Picture Editing Thoughts (4 Viewers)

[PaulCountyDurham]

Hi all,

I took this picture over the weekend, the light was poor, there's not a great deal of contrast in the picture, the colours look washed out and there's a bit of a haze to the picture.

What editing features would you use to bring some life to this bird?

The original is the first picture and then I've edited as best as I can (second picture) using the haze removal tool, adjusting the levels a bit and adding a bit of saturation.

Any ideas?

Cheers.

 

[Biancone]

Have to say I prefer the original! It looks more 'natural' than the edited version which to my eyes is a touch too contrasty and colourful. But you might want to discount that because I'm not an expert image editor and my PC screen is not calibrated.

 

[Jim M.]

I like your edited one. I agree the first looks washed out. You could pump the saturation or dehaze more, but then it would look (and be) unnatural. I suspect oversaturation is the biggest culprit in the many bird photos on social media that literally are too good to be true/real.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Have to say I prefer the original! It looks more 'natural' than the edited version which to my eyes is a touch too contrasty and colourful. But you might want to discount that because I'm not an expert image editor and my PC screen is not calibrated.

I agree. I've overdone the saturation with the second one in an attempt to bring the bird's colours to life. 'Neither look decent really.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I like your edited one. I agree the first looks washed out. You could pump the saturation or dehaze more, but then it would look (and be) unnatural. I suspect oversaturation is the biggest culprit in the many bird photos on social media that literally are too good to be true/real.

'Not sure, Jim. I have a cheat in that mostly I only take pictures in decent light which means I don't have to do much with them when editing.

The second one looks better except the green in the background is too saturated and it looks awful.

Time to brush up on my editing skills!

 

[Jim M.]

'Not sure, Jim. I have a cheat in that mostly I only take pictures in decent light which means I don't have to do much with them when editing.

The second one looks better except the green in the background is too saturated and it looks awful.

Time to brush up on my editing skills!

I'll admit I was only looking at the bird. You should be able to selectively apply saturation, etc.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I'll admit I was only looking at the bird. You should be able to selectively apply saturation, etc.

That's where it's falling down a bit. The selection tool brush is leaving a line 'round the bird when I apply changes to background only. It will be easy to resolve, 'just haven't found the time to work it out yet.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Hi all,

I took this picture over the weekend, the light was poor, there's not a great deal of contrast in the picture, the colours look washed out and there's a bit of a haze to the picture.

What editing features would you use to bring some life to this bird?

The original is the first picture and then I've edited as best as I can (second picture) using the haze removal tool, adjusting the levels a bit and adding a bit of saturation.

Any ideas?

Cheers.

The edited is nice but I would leave the background alone. Just select the subject (LR does this well). You could also load both into PS (layers) and paint away the edited background as desired…
Nice capture ;-)

 

[Peregrine Took]

I'd increase contrast a little, maybe saturate the reds and yellows (in Photoshop you can select colours) and add sharpness - I'm talking minimal changes in each case - and leave it at that. The colour saturation has over-cooked the greens, but I think you know that.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

The edited is nice but I would leave the background alone. Just select the subject (LR does this well). You could also load both into PS (layers) and paint away the edited background as desired…
Nice capture ;-)

Good point. When I sharpen the bird I erase the sharpening in the background. 'Never thought to do that when applying contrast or whatever. I'm not the brightest! Cheers for the tip.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I'd increase contrast a little, maybe saturate the reds and yellows (in Photoshop you can select colours) and add sharpness - I'm talking minimal changes in each case - and leave it at that. The colour saturation has over-cooked the greens, but I think you know that.

Good point with the saturation on selected colours. 'Never thought to do that and it's easily done in Affinity. I'll bear that in mind. Cheers.

I'm always wary with sharpening because when overdone the bird doesn't look right nor bears resemblance to what you saw, although I appreciate you mention 'minimal'.

Personally, I don't think the issue lies with sharpening but more, as you and others have pointed out, the colour saturation is clearly not right.

I need to improve with my editing skills and there are some good pointers on this thread that should be pretty easy to put into place.

