Original raw capture, no adjustments or crop
Critique Style Requested: Standard
The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
This guy (or gal, or either/both) sometimes hangs out in this tree, only visible in winter and usually in awful light. This is from 2 days ago. Several times I’ve set up my 1000mm lens and tried for shots, but they are always about the same. Light is usually too harsh or too soft. The tree is 300 ft from the house and uphill, and I can’t get closer to shoot it without other trees in the way. You’ve seen at least one of the earlier shots before, but the Harrier posted today by @Allen_Sparks got me thinking about how much processing is the sweet spot for difficult distant subjects. There is obviously no direct correlation between the two – this is clearly different from a handheld moving subject – but just thought I’d toss out what is my usual very minimal and direct processing. with thanks to LR.
Specific Feedback
All comments welcome!
Technical Details
The raw file was processed in LR, with Highlights -100, Shadows +53, WB dropper clicked on the sky to neutralize it – cloudy day. That’s it. Then into PS for a crop to 12% of the original frame, Topaz Denoise with Low Light mode, default settings, and some branch cloning. That’s all. That resulting file size was 2088 x 2610 pixels. When the PS file is saved it goes back in the same folder as the raw file. From there, I exported it at my usual size here of 2500 x 2500 pixels, so it would have been resized slightly smaller. Comparing the exported file with the PS original, I can’t see a difference. If I were to print it big I would need to think about resizing.
1 Like
Hi Diane, nice results in terms of image quality. I like all the lichen on the branches too and the head turn of the hawk.
As far as post processing, I think another significant difference versus my harrier is that I had to use ISO 6400 on a crop sensor R7 while your hawk was shot at ISO 800 on a full frame R5. My high ISO meant I also had to use an advanced noise reduction software - DXO Pure Raw 3 in this case. I probably could have skipped that step if I was able to shoot at ISO 800.
The step I added that was more optional was upsizing the photo using ON1. I did that in case I ever wanted to do a print but in this case I don’t think IQ would hold up to printing. I compared an upsized version versus one that was not upsized and I could not see a difference.
TFS
Diane, your minimal processing works nicely on this one. I really like the soft light and the crop is very good.
Thanks, @Allen_Sparks and @David_Bostock! Yes, the higher ISO does throw in a monkey wrench (or at least a screwdriver). I haven’t looked at DXO since it first came out and should compare it again, but I’ve been beyond amazed at what Topaz does. The only problem has been occasional puzzling areas it missed around a few smallish branches with the Low Light model, and in those cases the older models worked fine. Using it as a filter within PS, I could easily do 2 layers with 2 different models and mask. I sometimes push ISO to 6400 or higher and get surprisingly good results, but every image is different.
Diane, this is a fine look at the hawk. I love the lichen on the tree, it just adds info to his habitat. I appreciate you sharing the steps you took to process this. I have rarely used images that are that high in ISO, but recently got a video from Steve Perry of Backcountry Gallery that showed how to work with noise just in LR and PS. I haven’t had a chance to try the methods yet in PS, but I plan to. We are so blessed with so many software tools at our disposal these days, we just need the time to learn (and $$$ to buy). Nicely done. And I think when we share how we have done something it is a help to others on here. Thank you.
1 Like
Nicely done, Diane. The image quality is excellent for that distance which is really tricky when any movement at all of the camera will blur detail. Interesting processing steps. I find it amusing how we all come up with different processing flows, but with so many options and so many people out there purporting to teach stuff, I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising.
