1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Suggestions for PP...

Discussion in 'Retouching and Post Processing' started by DW Brewer, Jun 14, 2007.

  1. DW Brewer

    DW Brewer Guest

    I posted this image "Morning Prayers" in the bird forum. Some suggested it needed post-processing, and Gale suggested I post this image in this forum, I am open to further suggestions on PP, as I consider myself more of a learner therein than a seasoned veteran. For the record, here is the workflow to this point
    - image taken with a D2X in RAW
    - converted to jpeg in RSP, with some adjustments therein
    - in CS2:
    final crop
    resized with bicubic smoother to 300 ppi
    contrast boost via curves (to the limit without blowing out whites)
    sharpening via smart sharpen
    resized to 650 ppi max for posting via bicubic sharpen

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  2. What a wonderful shot of this magnificent bird. Even when "sleeping" it has one eye open. :wink: I wonder what it would look like with a curves adjustment to brighten the eye and feathers area somewhat? Appears just a little "flat" but maybe my screen is the issue. Thank you for posting this.
  3. David.....its a great capture, great composition...appears sharp to me. Just needs to be a bit lighter in some areas IMO....:smile: did you try a shadow/highlight adjustment..??
  4. Yes, it almost looks underexposed. I would give it a touch more light, to add brightness to the head/eye and bring some detail into the darker feathers.

    It's a fantastic capture, I really like the shot!


    Apr 30, 2005
    Very nice image. My 2 cent retouch to kick it up a little.

    1- desat head feathers to remove color cast
    2- burn/dodge of shadows/midtones/highlights
    3- sponge saturation/desaturation
    4- clone out some of the blown highlights in feathers
    5- slight noise reduction in background
    6- velvia plugin to kick it up



    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2007
  6. Dave_Canada

    Dave_Canada Guest

    hope you don't mind but I can show you better then tell you ..
    I adjusted the highlights around 18% to bring the head out and increased the contrast slightly

    Just an amazing shot by the way wished I had taken it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 19, 2007
  7. DW Brewer

    DW Brewer Guest

    I like the extra PP.

    RFCNikon and DAveCanada: would you mind detailing your PP steps so I could try it myself AND THEREFORE LEARN?
  8. Great shot, David!
    It's unique.
    I agree with comments so far and think Robert and Dave have done a great job in showing you how this image could be improved.

    aka beaucamera
  9. DW Brewer

    DW Brewer Guest

    Okay, let's try this one on for a trial. I don't use layers, plug-ins, or other programs other than my RAW converter and Photoshop, so some of the suggestions so far are beyond my capabilities. In this image, I warmed the overall image by changing the color temperature in the RAW converter, and I added a little color saturatiuon in the red and yellow channels. How does this rendition look?

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  10. David, I'm not sure you're moving in the right direction here. This is too saturated and warm for my taste.

    If you are serious about wanting to get into post processing, you should probably learn more about Photoshop. There are lots of tutorials around. I'd suggest trying a few, one at a time. Then apply what you've learned to your photos.

    Alternatively, if there's a particular problem you want to solve, look for a tutorial about that.

    Layers are extremely helpful. They're nothing to be afraid of. All they are is places to store or modify parts of an image. That will give you a lot more control of what you do. Becoming more familiar with the tools in PS will help you do a lot more.

    Here's a version from me too. I isolated the bird from the background using a mask. I made the mask on a copy of the background layer above the original.
    Then I made a new layer and, under the select menu, loaded my mask, copied it and pasted it in the new layer I'd created.

    I created another layer copy of the background and went to the filter menu and rendered some clouds.

    I also enhanced the saturation on the bird and lightened the area with white feather area using a blank layer, painting with white and a 10 pixel brush, then changed the opacity of that layer to taste.

    There are lots of things you can do with this image. It's a really great capture!

    aka beaucamera

    Copyright inserted by request. Sorry about this, David.
    I wouldn't want anyone not to be able to identify you as the photographer of this fabulous image.
    BTW, even without a copyright notice, all images retain a copyright by the maker.
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2007
  11. Dave_Canada

    Dave_Canada Guest

    simplicity is the rule I used the shadow highlight tool in cs3 increased the highlight to 18 % and set the shadow to min then go to contrast settings and increase till it looks right.
  12. Gale


    Jan 26, 2005
    Viera Fl
    Nice Robert
  13. Peano


    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, D.C.
    Outstanding capture! I think I would aim toward higher contrast between subject and background.

