seeking PP advice

[Rita]

Hi everyone I took this pic recently and have been trying to work it into something decent. It seems to be getting there but the body still doesn't look right, kind of noisy I am posting the original out of camera and the edit that I have done. For editing I have been jumping between Aperture and Elements 11. I am really working on learning PP so any feedback & advice would be much appreciated


Original



My Edit

[Colin Southern]

Hi Rita,

It's grossly under-exposed - so noise is to be expected - next-time you'll need to increase the exposure and (preferably use some fill flash) (so it's really a capture issue, not a PP one).

PP wise, all you can do is increase the exposure - use some fill light - and some noise reduction, with a little dodging and burning thrown in for good measure.

This is the best I could do.

[Rita]

Hi Rita,

It's grossly under-exposed - so noise is to be expected - next-time you'll need to increase the exposure and (preferably use some fill flash) (so it's really a capture issue, not a PP one).

PP wise, all you can do is increase the exposure - use some fill light - and some noise reduction, with a little dodging and burning thrown in for good measure.

This is the best I could do.

Thank you Colin. That does help me. I knew it was a bad original but I figured it would be good practice for me to see what I could do. Your version is better than mine for sure.

[Colin Southern]

Thank you Colin. That does help me. I knew it was a bad original but I figured it would be good practice for me to see what I could do. Your version is better than mine for sure.

You're welcome Rita, the biggest issue was that it was about 4 stops under-exposed, and in a JPEG, there just isn't enough safety margin left to separate shadow detail from the noise.

If you're going to be shooting into the light like that you'll probably need exposure compensation of at least +2 stops, but a fill-flash would do a lot more.

[ajohnw]

An interesting shot for me Rita. I've recently switched to an EM-5 having been very pleased with Pen's. I bought one to try the format out. I usually shoot best jpg plus raw and most often find I can process the jpg. The EM-5 uses a different sensor though so I am still a bit in the "dark".

Looking at the exif I notice spot metering, 1/1000 sec, ISO 640 and 2x digital zoom and a focal length of 234mm. I'm curious to know of you managed to keep the spot on the bird? There seems to be a +1.7EV exposure compensation as well. I might have been inclined to use centre weighted average and +2 EV as Colin suggested but it's difficult to know what a camera will do until it's tried in various situations. The bird may have been a tiny speck in the viewfinder meaning the metering would be thrown out more than if say it was half frame. Historically spot metering hasn't worked out reliably for me. Going on the manual the EM-5 uses 2% of the frame in that mode and has 2 additional modes that I assume shifts it from metering what ever is there to mid grey. It's a very small area.

I have to be a little doubtful about exif info as I am not sure the software I use is completely up to date.

John
-

[Rita]

Hi John, yes, I was using spot metering and as far as I can tell I kept it on the bird (but then again I won't guarantee that). I tend to agree with you on the spot metering not being reliable. It took me a couple of days trying to figure out why all of a sudden my pics didn't look the same as before. When I changed back to centre weighted my pics looked better. Like you say, you don't know until something is tried. And I'm having fun trying things even if they don't work out Thank you for your feedback.

[Colin Southern]

If one had spot-metered on the lighter part of the bird and added 1.7EV then the exposure should have been darn near perfect, but obviously it was around 4 stops under-exposed -- so something doesn't add up there.

Basically, whenever you shoot into the light the camera will normally try to protect the highlights (ie all of the bright stuff). VERY difficult to get a good exposure if the bird in a situation like this without flash (and a totally nuked background).

[Rita]

It is just a bad pic with too many things done wrong. Actually the only reason it wasn't discarded was so I could try and pp it. I can touch up a decent pic but really wanted to see if I could improve a bad one but this was just too far gone

[Downrigger]

Rita... not a bad Chickadee, but having come this far one can be sure you'll do better. I've had a considerable succession of images for several species of birds and some mammals. I never figure I've gotten the best one I can for any critter - just the best one so far - which lives with me in my LR library until replaced by a better one. But the first few in all of these series were rather elaborate and generally not pleasing PP rescues. And in all cases I still have beaucoup room for better. Part of the fun of it, for me.

[ajohnw]

It has 2 extra spot metering modes Colin. Not sure if that would show in the exif. The descriptions are spot highlight control, spot shadow control. One makes light light and the other dark dark. The centre weighted average is typical - it's shown as round circle 2/3 the height of the frame greying out to the edges. Not very useful really compared with old style film Nikon. The other one ESP scans 324 areas and works it out. I suspect that is the most predictable one. It will allow highlight clipping and black going too black in the jpg but on "typical" scenes where the dynamic range can cope it's all there in raw. On Pen's it was best to get the high lights right in the jpg and bring up the blacks or semi hdr for that end if just too much. I suspect the EM-5 is similar but the sensor has been changed so need to find out.

I do intend to try the funny spots out - if say one is pointed at what needs to be brightest does come out brightest it could be useful. Same with dark. Personally I feel Oly deserve more sales than they are probably getting. At least they are trying.

John
-

[ajohnw]

It is just a bad pic with too many things done wrong. Actually the only reason it wasn't discarded was so I could try and pp it. I can touch up a decent pic but really wanted to see if I could improve a bad one but this was just too far gone

You obtained a little more than I could get from it Rita. I could bring it up but noise seemed to become a problem. I'm not sure what software you are using but I recently found that the correct camera profile makes a significant difference to the tonal gradation of what comes out of the camera in raw.

