Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
Thread started 01 Dec 2008 (Monday) 01:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Hawk attempt for some C&C

 
Nathan
Can you repeat the question, please?
Avatar
7,900 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 361
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Dec 05, 2008 01:21 |  #31

Tonight, I tried a new workflow for me using multiple layer masks... When I'm sharpening the hawk, then I hide the background. When I'm blurring the background or removing noise, then I hide the hawk. If I'm just sharpening the hawk's head, I hide the rest of the hawk. Oversharpening tends to add a halo around the wings, so then I paint away the sharpening along those edges. Masks are very powerful... are you familiar with them? I basically started digital photography when I got the 40D in September '08. I'm still learning the technical aspects of photography. I started picking up post processing over the summer and my methods have slowly evolved through trial and error. What works I stick to and what doesn't I move on from. There are so many different ways to do achieve certain results, that I have a lot of fun trying to creatively use what I know to resolve specific issues with a photo. That's why I jump at the opportunity to edit other people's photos on this forum. It's how I improve. I really enjoyed editing your Hawks2-1.jpg photo. Thank you!

My rule of thumb, though, is that it's best to aim for subtlety when post processing an image.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 50L | 85L II | 100L | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,359 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 89
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Dec 05, 2008 21:13 |  #32

SwingBopper wrote in post #6816436 (external link)
Bill, that's a very nice edit; but why sharpen only 2 color channels? And how do you just sharpen one color channel and not the whole image? And finally would you explain "output sharpening". The only sharpening I have done is in Photoshop.

That is a tip that I picked up from some of the guys in the bird forum. First of all, to access the color channels, simply select the Channels palette and then click on the desired color channel. When finished, click on RGB channel and then return back to the Layers palette. The amount of sharpening is normally very subtle -- set Amount to 50, Radius to 0.3, and leave the Threshold at 0. Pick a color channel -- usually red or green, but hardly ever blue, but it depends somewhat on the image and the desired end result.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Since our vision sensitivity peaks in the greens, the green channel is usually where you will see the greatest amount of fine detail. The red channel tends to not reveal much fine detail, but does show boundaries of areas with differing amounts of luminosity. The blue channel is normally the most difficult to see any details because the sensitivity of our eyes decreases rapidly as we approach the limits of our color vision range. To me, the blue channel seems to separate luminosity into about three distinct levels.

In the above example, I would use the green channel if my objective were to mainly sharpen fine details. The red channel seems to emphasize contrasting areas such as the boundary between the sky and clouds (which is what you would expect of a red filter in B/W photography) and also help to accentuate the boundaries between the rocks and trees. About the only thing that the blue channel seems to be good for is to sharpen the boundary between the sky and top of the ridge. On the few occasions when I do apply USM to the blue channel, I normally reduce the Amount to 30 and increase the Radius to 0.8.

Output sharpening is just the sharpening that is done as the last step of editing before saving the image. The image must be set to its final size before sharpening is applied. The type and amount of sharpening depends upon the destination of the file. For a file that is to be printed, the typical recommendation is to sharpen until the image looks a bit "crunchy". If you were to apply the same amount of sharpening to a file whose destination were the web, it would look like heck, but a printer needs a bit of crunchiness to compensate for the slight softening that it causes as a result of inks bleeding into the paper a bit along with the various types of dot patterns and scattering that occurs in the printed output. The other type of standard workflow sharpening is capture sharpening which is done during the RAW conversion process and is a very subtle sharpening that is just enough to compensate for the softness that occurs during demosaicing. Additionally, creative sharpening is becoming more prevalent as a creative part of the workflow in Photoshop. Unlike the others, creative sharpening is normally applied selectively whereas capture and output sharpening are typically applied globally.

Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skygod44
THREAD ­ STARTER
"in stockings and suspenders"
Avatar
6,453 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 109
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Southern Kyushu, Japan. Which means nowhere near Tokyo!
     
Dec 05, 2008 22:18 |  #33

Reign wrote in post #6816973 (external link)
Oversharpening tends to add a halo around the wings I really enjoyed editing your Hawks2-1.jpg photo. Thank you!

My rule of thumb, though, is that it's best to aim for subtlety when post processing an image.

I fully agree about over sharpening. The halo-effect seems so weird. And I also agree about "subtlety". I suppose, the key is to take a great picture in the first place!!!

And as to thanking me for posting the hawk picture...really, there's no need - quite the opposite in fact. I can't thank YOU enough for your efforts. My wife is not so interested in my passion for photography ("boys and their toys!"), but seeing my photo, edited by you really made her look twice!

Thanks again, and I'll think about getting photoshop after the Christmas expenses are cleared off the credit card! (That is what you use, isn't it?)


