How is this photo?

[DominicNikon]

How is this photo? @ALwin

[ALwin]

Definitely at least an 8/10.  Do you have a larger version so I can zoom in on some detail, I'm on a 5K screen so your image at max zoom still appears small for me?  You have a nice composition that puts the two primary subjects (the butterfly and the flower) off center.  You have captured the butterfly with its wing spread.  It would be nice if the butterfly's body could have a bit of detail enhancement.  The background blur and shallow DOF is nice, but in the greens I can see a bit of noise pattern or blotch or artifacting with the colors, which can easily be corrected.  I think it's due to the compression of the image.

 

What was your editing workflow?  What bit depth color were you using, 8 or 16 bit?

 

EDIT: I'm switching over to look at the image on my iPad.  The blotching or artifacting I mentioned, it looks more like you cropped and zoomed in on a small portion of a larger original image.  The blotching or artifacting that I mention looks more like the kind of pixalating that appears when zooming in too much in Photoshop.

[DominicNikon]

14 minutes ago, ALwin said:

Definitely at least an 8/10.  Do you have a larger version so I can zoom in on some detail, I'm on a 5K screen so your image at max zoom still appears small for me?  You have a nice composition that puts the two primary subjects (the butterfly and the flower) off center.  You have captured the butterfly with its wing spread.  It would be nice if the butterfly's body could have a bit of detail enhancement.  The background blur and shallow DOF is nice, but in the greens I can see a bit of noise pattern or blotch or artifacting with the colors, which can easily be corrected.  I think it's due to the compression of the image.

 

What was your editing workflow?  What bit depth color were you using, 8 or 16 bit?

 

EDIT: I'm switching over to look at the image on my iPad.  The blotching or artifacting I mentioned, it looks more like you cropped and zoomed in on a small portion of a larger original image.  The blotching or artifacting that I mention looks more like the kind of pixalating that appears when zooming in too much in Photoshop.

here's the raw file

DSC_5383.NEF

 

[ALwin]

44 minutes ago, DominicNikon said:

here's the raw file

DSC_5383.NEF

 

OK I'll look at it and perhaps suggest somethings I would do.

 

I'll open the RAW in Photoshop as I don't want to import it onto my LR library, and mention the camera raw settings I use:

Exposure: +1.20

Contrast: +34

Highlights: -100

Shadows: +17

Notice I'm overexposing the image in post and bringing down the highlights to get the details back.

I don't touch any other setting and open the image so I can do some dodging and burning with layer masks in Photoshop.

 

Now that I'm out of the Camera Raw window, I am going change the mode to 16bit/channel and to do some cropping to get as close to your framing as possible.

I dodged the midtones using a hard medium edge brush for the body of the butterfly, while using a very soft edge brush I dodged the midtones for the pink petals.  Then I added an unsharp mask with a small radius of around .5 and amount around 66.

 

This is just a quick rough edit, if I take more time It will look better.

 

You also have a dead pixel on your sensor, this can be fixed in post with a clone stamp tool.

 

 

[ALwin]

@DominicNikon you did a nice job with capturing the image, of course the original and your edited version are framed differently because you cropped in post.  This is OK and even acceptable by agencies with very strict rules against Photoshopping or manipulating image (e.g. National Geographic).  They understand that it's not easy to get wildlife to cooperate and pose as the photographer wants.

[ALwin]

Here is another iteration of my edit, I burned the base of the pink petals and the area under the butterfly's right wing a bit more to add to the shadows.  Making the image less flat.

 

 

Here is the XMP file for your RAW

DSC_5383.xmp

[.spider.]

35 minutes ago, ALwin said:

 

Now that I'm out of the Camera Raw window, I am going change the mode to 16bit/channel...

Doesn't make any sense to change it afterwards.

You have to export from camera raw in 16bit

 

Also I prefer the original version

[ALwin]

3 minutes ago, .spider. said:

Doesn't make any sense to change it afterwards.