John
-

[Rita]

John, I am using elements 11. I have only been shooting in jpg, raw is something I am going to start playing with.

You obtained a little more than I could get from it Rita. I could bring it up but noise seemed to become a problem. I'm not sure what software you are using but I recently found that the correct camera profile makes a significant difference to the tonal gradation of what comes out of the camera in raw.

John
-

[Rita]

To try and regroup, this is a chickadee I captured this morning with just minor pp done. I think I might be getting the hang of this. Do you think this is more like it for a backyard bird?

[Colin Southern]

I think that's a zillion times better!

I tweaked a few minor things (rotation, sharpening, saturation)

[Colin Southern]

Probably the best advice I can give is to suggest you try to get the light (more or less) behind you; it'll make metering a lot easier.

[ajohnw]

Looks good. 300mm and the lens wide open too. You might have clipped some of the white in PP or when the shot was taken. It's easy to miss small areas during PP.

When taking a shot there is a setting that shows clipped highlights and lowlights in the preview immediately after the shot is taken. I mostly use my EM-5 in P mode. The rear thumb wheel changes the settings while keeping the exposure correct. The front wheel gives exposure compensation. Might sound odd but it offers full manual control. If the speed needed or the aperture needed can't be obtained with the rear thumb wheel the iso needs changing. So if the preview showed clipping in the white I would use the front thumb wheel to set say - 1/2 EV and take the shot again. Haven't got a clue what P mode does with auto iso on but would guess it would go to the max setting on a shot like this. You can set the max but I put one of the buttons over to iso settings. My main aim of setting it up like this is to get easy exposure compensation rather than using manual and setting it with the meter. Usually when a shot is taken without highlight clipping the dark end can be brightened up if needed by a fair amount. Messing with the highlight end is usually more difficult but if the jpg isn't clipped there will be some scope in raw.

These dynamic range plots might help you see what's going on when jpg's are produced and also how raw is handled directly without using fake hdr as it's called. The vertical axis is the jpg colour space, bottom stops in. Raw development software usually has the facility to shape the curve as required while seeing what happens to the image.Notice that they curl at each end which means that the stops are being compressed in that region and high key has a steeper slope which is similar to saying more contrasty over that stop range where it is steep. Getting an idea what goes on here might help you play with raw.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/18

On the one that shows different cameras it's interesting to select say a Canon 5D MKIII and then select HTP on which alters the dynamic range at the bright end. It goes from a typical 9 stops in jpg's to 10. Not sure but I think that strange curve that can be changed on the EM-5 via the viewfinder or screen does the same thing over and above what the selectable curves do.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Probably the best advice I can give is to suggest you try to get the light (more or less) behind you; it'll make metering a lot easier.

Black in birds is a bit of a pain. I thought that this would make a great shot when I took it but just can't recover the black around the head. I'd guess this is another exposure compensation amount to get to grips with. I think this is mating behaviour! Lots of splashing and messing about. Maybe the best exposure would be to tend to forget high lights and make sure the black is well exposed even if darkened later. Maybe Colin has some thoughts. Hoped to practice more on the bird but the pool has been drained.



John
-

[Rita]

Colin & John, thank you for all of your feedback. I think I am starting to get the idea now. As I don't go back to work till mid January I see lots of practice coming up so I can improve.

[Colin Southern]

Black in birds is a bit of a pain. I thought that this would make a great shot when I took it but just can't recover the black around the head. I'd guess this is another exposure compensation amount to get to grips with. I think this is mating behaviour! Lots of splashing and messing about. Maybe the best exposure would be to tend to forget high lights and make sure the black is well exposed even if darkened later. Maybe Colin has some thoughts. Hoped to practice more on the bird but the pool has been drained.

I think a lot of folks don't really understand black. It's nothing to be afraid of per se - it's typically only 4 stops down from a reflected white, but often in scenes like this other things are happening that aren't immediately obvious such as the black often being in shadow (which can easily move it another 3 stops down from a reflected white) - and portions of a scene also having direct reflections from water and/or shooting into incident light (same result) in that it pushes the dynamic range requirement even more.

So when you're, say, shooting the underside of a black bird in flight you may well have everything from incident light to blacks in shadow - shot with a camera that has a significantly reduced dynamic range capability due to the fact they're shooting at a high ISO so that they can freeze motion - and all of that adds up to loss of shadow detail (especially because the metering will generally exposed to protect the brightest (incident) light).

And even when you've successfully captured everything (perhaps an image approaching a dynamic range of 9, 10, 11 stops, there's still a problem of compressing that in a way that still looks appealing into 4 to 6 stops (print / monitor respectfully).

Ultimately it's going to come down to what you can control and what you can't; if you can use a camera with a better dynamic range (ie SLR over P&S) then that'll help - and if you can shoot with the light source then that'll help too - but other than that, all you can really do is manage the exposures - ETTR as much as you can, or failing that, being resigned to accept that you may have to expose in a way that trades off highlight detail for shadow detail (which will in all likelihood require far more careful PP).