Low tide at daybreak.

[Seamus]

This was taken this morning just after daybreak.


http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/31192758-L.jpg


exif:Date Taken:2005-08-07 07:21:42Date Digitized:2005-08-07 07:21:42Date Modified:2005-08-07 07:50:46Make:CanonModel: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3504x2336 Bytes: 1892668 Aperture: f/8.0 ISO: 100 Focal Length: 17mm (guess: 19mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.008s (1/125)Flash:Flash did not fire, compulsory flash modeExposure Program:Normal programExposure Bias:0ColorSpace:sRGB


:hide

[ian408]

I like the swan's graceful movement up the waterway. Their white colour
makes them stand out in an otherwise dark photo.

The sky is intriguing. I love the early morning light. More of a pastel than the
golden hour. Something else I feel with this photo is eminent sunrise almost
as if the sun will pop out at any minute.

One thing that I don't particularly care for is the composition. The sea wall
obscures the light along the horizon and sort of adds to the dark feel of the
harbor.

If I were shooting this, I might look for a lower vantage point and maybe
a skosh more light--about an hours worth. Maybe use a bit longer lens
(24-70) and narrow my focus on one or two of the boats.

The subject matter is wonderful and I'd love to see some more.

Cheers,
Ian

[wxwax]

Struth, I didn't realize there were swans there until I read ian's post!

Yeah, I'm a dummy. :uhoh

Lots of great stuff in the image, but it's not all tied up with a pretty bow on it. The sky takes too much attention away from the subject, which I reckon is the birds. And the important stuff in the shot is too dark, which is why my eye didn't go there immediately. The framing would be better with more room under the lead swan, no? Is the horizon a little skewed?

I'd be tempted to crop down the sky, and make two exposures - one for the sky and one for the swans. Then the image would feature the wonderful moment you captured, IMHO.

[Seamus]

Thanks for the feedback Ian & Sid,


I was going to dump this but thought I would put it in here to see what I could have done to get a better pic.

Another hour of daylight and, my bugbear, better composition might have given a better result.

I really like this forum. There is a lot of good feedback given and I learn a lot from other peoples threads. I really have to take my time when I see something I like and be a little more patient.

It is nice that you saw some potential in the photo as I did.

Thanks,

Shay.

[wxwax]

No sweat, Shay. Those birds can make a wonderful piccie. Do they do this every day, or did you just happen to catch them?

[ian408]

You're welcome.

Like Sid, I think those swans would make a lovely picture as well.

Cheers,
Ian

[rutt]

This image has a strong blue cast which can be easily corrected with LAB curves:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/31562981-O.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/31562998-S.jpghttp://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/31563001-S.jpg

I neutralized the white on the swans. As is very often the case with this kind of color correction, lots of other stuff was fixed as well with this one simple move. Notice how the estuary of the corrected image is now a plausible mossy green iinstead gray. By turning down the blue, the correction allows the green to come through.

If you shot in raw, you can probably open up the shadows a bit as well. Did you?

[Seamus]

This image has a strong blue cast which can be easily corrected with LAB curves:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/31562981-O.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/31562998-S.jpghttp://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/31563001-S.jpg

I neutralized the white on the swans. As is very often the case with this kind of color correction, lots of other stuff was fixed as well with this one simple move. Notice how the estuary of the corrected image is now a plausible mossy green iinstead gray. By turning down the blue, the correction allows the green to come through.

If you shot in raw, you can probably open up the shadows a bit as well. Did you?Thanks for taking the time to help Rutt,

I use elements 3 and do my modest ps work with that prog. I had another go at it and set black and white points on the levels and then moved the brightness slider a good bit to the left to lighten the pic.

I watched for the blue cast you identified and this was coming into the pic when I added contrast so I only used contrast set at 5. Saturation 10. sharpened 300 .3 0

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/31579932-L.jpg


Shay.

[Seamus]

You're welcome.

Like Sid, I think those swans would make a lovely picture as well.

Cheers,
Ian
Sid & Ian, these swans are close to where I live and do provide my main area for pics of birds. There is a good collection of ducks and a couple of cormorants that hang around also.

Shay.

[rutt]

Looks a lot better!

