UPDATE: Need honest c&c Test2a update

[Stargazer77517]

Quick drive thru, not much to show.
Now, I am about to drive myself crazy over this. I just cannot for the life of me get a good quality photo to post on the web. I dont know what I am doing wrong, I have tried several PP ways, tweeked every slider I can see, tried Canon DPP and CS3 to no avail. I am trying to get a good, clean and crisp image with no haziness like these seem to have. I can get pretty close on my monitor, but when I resize to 800 pp on the longest size it just looks lacking when I post it.
Do I really need to do all this PP to have a good image, do yall spend hours tweeking in one software, and transfer to another to finish up.
I think I am getting within the ballpark in the camera exposures, sure I am not the best at it, but just want to do a minimual amount of PP as possible.
Any ideas, suggestions, pointers? Lay it on me.

[sandboa]

Wow, that's a great closeup of the Merlin! Don't see many shots that close of that species. They're always a mile away from me!

[Stargazer77517]

Originally Posted by sandboa

Wow, that's a great closeup of the Merlin! Don't see many shots that close of that species. They're always a mile away from me!

Thanks, yep this fellow was a 15 to 20 feet off the trail. He just sat there. I drove mind you, to I bet within 15 feet of him and he didnt budge, could not believe it.

[DougC]

Honest C&C;
1. Focus is a bit soft and the braches and the shadow across the bird are very distracting. Good exposure.

2. Good overall but a bit tight in the frame. A bit of head turn would make all the difference but otherwise a good image.

3. Good catch light on the eye but as before, a bit of head turn would greatly improve this one. Also a bit more depth of field as the beak is out of focus near the bottom. Once again, very good exposure.

[Stargazer77517]

Originally Posted by DougC

Honest C&C;
1. Focus is a bit soft and the braches and the shadow across the bird are very distracting. Good exposure.

2. Good overall but a bit tight in the frame. A bit of head turn would make all the difference but otherwise a good image.

3. Good catch light on the eye but as before, a bit of head turn would greatly improve this one. Also a bit more depth of field as the beak is out of focus near the bottom. Once again, very good exposure.

Thanks Doug, Thats what I am looking for. All these were shot using the 1dmk2. I have noticed that using that body I have to sharpen the heck out of all the images, on the 50D with the same lens, its not the same. I wonder if the focus could be a bit off in the body? Also anything about the PP? How to clear up the overall quality.

[corralup]

79.74KB is what I'm seeing on the Merlin. Get to 290K as close as you can before saving to file.
188.55KB on the second
167.37KB on the third

I'm a firm believer the closer you can get to 290K the clearer the image will be on the web.

Nice images, Fred. But they can be sharper. I bet they look better on your monitor?
Play with the Kilobits and see what happens. Your a good photographer. I've always admired your work.

Sandy

[Flores]

good advice from sandy.

you may also try saving as a GIF or PNG file (which uses a lossless compression algorithm)

jpeg compression is a lossy compression, which means it compromises the color space, sharpness, and anything else it can to get the file size down.

I recommend reading this, if you are into juicy math type stuff. JPEG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it explains exactly what your losing when you create that jpeg.

[scottbuckel]

First off I like your compositions and second I'm jealous of your Merlin image. They are uncommon on the coast as well adding to the jealousy.

Downsizing images (as well as upsizing) can magnify the issues you already have. One thing as Sandy noted do not downsize as much as you do. Photoshop's dialog box will show you how large the image will be. I generally will not use save for web as it removes metadata from the image and it just seems not to work as well (the last part may be folklore on my part, but the metadata part is not!). I generally use the save as menu which will show you the size of the image.

Do you sharpen the image after you resize? Sharpening is best done as the last step in your work flow.

Minimizing post processing is a good goal, I try to get as much as possible done in camera as possible as I find repairing an image just to be hard labor and not particularly rewarding (that said I enjoy optimizing an image in PS as that is fun!)

You noted that your 1DmkII seems softer than your 50D. Lenses and technique are generally more important than the camera body. Are you using support like a tripod or monopod? If you are seeing these differences it may be good to look at your overall technique to ensure your are maximizing your potential.