You have to export from camera raw in 16bit

It doesn't matter because it's still the RAW file that is being opened in Photoshop.

[Evanair]

Wow... I've never seen a 5meg Raw file... Sheesh.

 

Anyway... I was bored at work with no appointments, so I thought I'd edit away and see what happened.  It's actually quite a drastic difference between the iMac Retina display and that of this crappy HP monitor I'm writing this on.

 

I didn't go for so much "perfect color" so much as what I wanted to show.

 

[ALwin]

Quote

Also I prefer the original version

 

@DominicNikon  this is why some people can not become professional photographers.

 

Legendary photographers like Ansel Adams spent a lot of time in the dark room refining their negatives using dark room techniques, they weren't just satisfied with getting a good exposure in camera.  Digital makes life easier for photographers, and makes the process much faster.  However it can also make people lazy or think that editing photos in a digital darkroom is fake.  The tools that come in applications like Photoshop are digital versions of tools and techniques used by photographers in the chemical dark room.

 

Ansel Adams wrote three great books that you should read if photography is your passion.  These books are considered among the books that photographers call their "bible".

The Camera

The Negative

The Print

 

Here's a video showing how dodging and burning were done in the chemical dark room.

 

 

 

[ALwin]

14 minutes ago, Evanair said:

Wow... I've never seen a 5meg Raw file... Sheesh.

 

Anyway... I was bored at work with no appointments, so I thought I'd edit away and see what happened.  It's actually quite a drastic difference between the iMac Retina display and that of this crappy HP monitor I'm writing this on.

 

I didn't go for so much "perfect color" so much as what I wanted to show.

 

For me, the OP's original edit was a bit dark overall and there were some image compression artifacts.  With your interpretation, I feel that you might have over saturated some of the colors but this is your interpretation of how the image should be turned into a final product and it looks good.  I like the fact that you cropped a bit more off the bottom to show less of the "damage" on the flower petals.  I didn't do that on my interpretation for the OP, I simply kept the same ratio and cropped.

 

Edit: here's a suggestion, if you don't mind, keep the saturation on the butterfly and the primary flower but reduce it for the flowers in the background (or at least keep it at their original saturation level).  it will make the butterfly and its flower pop.

[Evanair]

I did oversaturate it, less so on the butterfly itself, I masked that part out in RAW.  But yeah... I'm guilty of oversaturating all of my macro photos.  Strangely I desaturate a lot of my studio portraits.

[ALwin]

6 minutes ago, Evanair said:

I did oversaturate it, less so on the butterfly itself, I masked that part out in RAW.  But yeah... I'm guilty of oversaturating all of my macro photos.  Strangely I desaturate a lot of my studio portraits.

I don't mind adding saturation, I only noticed it because on my iPad your version came out very red.

[ALwin]

2 hours ago, DominicNikon said:

snip

 

You will like this article and the video it contains.

http://petapixel.com/2016/08/15/practice-visual-exercise-become-better-photographer/

[DominicNikon]

2 hours ago, ALwin said:

You also have a dead pixel on your sensor, this can be fixed in post with a clone stamp tool.

what do you mean by a dead pixel?

[ALwin]

8 minutes ago, DominicNikon said:

what do you mean by a dead pixel?

Notice that red dot I circled?  Don't worry, I have it on one of my old D70s too that I bought second hand and converted to IR.

[DominicNikon]

38 minutes ago, ALwin said:

Notice that red dot I circled?  Don't worry, I have it on one of my old D70s too that I bought second hand and converted to IR.

does that come with old age or did i do something and what is IR?

[ALwin]

18 minutes ago, DominicNikon said:

does that come with old age or did i do something and what is IR?

It can happen with age.  But as I said, it can also be edited out of the image in post.

 

IR = infrared.

[DominicNikon]

1 minute ago, ALwin said:

It can happen with age.  But as I said, it can also be edited out of the image in post.

 

IR = infrared.

so nothing to worry about. 

how do you make a d70s IR?

