who can do the best job on this downy? (1 Viewer)

[FlushUnderFoot]

Ok I've got a decent picture of a downy woodpecker that let me get super close to it. I'm new to photo editing and I just want to get a feel for how much improvement can be made by a photo editing expert on an image of this level of quality.

All I've done to the image so far (shot in jpeg mode) is crop it and scale it in GIMP.

So please, pretty please, as many people as possible, see how much you can improve this image and let me know what programs you used and what you did with them.

Many thanks to all who participate!!

 

[Harold Stiver]

I won't try to process it but I will suggest a few things

When you are shooting, always think about your background and try to get one that doesn't look to busy. Here the large white areas against the green are a big distraction. You could blur the background (I have a tutorial on my website) but you don't have a lot of area to work with.

On that last part, you mentioned you had cropped this. It is very tight and you have clipped the tail. Give it a lot more room especially in front of the subject.

You also mentioned shooting in jpg. Give some thought to moving to RAW format. You would find it an easy process to lighten the subject which is a bit underexposed.

You have the talent for the most important thing in bird photography, you were able to approach closely without spooking him. Well done.

 

[Jaff]

Firstly I'd suggest a wider crop leaving more space around the bird. Otherwise the subject looks like it's been sqaushed into the frame.

 

[JCLynn]

I agree with the close crop thing. It doesn't always work when you crop in so close.
As for the image you posted, and all of your photo's, just be brave and play with you editing software till you get the hang of it. Despite what some people might say Photoshop is not rocket science same as changing an air filter on your car or plumbing in a dishwasher, despite what the engineers say.
The quick 'improvement' I did took just 45 seconds with photoshop: unsharp mask, brightness/contrast, denoise.
No point me telling the settings as it's up to you. Everyone has their own ideas on how they want their pictures to look.
Had the image adjustments been done with the full size image before cropping the results would be 10 times better.

 

[Roger P]

Had the image adjustments been done with the full size image before cropping the results would be 10 times better.

View attachment 212356

That's interesting. I thought it was best to crop first. Can you explain why it's better to crop last?

 

[JCLynn]

That's interesting. I thought it was best to crop first. Can you explain why it's better to crop last?

It's just my way of doing things, I like to 'work' with my images at 100% especiallly with the USM work. I just put the part that I think is the most important, in the preview pane of the USM applet and work that way. 100% view for radius, then 50% view for amount and threshold working radius, amount, and threshold, in that order. Not my idea, just something I picked up while looking through zillions of tutorials, and I liked the results so I stuck with it. If you look at the FlushUnderFoots image that I doctered, you can see a slight halo over the birds crown. You would have that if you processed pre crop, because you could see it happening and shift the applicable sliders back a notch.
I do all of my post processing with the original image and crop last. Sometimes I may denoise after cropping, but not often. The theory behind my madness is that if the image is not satisfactory after post processing, pre crop, then it's just not good enough to be cropped in the first place.
Another reason is that if you crop first, you may just have discarded some part of the image that would have made your final image in the running instead of an also ran. Each to their own though, there are no rules to follow.

 

[FlushUnderFoot]

Thanks for all the tips but there seems to be some confusion about what I'm asking. The reason I cropped the image so close was because I had to somehow get under the 300kb size limit for jpegs. When I go to crop the image for real you're all right, I would never crop it that close. Also I have played around with GIMP and PS but I just want to see what more experienced people can do.

I'm not concerned about the best overall presentation - I'm just curious about how much the color, sharpness, and overall detail of the bird can be improved through editing.

Thanks for the replies so far, I hope more people have a go at editing this pic!

 

[JCLynn]

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much with regards to bringing details out. However much of 'an expert' you are, you will never bring details out that are not there in the first place. If there are details there, playing about with sharpness/brightness/contrast will bring them out.

 

[JohnZ]

You should use "Save" and not "Save for web". You can then adjust the slider until you get the right size.

 

[JohnZ]

My feeble attempt at your pic. I am not very good at pp`ing.

 

[ammadoux]

i used to crop my shots to the less then 300kb for uploading but i discovered that you could "rezise" for the shot, i have it in Corel paint shop and i am sure PS has it, but do it after you add the border of the frame.

 

[Kevin Conville]

The shot wasn't sharp, was a bit underexposed, and had poor contrast.

I tuned it up a bit, but sow's ears and silk purses

Forgot to add:
Photoshop CS2, Smart Sharp, Dodged, selective sharpening, small amount of Curves, Brightness.

 

[David Smith]

Thanks for all the tips but there seems to be some confusion about what I'm asking. The reason I cropped the image so close was because I had to somehow get under the 300kb size limit for jpegs.
!

No expert but this might help......
A basic jpeg image has a certain number of pixels which (if shot as large jpeg) should be something like 3900 across x 2600 down (this will vary depending on camera/sensor). This obviously means a certain number of pixels per square inch/cm.
If you simply crop the photo you automatically reduce the overall number of pixels (as photo is smaller) but keep the same number per square inch/cm
If you 're-size' the photo you are keeping all of the photo but reducing/eliminating many of the pixels.
Pixels per square inch/cm are only important if printing/publishing photos. As your computer has a low resolution it does not show if there are less pixels (within reason)
To downsize without cropping you can use free programmes such as Photofiltre (which I use) and it is very simple to open photo/image/image size-then select 800 as the width and hey presto!!!!!it's done.
Hope this helps.