  14. DW Brewer

    DW Brewer Guest

    Many thanks to those who responded. It has been an interesting exercise with several ideas I can take to the bank. I showed this thread to the client, who was with me when I took the initial image. He examined all and went with the second rendition that I posted, with his rationale being as follows:

    Some of the renditions more closely resembled "digital art," wherein creativity and contrast rule. This overlooked the direction and quality from which the main light source eminated, and the reduction in shadows flattened the image not to his liking. In this business the client's taste always prevails, so that's the direction I went. It makes for a stunning 12x16 print, by the way.

    On another note, I have just finished pursuing two cases of image theft, and have a few more out there to pursue. I now always put a copyright notice on my images, as do several others who post here. I notice that most of you who "tweaked" this image for my benefit respected that notice and included it in your rendition. However, not everyone did so, and now that image is liable to be lifted without notice of copyright and/or ownership. I would respectfully ask that anyone who tweaks an image which contains copyright information respect that notice and include same in their tweaked images.

    Again, thank you all for your creative and thoughtful input.
  15. David, so sorry to hear about the loss of your images. That's concern of all of us who post here.
    I'm sure many of us would be interested to learn what steps you have taken and what the result has been.

    Based on your concerns I have replaced the image I posted in this thread.
    In the earlier version image, extraction removed your copyright notice.
    If I had posted the link, instead of the image, you could clearly see that I had identified this image as yours.

    I apologize for any inconvenience or concern my omission may have caused you.

    aka beaucamera

    BTW, even without the copyright notice, your image is protected by copyright.
  16. DW Brewer

    DW Brewer Guest

    I recognize that the amendments to the Copyright Law of 1976 which were enacted in 1978 DO PROVIDE COPYRIGHT PROTECTION TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER, however, there are legal limits to those rights AS ENFORCABLE which give me pause. I will indicate here that I am not a copyright attorney, but I have thirty plus years of monitoring copyright legislation and I rely heavily on the writings of Carolyn Wright, a photographer and copyright attorney who contributes regularly to Naturescapes.net. "Our friends in Congress" have seen fit to limit copyright protection for so-called "orphan works," i.e., works which they deem ownership CANNOT BE EASILY ASCERTAINED. It is in the dfinition of EASILY ASCERTAINED that everything becomes clear as mud. Yes, I retain copyright to works I create. However, in this age of Internet access, proving ownership (legally) is another thing. I might be able to prove ownership in the face of theft, but unless I have registered the copyright TO THE INDIVIDUAL IMAGE, I stand little chance of recovering damages for theft/unauthorized usage. Placing copyright notice on each image AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THAT IMAGE is an intermediate step (but a necessary one) to proving ownership. Best bet yet is to register ownership via metadata and register the image. Without copyright notice on the respective image, chances of proving ownership (IN A COURT OF LAW IF NECESSARY) is remote. Strange isn't it? We take ownership seriously, but how many slide shows have you seen wherein the photographer/creator set the show to music which was ripped? Music enjoys the same level of protection as do our photographs/images.
  17. Couldn't agree with you more, David!
    Could you tell us more about your experiences with the images that were stolen? Were you able to get restitution?

    aka beaucamera
  18. DW Brewer

    DW Brewer Guest

    Not to much to tell on the pirated images, really. I noticed an abnormal amount of links to an image, and a fellow in IT at work tracked down a culprit. A note to his webmaster ended that escapade. Unfortunately I have retired and that fellow is no longer an employee of the school, so I cannot pass along how he did it. On the other occasion, a "would-be book author" lifted a series of Images I had taken of a state park in Missouri, ostensibly for a book on the park. She ran afoul of a legitimate publisher who wished better resolution images. At this point she confessed that she had downloaded the images and used them as proofs for her editor and NOW wished to buy the images from me. I pointed her to the professional photographer who accompanied me on that photo safari (I had not yet turned "pro;" i.e., was not yet selling images), but she didn't want to deal with a "professional" (go figure; maybe she thought I would be cheaper, wanted my images; ...who knows). My buddy was suspicous of her from the get-go (no identification of the publisher, using a hotmail e-mail account, was willing to pirate images, etc.), and I was more than a little suspicious, so I simply deleted the images from my p-base site and cut off all communications with her, leaving her to hang with her "publisher." I figure that might teach her to be upfront with any photographer next time. The key point here is that she was not upfront with me until she got in a bind because the publisher had legitimate concerns about the source of the images.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.