"Whatever you do, enjoy yourself...otherwise, what's the point."
6D/7D and ALL Canon/Sigma gear SOLD!!!! Now: Olympus PEN EP-5 & OM-D EM-5 Mk2 and 8 lenses!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
STRacer1
Member
Avatar
36 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Tennessee
     
Dec 06, 2008 16:08 as a reply to  @ post 6796583 |  #34

This is your original version using an unsharp mask and then turning the constrast down while brightening it a bit....I think it keeps your original colors while bringing it into focus a little more and giving it some highlights. I included the original for comparison. After looking some more I do see a dark band around the top of the bird....that could be masked out with some more time.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon XSi - EF 18~55mm f3.5-f5.6 IS kit lens, EF 55~250mm f4-f5.6 IS, EF 70~200mm f4L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,359 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 89
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Dec 06, 2008 17:11 as a reply to  @ STRacer1's post |  #35

I like both the original and the edit done by Reign on the near-sighted divot-eating hawk. :)


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
Can you repeat the question, please?
Avatar
7,900 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 361
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Dec 06, 2008 20:07 |  #36

A friend of mine (not a POTN member) came up with this:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 50L | 85L II | 100L | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SwingBopper
Goldmember
Avatar
2,664 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Japan
     
Dec 07, 2008 01:44 |  #37

Hey Bill, thanks for that explanation. It really clears things up for me. So in output sharpening after the photo is "saved for web" with the correct dimensions and file size you have to open it in PS and do a sharpen then save it again as I understand it. The channel sharpening I'll have to experiment with - sounds interesting.
And Sky, if you can't go the full weight of Photoshop CS3 or CS4, try Elements, current version is 7. I have it as well as CS3 (I started off with it then upgraded) and I find it easier to use and it has many many features of CS3 with much the same user interface; but it's way less expensive. It even has some features Photoshop CS3 lacks ( a cataloging feature ) and some functions are easier in Elements.


EOS 5D II, 40D, Sony R1, Olympus 1030, Canon S5-IS.
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." A. Hamilton

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,359 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 89
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Dec 07, 2008 12:05 |  #38

SwingBopper wrote in post #6828459 (external link)
Hey Bill, thanks for that explanation. It really clears things up for me. So in output sharpening after the photo is "saved for web" with the correct dimensions and file size you have to open it in PS and do a sharpen then save it again as I understand it. The channel sharpening I'll have to experiment with - sounds interesting.
And Sky, if you can't go the full weight of Photoshop CS3 or CS4, try Elements, current version is 7. I have it as well as CS3 (I started off with it then upgraded) and I find it easier to use and it has many many features of CS3 with much the same user interface; but it's way less expensive. It even has some features Photoshop CS3 lacks ( a cataloging feature ) and some functions are easier in Elements.

You should do the appropriate output sharpening BEFORE saving it the first time. If you save for the web and then open it again to sharpen and save for the web a second time, there will be an unnecessary amount of image degradation.

One other note is that images save for the web usually need very little, if any, output sharpening. Images that are to be printed, however, are usually sharpened much more than that and typically appear much too oversharpened for web viewing.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BscPhoto
Senior Member
Avatar
625 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: East Haven, CT
     
Dec 07, 2008 12:41 as a reply to  @ Bill Boehme's post |  #39

LUCKY! I wish I had hawks. Well they might eat my cats.
I'd be curious to see some pre cropped images. Just to get a sense of how close they are coming to you.


•MEGAPIXELS are OVERRATED•

BSCphoto.com (external link)
Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skygod44
THREAD ­ STARTER
"in stockings and suspenders"
Avatar
6,453 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 109
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Southern Kyushu, Japan. Which means nowhere near Tokyo!
     
Dec 08, 2008 04:52 |  #40

BscPhoto wrote in post #6830598 (external link)
LUCKY! I wish I had hawks. Well they might eat my cats.
I'd be curious to see some pre cropped images. Just to get a sense of how close they are coming to you.

Happy to oblige...


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


"Whatever you do, enjoy yourself...otherwise, what's the point."
6D/7D and ALL Canon/Sigma gear SOLD!!!! Now: Olympus PEN EP-5 & OM-D EM-5 Mk2 and 8 lenses!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SwingBopper
Goldmember
Avatar
2,664 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Japan
     
Dec 08, 2008 05:40 |  #41

bill boehme wrote in post #6830365 (external link)
You should do the appropriate output sharpening BEFORE saving it the first time. If you save for the web and then open it again to sharpen and save for the web a second time, there will be an unnecessary amount of image degradation.
...

So do you not use the "Save-for-Web" option in PS to resize? That's where I have been resizing my images and setting the file size to 149k. What you are saying is that I should resize in PS, sharpen, then only use the Save-for-Web to set the file size. I think I got it now. Thanks again.


EOS 5D II, 40D, Sony R1, Olympus 1030, Canon S5-IS.
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." A. Hamilton

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
Can you repeat the question, please?
Avatar
7,900 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 361
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Dec 08, 2008 08:57 |  #42

For print, I usually edit how I want to edit my image, resize to my desired print size, sharpen then save.

For the forum, I edit my image, resize the image with a width of 7-800 pixels, sharpen, then save for web and optimize.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 50L | 85L II | 100L | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,359 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 89
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Dec 08, 2008 14:27 |  #43

SwingBopper wrote in post #6835558 (external link)
So do you not use the "Save-for-Web" option in PS to resize? That's where I have been resizing my images and setting the file size to 149k. What you are saying is that I should resize in PS, sharpen, then only use the Save-for-Web to set the file size. I think I got it now. Thanks again.

See Reign's answer.

Reign wrote in post #6836242 (external link)
For print, I usually edit how I want to edit my image, resize to my desired print size, sharpen then save.

For the forum, I edit my image, resize the image with a width of 7-800 pixels, sharpen, then save for web and optimize.

That is what I also do. If I am posting an image to this forum and using Save for web, I strive for compression quality of 60 or better. If I can't do that, I will reduce the physical pixel dimensions of the image in order to keep the compression quality high.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

3,175 views & 0 likes for this thread, 9 members have posted to it.
Hawk attempt for some C&C
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MWCarlsson
1447 guests, 127 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.