As to your sharpening parameters, though, I think you have something to learn. That last number, the threshold, shouldn't be 0. 0 is not a conservative sharpeing threshold, just the reverse; it's the most aggressive setting possible. Raise that value and you'll actually be able to sharpen enough to see a big difference without introducing a lot of noise.

Read this:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=10408
and this:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=10409

[Andy]

shay, you've gotten some great feedback here. i like what you did with the color balance, tho the orig imo was impressive too, the cool blue tells me we're at dawn...

i played with a crop and also spawned a few more birdies for you, to balance the shot some more:

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/31603090-L.jpg

[Seamus]

Looks a lot better!

As to your sharpening parameters, though, I think you have something to learn. That last number, the threshold, shouldn't be 0. 0 is not a conservative sharpeing threshold, just the reverse; it's the most aggressive setting possible. Raise that value and you'll actually be able to sharpen enough to see a big difference without introducing a lot of noise.

Read this:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=10408
and this:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=10409
I read these threads and they are clear and easy to follow. I have a book by Scott Kelby and picked one of the settings he recommended and have been using it ever since.

It's time to experiment.

I really appreciate the help Rutt. Thanks.

Shay.

[Seamus]

shay, you've gotten some great feedback here. i like what you did with the color balance, tho the orig imo was impressive too, the cool blue tells me we're at dawn...

i played with a crop and also spawned a few more birdies for you, to balance the shot some more:

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/31603090-L.jpg

"shay, you've gotten some great feedback here."

This is what makes Dgrin unique imo. There is a wealth of experience and knowledge on this forum and it is shared in a friendly and costructive way. This forum, whipping post, is an excellent place to learn.

Your crop is a big improvement, Andy, and the spawned swans do balance the pic, thanks.



Shay.

[rutt]

I have a book by Scott Kelby and picked one of the settings he recommended and have been using it ever since.

I think you may not be the only one; it seems to be a common error to set USM threshold=0. It really is a big mistake. Somebody should write him and get him to stop spreading this misinformation. (Hmm, maybe I'll try to get Dan Margulis to do this...)

[lynnma]

I think you may not be the only one; it seems to be a common error to set USM threshold=0. It really is a big mistake. Somebody should write him and get him to stop spreading this misinformation. (Hmm, maybe I'll try to get Dan Margulis to do this...)Hey Rutt.. nice to see you again.. I missed ya :wave

[Seamus]

I think you may not be the only one; it seems to be a common error to set USM threshold=0. It really is a big mistake. Somebody should write him and get him to stop spreading this misinformation. (Hmm, maybe I'll try to get Dan Margulis to do this...)
Just to let you know, I'm experimenting with the threshold amount on sharpening. I have read your thread on sharpening and am using it with Kelby's chapter on sharpening to see the effects on photos.

Shay.

[rutt]

Just to let you know, I'm experimenting with the threshold amount on sharpening. I have read your thread on sharpening and am using it with Kelby's chapter on sharpening to see the effects on photos.

Shay.

I'd be interested to know wether on a second close reading Kelby is really telling you to use a USM threshold of 0. That's such bad advice that it would make me question the whole chapter if it's really what he is saying. On the other hand, he is a famous expert and a lot of people think highly of him...

[Seamus]

I'd be interested to know wether on a second close reading Kelby is really telling you to use a USM threshold of 0. That's such bad advice that it would make me question the whole chapter if it's really what he is saying. On the other hand, he is a famous expert and a lot of people think highly of him...
You are right. I just glanced over the chapter and picked one setting. The 300 .3 0 is recommended by him for web shots that look blurry.


He has an all-purpose sharpening setting of amount 85%, radius 1 and threshold 4 that I have been playing with. It seems a much better base line to experiment from.

I also started applying sharpening on a duplicate layer. I was flattening the layers and then applying sharpening. I think this is the correct thing to do?

Shay.

[Anson]

so much to learn with PS...one small bite at a time (such as this thread), to internalize PS.

..by weeks end, I will have a grasp of this facet of PS...thanks

[rutt]

He has an all-purpose sharpening setting of amount 85%, radius 1 and threshold 4 that I have been playing with. It seems a much better base line to experiment from.