[ALwin]

18 minutes ago, DominicNikon said:

so nothing to worry about. 

how do you make a d70s IR?

If it's just one or two like that don't worry.  I know some people who go to a rock concert that has laser light shows and the laser light accidentally enter the lens and burns out a entire row or patch on the sensor.  So be careful even with laser pointers.

 

For converting a camera to near-infrared photography, you need to open it up and remove the filter(s) in front of the sensor that block/reduce IR light reaching the sensor.  The you have to add an IR filter that blocks out visible wavelengths but allows IR wavelengths to pass.  Of course IR being different wavelengths from visible light, you also need to recalibrate the AF system or know how much you need to shift on the lens when focusing.

 

It's the same when you want to convert the camera for UV light photography.  But you use a UV pass through filter of course.

 

IR and UV photography can also use screw on pass through filters in front of the lens instead of inside the camera.  But the UV/IR blocking filters inside the camera need to be removed.  Old DSLRs like the D70/D70s had weak blocking filters but the filters on newer cameras are better at blocking IR and UV.

 

I like UV converted camera for Black&White photography or false color photography.

 

https://www.lifepixel.com

[DominicNikon]

3 minutes ago, ALwin said:

If it's just one or two like that don't worry.  I know some people who go to a rock concert that has laser light shows and the laser light accidentally enter the lens and burns out a entire row or patch on the sensor.  So be careful even with laser pointers.

 

For converting a camera to near-infrared photography, you need to open it up and remove the filter(s) in front of the sensor that block/reduce IR light reaching the sensor.  The you have to add an IR filter that blocks out visible wavelengths but allows IR wavelengths to pass.  Of course IR being different wavelengths from visible light, you also need to recalibrate the AF system or know how much you need to shift on the lens when focusing.

 

It's the same when you want to convert the camera for UV light photography.  But you use a UV pass through filter of course.

light can burn pixals in a sensor? 

is IR like heat waves where it shows red in hot areas?

[ALwin]

10 minutes ago, DominicNikon said:

light can burn pixals in a sensor? 

is IR like heat waves where it shows red in hot areas?

Yes lights from laser pointers (though the consumer ones are generally very weak) or the ones used in laser light shows (which are much stronger) at concerts can damage the camera sensor.

http://www.ilda.com/camera-sensor-damage.htm

 

You'll see in this video where a laser show at a concert damaged the sensor.

 

IR photography with a camera is not the same as thermal imaging.  They use different wavelengths of IR light.  IR photography is better labeled as "Near Infrared" where the wavelengths are just the ones slightly beyond visible light.  Near IR photography is great for producing fantastic black&white images or even weird color photos.

 

Leaves for example, reflect IR light they receive from the Sun, so when taking photos with an IR converted camera the leaves will appear white.

 

Here is a video where a RED camera converted for IR is used for filming.

 

Near IR cameras are also good for doing some "weird" portraiture, and you can tell who has natural hair color and who has dyed.

 

This site gives you a lot of information about IR and UV photography.

https://www.lifepixel.com/

[ALwin]

This is an example of a portrait taken with an IR converted camera.

 

Depending on the person being photographed, you can make portraits look unreal, ghostly, unearthly beautiful.

 

Here is how a UV converted camera sees a person wearing sunblock.

https://www.lifepixel.com/galleries/uv-ultraviolet-photography-gallery

[ALwin]

This is one of my early work with IR converted cameras.

[.spider.]

9 hours ago, ALwin said:

It doesn't matter because it's still the RAW file that is being opened in Photoshop.

I am sorry but that's the funniest thing I read in a while

 

"Depth

 

Specifies whether the file opens as an 8‑bpc or 16‑bpc image in Photoshop."

 

 

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/creativesuite/cs/using/WSCA4C914B-B11F-46c6-ACE5-42F36ED1C7BC.html

 

Changing it later won't bring a single bit back it will just add a tiny bit of noise