Am I pushing it too far? Opinions please

[CyberDyneSystems]

Recently I have been processing for prints more,.. and I find that to get the results I want on paper,. I push the post process much further than I had in the past.

As I am working on it,. and as I look at the prints,. I am quite satisfied with the "improvements" that I am making in post processing..

...but ,.. I am having doubts and second thoughts.

I know it is not the same thing looking at these reduced images,. in fact they look "more fake" on a CRT than they do printed anyways... but I'd still love some input on what you all think ....


Are these images pushed too far?
Oversaturated?, oversharpened? Too much Noise Reduction?
Do they look "fake" ?

Here's some examples... (I apologize that most of these are repeat posts from share threads)

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=yshfi2&outx=600&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5lh90&outx=600&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=yshy3p&outx=600&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5gpro&outx=596&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1


Thanks for your comments,. and please,. be firm, blunt, and direct! ;)

[donlavange]

I am not into being a critic, so that said, I like them a lot. They make me think of the "Bose" description of what they do with sound. I think they call it "Psychoacoustics" which to me means; better than real life.

I think these pics have the same feel. They are almost 3 dimensional and no matter how you got there, it is the feeling a person gets from the final image that counts.

[belmondo]

CDS:
I really love them all, but I'm especially drawn to the Puffin. I always thought they looked like birds that might have been designed by Volkswagen.

Don't know why. I gues I've always been a little strange.

Really great shots, though.

As to over-processing your images, you really can't. If they go beyond the point of being believable, then they're art. You can't lose.

[Jyoti]

CDS, I'm viewing your pics on a calibrated 15" PowerBook screen and they look just gorgeous to me. The shots pop with colour and they have a great feel. I could easily imagine any of them in a glossy, expensive calendar.

Now, I have no idea what the "original" shots look like or how much processing you've done and, to be frank, I don't care. Photographs aren't taken, they're created. And you've created some lovely shots there!

[kb244]

I am viewing the images on both a 23" Calibrated CRT and a 15" Apple Studio LCD. the Colors seem rich on both. The images are sharp without artrifacts and details can be seen abound. I dont think you are pushing too far.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thanks all,. this is a big relief...

For one thing my monitor,. though top of the line,. (Sony 24") is only "calibrated by eye" so... I couldn't be sure of even that...

The look I am going for (like many digital photogs) is the now classic "Velvia" film look... which is definately more saturated than real life,. and yet you don't usually think that when veiwing...

From what you all have taken the time to say above.. I think I am getting there! :)

thanks ;)

[charlesu]

In my opinion, these are a little oversharpened. I think the saturation is OK.

[defordphoto]

Very nice, CDS. One thing to keep in mind is that the majority of people like oversaturated colors. Many times I do, but for some shots it doesn't fit. You've done good work here. Also keep in mind that you should sharpen photos for prints a few tweaks more than for the web (even more if using inkjets). These are a few tweaks too sharp for the web. My eyelids are bleeding! ;)

Like being behind the camera, digital photo-processing is an art within itself.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Charles and Jim,.. thanks for the valuable input. :)

I have to admit,. I think I may have "sharpened for the web" this time. I usually don't and only sharpen in PS when preparing the full sized tiff... then I reduce the images via "save for the web" and leave it at that..

Some of the above anyway I'm pretty sure I added a little more USM just to the web jpeg... (the net for instance I know I did)

I'll cut back on that step for sure.

Thanks :)

[jgbeam]

I agree with the others - too much sharpening. :( The colors look right on my monitor. :) The bird shots are very nice. I'll bet you get some great prints with USM tamed down a bit. :cool: The fishnet shot doesn't hit me - too much confusion for my aging mind to decipher. :)

Jim

[Bodryn]

I caught two Caspian terns last June myself on my S1 and the beak color seems spot on to me - not over saturated. Can't say about the puffins but all those photos are unbelievably good. Masterful. I can only stand here with my mouth open and say I have a long ways to go to get shots like these under any circumstances!

[tim]

#1 looks like it's made of plastic to me. The water drops in #2 are cool. Nice pics, although not breath taking for me.

[Barb42]

#1: the sharpness should always be on the eyes - right now it is on the body.
#2: DOF should be better - the netting needs to be as sharp as the 'fish' or whatever they are
#3: sharp, great movement - color pops; great shot
#4: wow composition, almost ballet. Coloring of the bird goes very well with the background which is very nicely blurred. This is my favorite.

[cmar]

Those are beautiful, I love the puffin, and the net.
colors are absolutly wonderful.

[roanjohn]

I see nothing wrong these pics...........I don't think they looked overprocessed.......

Some OOOFFFness on that 1st and 2nd pic..........but this could just be my monitor at work.

3rd shot is AWESOME!!! I like the look on the birds face.........very determined and MAD!!!

The 4th shot is beautiful........maybe a tighter crop........especially from the bottom.

Ro1

[karusel]

To me, only the first photo is suspicious, sort of. The background blur is maybe a bit too much, I mean, it's almost uniform... it looks to me as a realistic 3d model from Max... Maybe it's just because of small pic size.

[OviV]

I love the "Velvia" look and I have even been criticized for it on some of the other photo forums and here on a couple of occassions. The way I see it, it is my interpretation of the image. When I shoot nature photography I am not a journalist so I do manipulate the picture to have the feel that I want. I may not do it always and with all subjects but I do it when I think it is appropriate and I am the one that decides when that is. I think that this is one of the freedoms that digital photography grants us since we are not at the mercy of simply what the film and lab can produce.

Ovi

[CyberDyneSystems]

That first image was a surprise to me in many ways...

First,. the Puffins nest on a cliff whcih is the blur in the background,. and the light,. and the way they flew off,. I did not think I got a single shot in flight.. they were very hard to get an AF lock on that day.

So just getting this one in focus was a complete shock that I got when I got home from the trip. I had assumed I had no good shots at all.

The "plastic" look.. I agree completely.. but this was not my processing.. it looks like that out of camera... (obviously wihthout as much saturation etc..) but still plastic. these funny little guys just looked like toys! :) (he was wet too)

Your correct for sure that the narrow DOF I was working with was focused more on the wing... oddly though, in the full sized image and prints the eye doesn't look so dull. I maybe need to do some selective sharpening just to the eye area on the web image.

Thanks for the tips and opinions :)

[blinking8s]

thats a negative ghost rider...the target is crystal clear

[BuckNrut]

They look simply outstanding to me!!!

[ssim]

I think that only the second one is over saturated for my liking. As RFM noted alot of persons enjoy this though.

Man I can't wait to get back over there in the spring.

Just amazing shots.