I hope this helps,

Scott

[preames]

These are all very nice, especially the merlin, and you've gotten some good processing advice, most of which I think you already know. But I agree with Sandy, I try to keep my shots sized to right under 300k for posting and I've found that doing a very light usm after jpeg conversion/resizing can really help restore the sharpness.

[Stargazer77517]

Originally Posted by scottbuckel

First off I like your compositions and second I'm jealous of your Merlin image. They are uncommon on the coast as well adding to the jealousy.

Downsizing images (as well as upsizing) can magnify the issues you already have. One thing as Sandy noted do not downsize as much as you do. Photoshop's dialog box will show you how large the image will be. I generally will not use save for web as it removes metadata from the image and it just seems not to work as well (the last part may be folklore on my part, but the metadata part is not!). I generally use the save as menu which will show you the size of the image.

Do you sharpen the image after you resize? Sharpening is best done as the last step in your work flow.

Minimizing post processing is a good goal, I try to get as much as possible done in camera as possible as I find repairing an image just to be hard labor and not particularly rewarding (that said I enjoy optimizing an image in PS as that is fun!)

You noted that your 1DmkII seems softer than your 50D. Lenses and technique are generally more important than the camera body. Are you using support like a tripod or monopod? If you are seeing these differences it may be good to look at your overall technique to ensure your are maximizing your potential.

I hope this helps,

Scott

Thanks Scott for the comments. I do sharpen during processing but I have been at the end of it all, so that will be something I will start doing.

Originally Posted by corralup

79.74KB is what I'm seeing on the Merlin. Get to 290K as close as you can before saving to file.
188.55KB on the second
167.37KB on the third

I'm a firm believer the closer you can get to 290K the clearer the image will be on the web.

Nice images, Fred. But they can be sharper. I bet they look better on your monitor?
Play with the Kilobits and see what happens. Your a good photographer. I've always admired your work.

Sandy

Sandy, I do appreciate your kind comment. We have had this conversation one before. Guess I need to buckle down and use this as the rule and not the exception.

[Stargazer77517]

Originally Posted by preames

These are all very nice, especially the merlin, and you've gotten some good processing advice, most of which I think you already know. But I agree with Sandy, I try to keep my shots sized to right under 300k for posting and I've found that doing a very light usm after jpeg conversion/resizing can really help restore the sharpness.

Thanks Patrick, I guess when you say light you are talking about 85/1.0/3 or there abouts


Ok here is what I am hearing for web posting

1. after post processing, save as...to approx 290-300 K JPEG/ GIF / PNG
2 Reopen as ? and apply light sharping.
3 post to web.

Sound about right?

Thanks again for all the help

[scottbuckel]

Fred - your proposed work flow is exactly the best to use or you can resize, sharpen to taste, then save a jpeg.

For photos GIF has issues with the total number of colors and you can get some weird looking results.

Scott

[Stargazer77517]

Originally Posted by scottbuckel

Fred - your proposed work flow is exactly the best to use or you can resize, sharpen to taste, then save a jpeg.

For photos GIF has issues with the total number of colors and you can get some weird looking results.

Scott

Great, Ill have to give it a test when I can and see what happens. Thanks again all.

[Jim Victory]

You have got some good advise so far. I would suggest a contrast adjustment step somewhere in your work flow using USM of 20,50,0.

I start the processing of my raw file with a contrast adjustment because I don't make any processing changes at the raw conversion level. The files are pretty lifeless so the contrast adjustment helps. I follow that with a hue adjustment, if necessary, then sharpen before saving.

I don't post directly to the forum but rather through a link. Your saving method would be different for straight forum posting. I save for printing so my files are full size and are reduced for posting through my website.

[jfoureyes]

I use Nikon NX 2 for all my post processing. My usual steps are global NR, contrast, saturation, and USM in RAW. Size for the forum and add a smidgen more USM before posting if necessary and save up to 290 KB. I don't do a lot of PP unless the feeling hits me but I'm pretty lazy with it most of the time and hope nobody picks on me.

The last photo looks best to me..is that a crop of the other photo?