Much better to learn Dan's technique (which I explained in my posts) than to try to find some magic baseline. Every image is different. Every camera is different. Every resolution is different. So sorry. Learn to tune the parameters in order: threshold, radius, amount. That way you'll get good results every time. It only takes a minute once you practice a few times and understand what's going on.



I also started applying sharpening on a duplicate layer. I was flattening the layers and then applying sharpening. I think this is the correct thing to do?

Shay.

Part 2 (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=10409) of my sharpening tutorial explains what I think is the right thing to do. Sharpen the L channel in LAB in a separate layer, leaving amount at 500. Move to RGB. Duplicate the sharpening layer. Change the blending of one sharpening layer to "Darken" and the other to "Lighten" and tune they opacity separately. If you can't sharpen in LAB (Elements doesn't have it does it?), then maybe you can sharpen in RGB and immediately afterwards do Edit->Face->Lumonsioty (100%). If you can't do that, just sharpen the composite RGB channel and live with the slightly imperfect result.

[Seamus]

Much better to learn Dan's technique (which I explained in my posts) than to try to find some magic baseline. Every image is different. Every camera is different. Every resolution is different. So sorry. Learn to tune the parameters in order: threshold, radius, amount. That way you'll get good results every time. It only takes a minute once you practice a few times and understand what's going on.



Part 2 (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=10409) of my sharpening tutorial explains what I think is the right thing to do. Sharpen the L channel in LAB in a separate layer, leaving amount at 500. Move to RGB. Duplicate the sharpening layer. Change the blending of one sharpening layer to "Darken" and the other to "Lighten" and tune they opacity separately. If you can't sharpen in LAB (Elements doesn't have it does it?), then maybe you can sharpen in RGB and immediately afterwards do Edit->Face->Lumonsioty (100%). If you can't do that, just sharpen the composite RGB channel and live with the slightly imperfect result.
afaik I can't get luminosity layers in elements. The best I can do is duplicate the layer and sharpen that. It is a crude way of working on a pic when I see the results people get with ps2. Curves is the main reason I would get ps2. I do know I would be tied in knots trying to learn how to use curves but the results would probably be worth it.

It may be time to raid the piggy bank.

Shay.

[rutt]

afaik I can't get luminosity layers in elements. The best I can do is duplicate the layer and sharpen that. It is a crude way of working on a pic when I see the results people get with ps2. Curves is the main reason I would get ps2. I do know I would be tied in knots trying to learn how to use curves but the results would probably be worth it.

It may be time to raid the piggy bank.

Shay.

There are a few ways I know of to get it cheaper. If you are a student or have one in your house, the educational price about 1/3 the full price. You can scrounge around on ebay of a qualifying old version and buy an upgrade.

[Seamus]

There are a few ways I know of to get it cheaper. If you are a student or have one in your house, the educational price about 1/3 the full price. You can scrounge around on ebay of a qualifying old version and buy an upgrade.
Thanks for the info Rutt but I will bite the bullet and buy it in one of the computer shops here.

I have been thinking about it since ps2 was released. Elements is a great program and the file organiser is really good but it is crude in comparison to PS2. I am very curious about curves, shadow / highlights, lab, noise reduction, etc.

Once I buy it the updates are quite cheap and I am slowly learning that taking the picture is only the first step. Post processing is equally as important.

Afaik PS2 allows you to save a standard type of workflow (actions) and apply it to a large group of pics as a batch? This would be great for the motorcycle pics which can run to 1500 a day.

The real advantage for me in PS2 will be landscape pics. I have read the threads on making two exposures from a raw file, one for sky and one for foreground, and merging the two. I have a collection of pics with blown skys and / or foregrounds lost in shadow.

Shay.

[ian408]

The real advantage for me in PS2 will be landscape pics. I have read the threads on making two exposures from a raw file, one for sky and one for foreground, and merging the two. I have a collection of pics with blown skys and / or foregrounds lost in shadow.

Shay.

Ah the wonders of digital. Bad shot? No problem. Adjust each of the areas,
combine as required and you're good to go :D

Ian

[Seamus]

Ah the wonders of digital. Bad shot? No problem. Adjust each of the areas,
combine as required and you're good to go :D

Ian
That's the idea :thumb . Now to search for a good book. PS2 for idiots?

Shay.