens was constantly steaming up but I will try photo shop on it
thank you for your superb advice
Nikon D80
-
dave_putty
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:26 am
- Location: sheffield
here it is
Hi again please look now I have made a few changes It does look much better to me.
after
before
after
before
Nikon D80
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23215
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Looking good, Dave!
The "after" version now seems a bit over-sharpened -- for example where the antenna crosses the edge of the leaf there's a light halo around the dark antenna. But it's not distracting, and that's the only clearcut sharpening artifact that I see offhand. You could try turning down the amount or reducing the diameter of the sharpening filter, but no guarantees, and playing with it is the only way I know to find out what will work best.
Likewise, the brightness may now be turned up a bit too high -- for example the light band on the wing now appears to be completely blown out, where in the original there was tonal gradation that showed the shape of the wing membrane. Again, getting this tuned is a matter of trying a bunch of options and seeing what works best -- there's never one "right" setting. There are also some better tools. Photoshop's level adjustment is the simplest to use, so that's usually my first suggestion. But, curve adjustment gives you more freedom to (for example) brighten and expand the range of the midtones, while retaining gradation in the brights but squashing them into a smaller range near white.
Offhand I can't point to any good tutorials on how to use tools like curve adjustment. Perhaps one of our other members can offer some url's?
Dave, there's one aspect of this picture that I find intriguing. There are several foreground out-of-focus blurs that look like donuts -- light rings with dark centers. Lenses vary widely in how they render foreground/background blurs (see this article), but this is about the most extreme that I can recall seeing. Do you remember exactly which lens this was shot with, and what f/stop?
--Rik
The "after" version now seems a bit over-sharpened -- for example where the antenna crosses the edge of the leaf there's a light halo around the dark antenna. But it's not distracting, and that's the only clearcut sharpening artifact that I see offhand. You could try turning down the amount or reducing the diameter of the sharpening filter, but no guarantees, and playing with it is the only way I know to find out what will work best.
Likewise, the brightness may now be turned up a bit too high -- for example the light band on the wing now appears to be completely blown out, where in the original there was tonal gradation that showed the shape of the wing membrane. Again, getting this tuned is a matter of trying a bunch of options and seeing what works best -- there's never one "right" setting. There are also some better tools. Photoshop's level adjustment is the simplest to use, so that's usually my first suggestion. But, curve adjustment gives you more freedom to (for example) brighten and expand the range of the midtones, while retaining gradation in the brights but squashing them into a smaller range near white.
Offhand I can't point to any good tutorials on how to use tools like curve adjustment. Perhaps one of our other members can offer some url's?
Dave, there's one aspect of this picture that I find intriguing. There are several foreground out-of-focus blurs that look like donuts -- light rings with dark centers. Lenses vary widely in how they render foreground/background blurs (see this article), but this is about the most extreme that I can recall seeing. Do you remember exactly which lens this was shot with, and what f/stop?
--Rik
-
dave_putty
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:26 am
- Location: sheffield
aperture
Hi Rik this shot was taken with a Tamron 70-300mm 1:-5.6 LD macro 1:2
shutter was 1/60
Aperture was F4.5
In general I have not been very happy with this lenses results in macro shooting but I'm so new to photography I didn’t really know what I was buying It cost £99 perhaps I should have joined the forum before buying
Hope this helps Dave
shutter was 1/60
Aperture was F4.5
In general I have not been very happy with this lenses results in macro shooting but I'm so new to photography I didn’t really know what I was buying It cost £99 perhaps I should have joined the forum before buying
Hope this helps Dave
Nikon D80
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23215
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Dave,
Thanks for the info. I have no experience with that lens. User reports posted on the web are varied. Lots of words about "soft" from 200-300 mm and at wider apertures, but some positive reports too, particularly for capability at the price.
When/if you get ready to buy a more specialized macro lens (probably fixed focal length and reaching 1:1 without attachments), be sure to check with the forum for advice. There has been some discussion posted recently over in the Equipment Discussions forum, and undoubtedly more to be had for the asking.
In the meantime, we'll look forward to seeing more of what you get with the equipment you have -- the most valuable parts being your eyes and the take-a-picture button!
--Rik
Thanks for the info. I have no experience with that lens. User reports posted on the web are varied. Lots of words about "soft" from 200-300 mm and at wider apertures, but some positive reports too, particularly for capability at the price.
When/if you get ready to buy a more specialized macro lens (probably fixed focal length and reaching 1:1 without attachments), be sure to check with the forum for advice. There has been some discussion posted recently over in the Equipment Discussions forum, and undoubtedly more to be had for the asking.
In the meantime, we'll look forward to seeing more of what you get with the equipment you have -- the most valuable parts being your eyes and the take-a-picture button!
--Rik