 

[Peregrine Took]

Personally, I don't think the issue lies with sharpening but more, as you and others have pointed out, the colour saturation is clearly not right.

It might not be not obvious, but sharpening often gives the perception of a 'brighter' image and more contrast. It should be done almost imperceptibly - to the extent that only you know it's been done.
.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

sharpening........It should be done almost imperceptibly - to the extent that only you know it's been done.
.

Agreed.

I thought I'd reached the limits of sharpening with this Kestrel, any more and the bird was beginning to look unnatural, particularly around the head.

My view is that there is a lot more to a picture than detail and I'd rather err on the side of limited sharpening so that the bird looks natural than sharpen to the extent that it's clear to anyone that the bird did not look like that when the picture was taken. To be fair, I've seen beautiful pictures with incredible detail that look 100% right but I reckon they're using more expensive equipment and editing software than I am and so I'm working within those boundaries.

 

[dantheman]

It's a nice picture and a nice bird, but I'd agree with the idea that the second is oversaturated (the background especially, but the bird also 'jumps' out a little too much, as if we're on a Greek island in summer not the UK in early spring. I'm a bit hazy on all this (pun intended ;-) ) , but is it the white-balance which needs compensating? Can you produce an edited image halfway between the two?? (Based on info from previous replies)


This is another question (and preference), but is it cropped at all? I'd like to see more background surrounding the bird personally perhaps.

 

[MiddleRiver]

It might not be not obvious, but sharpening often gives the perception of a 'brighter' image and more contrast. It should be done almost imperceptibly - to the extent that only you know it's been done.
.

I use LR and Topaz sharpening and in both cases (much more so Topaz), I find that feather structure is often negatively altered when sharpened. I'll often selectively sharpen the eyes at 100%, maybe some face/beak structure at 75-100% and then if the capture wasn't quite crisp enough (movement, DOF, etc.), i might try less sharpening such as 50%. I almost never sharpen background/context.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

It's a nice picture and a nice bird, but I'd agree with the idea that the second is oversaturated (the background especially, but the bird also 'jumps' out a little too much, as if we're on a Greek island in summer not the UK in early spring. I'm a bit hazy on all this (pun intended ;-) ) , but is it the white-balance which needs compensating? Can you produce an edited image halfway between the two?? (Based on info from previous replies)


This is another question (and preference), but is it cropped at all? I'd like to see more background surrounding the bird personally perhaps.

It could be white balance, didn't try it. I don't think so though. I think the issue is that these cameras do not perform well in poor light unless you're very close. The colours are just washed out in those circumstances, or maybe I should adjust the contrast in-camera when taking pictures in those conditions, I'll try that.

I don't keep the originals once edited. 'Just that I don't want pictures all over the shop - keep things tidy and all that.

Yes, cropped, but not that much. 1.2 size in-camera brings the bird into full frame, I think, from memory.

 

[lisamerlot]

I edit every photo more or less. Originals tend to have light issues and reflections which are not natural, it is usually the lens. Photo editing is good to make things look how they were with the eye. I always use 'Quantize', 'Channel filtering' and 'Blend background' and 'Cropping' in almost every photo.

Lisa

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I always use 'Quantize', 'Channel filtering' and 'Blend background'

Lisa

I've never heard of these things, Lisa. What are they? What do they do?

 

[Mono]

I would be very wary of folk who reel off a list of things they do to every photo...

Quantise - this reduces the number of colours in an image, it is a way of making the file size smaller (or for arty effect reasons). Nobody has done this since the dial-up internet days.

Channel Filtering - only used for arty purposes, particularly creating black and white or sepia images from colour ones.

Blend background - again a way of doing arty things when you have multiple layers. Can be used to improve photos but it is very mid-2000s Photoshop.

The key to getting better with post processing is practice, just have a play around see what you like. There are a multitude of software specific tutorials on YouTube.

 

[Nosfedamus]

Hi Paul,

What software do you use / have available?

I think the processed one looks good, but maybe slightly over processed. In Photoshop I would probably go with a slight curves S-curves adjustment for increasing contrast, and a nudge of increased saturation.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/curves-adjustment.html

Available also in many other cheaper or free software, but names/ways of doing it might differ.