Lack of Vibrancy.

[Brian]

I was conversing with JohnP and Fuji earlier, about my pictures lacking that certain something that makes you want to go back for a second look..

This one, which I quite like is a case in point and while Fuji has given me an idea to try out, I'd like to hear if anyone else has a suggestion. At present I'm using a Nikon P520.

This is a Kookaburra, which, so I am told, catch snakes. Then they drop them from a great height and eat them. I've never seen it, but wouldn't be surprised.

[JohnP]

Brian... I hope you don't mind, I've had a little twiddle. I just increased clarity, also increased both saturation & contrast slightly. I cropped a little as well. It would be better working on the large image though. Don't worry you won't offend me if you don't like it...

 

[Barbara]

I had a go as well, just a few small touches with Lightroom, hope you can see the difference

 

Desat the BG a little Sharpened and brightened  the eye  and added a touch of clarity to the plumage  

 

[Leon]

I like the edit, you need something good to start with though.

 

I really need to start learning to edit stuff.....

[ChrisLumix]

I was conversing with JohnP and Fuji earlier, about my pictures lacking that certain something that makes you want to go back for a second look..

This one, which I quite like is a case in point and while Fuji has given me an idea to try out, I'd like to hear if anyone else has a suggestion. At present I'm using a Nikon P520.

This is a Kookaburra, which, so I am told, catch snakes. Then they drop them from a great height and eat them. I've never seen it, but wouldn't be surprised.

 

There is only one thing I don't like about this very good picture - and that's that you have the bird too central considering he's looking out of the picture to the right. In other words, crop a decent slice off the left hand side and that would make it excellent for me.

[David]

There is only one thing I don't like about this very good picture - and that's that you have the bird too central considering he's looking out of the picture to the right. In other words, crop a decent slice off the left hand side and that would make it excellent for me.

 

I have a real habit of doing that...trying to break it but it's hard - when I see something I naturally compose it centrally

 

A really good shot though and all the better for the slight pp work

[ChrisLumix]

I've cropped it as I thought best. (I didn't touch other factors like contrast and saturation etc, as I really don't think it needs it).

 

[Brian]

This is just the sort of feedback that I had hoped for.

Thanks to all that contributed and of course am pleased that some even took the time to have a fiddle with them.

[David]

That slight crop has indeed added a lot of interest...you find yourself wondering what it is looking at more now

[Korky]

Ask 20 TIPF members what you should do to improve an image and you'll get 20 different opinions.

 

I don't do birds and bees and dogs and cats, but here's my take for what it's worth. Hope I haven't mangled it too much!

 

Korky

 

[Black Pearl]

See I'd go upright and make the bird a greater part of the frame.

 

 

[Martyn]

Korky's version of the edit works best for me up to now. Tightly cropped but with space for the bird to look into, good colour and texture.

[colinb]

Brian - going back to the original picture can I ask what iso it was shot at and raw or jpeg?

 

there seem to bit a little noise in the picture which is why I ask about iso

 

regarding raw files - when developing from raw you can loose some of the vibrancy, even if you are shooting jepg and would suggest you try using 'vibrancy' rather than' standard' (have a look at Coolpix Picture Control in the camera manual).

 

you could also bracket and take 3 shots to see how a slight difference in exposure helps/looks.

[Brian]

Thanks Colin. The photo was shot on a Nikon P510 (which my son now has) . It was taken at 1/400 sec.     f4.5     ISO 800 and I'm sure that this would have been shot on the Auto mode. This was about a year ago, when I was exclusively a point and shoot(ist). Do you think that this could have contributed to the slight loss of vibrancy?

Brian

[Black Pearl]

Using higher ISO's on any camera will reduce the dynamic range (the number and range of brightness grades a camera is able to capture between the black and white points of a scene) and the colour saturation as the processor fights physics.

On a compact camera with their tiny sensors the problem is magnified as the DR and ISO's are compromised from the off so in a simple answer - yes - using 800iso will have effected the end result. 

 

That said if you had used a lower one the shot would have been ruined by camera shake so you/the camera chose the best compromise. 

As has been demonstrated it is possible to 'rescue' most issues with a little careful post processing. I feel this is where you should aim your creative eye and make it your new year's challenge.

 

Keep posting.

[colinb]

Thanks Colin. The photo was shot on a Nikon P510 (which my son now has) . It was taken at 1/400 sec.     f4.5     ISO 800 and I'm sure that this would have been shot on the Auto mode. This was about a year ago, when I was exclusively a point and shoot(ist). Do you think that this could have contributed to the slight loss of vibrancy?

Brian

 

I think it shows how shooting on auto the camera relies on the software programmer to take pictures for us.

Looking at levels in Photoshop the photo is over exposed but only slightly, all I have done on the right hand side picture is pull the levels slider into a more normal position. The noise is because of the iso 800 and I assume the f4.5 is the widest aperture the camera would shoot at but as BP says lowering the iso means a trade off, so I think the camera has done the best it could for you -especially regarding focus which is pretty much bang on the eye.

 

Personally I would still look in the camera's menu and try a few shots with it set to vivid and whilst the noise is not that bad you could download some free simple and easy noise removal software such as noiseware http://noiseware-community-edition.en.softonic.com/  

 

To sum up... its a nice little capture, which with a little human input and more experience could maybe have been a tad better 

 

Click image to view large

[Brian]

Thanks to Black Pearl and Colin for their advice.

I am "oh so glad!" that I posted this picture. I agonised over it for days thinking that nobody would particularly like it, and I am absolutely thrilled at the response. 

I agree with you Colin that with your little bit of intelligent tweaking, the photo now is a lot more pleasing to the eye.

Thanks everyone.

Brian

ps. New Year's resolution.........read my Christmas present (from me to myself).......Photoshop for Dummies, and get down to it.

[ChrisLumix]

Thanks Colin. The photo was shot on a Nikon P510 (which my son now has) . It was taken at 1/400 sec.     f4.5     ISO 800 and I'm sure that this would have been shot on the Auto mode. This was about a year ago, when I was exclusively a point and shoot(ist). Do you think that this could have contributed to the slight loss of vibrancy?

Brian

 

Define vibrancy? I always prefer subtle colours to 'popping' ones, and I saw no need for xtra vibrancy in your original, just a crop. But all views are subjective, and you will be the ultimate judge of what is good and not so good.

[NannyFerret]

I would have only cropped and added a bit of shadow with good old Picasa to bring the detail out.

[bugmeister]

This is a Kookaburra, which, so I am told, catch snakes. Then they drop them from a great height and eat them. I've never seen it, but wouldn't be surprised.

They do indeed, I've got a few pictures somewhere (of extremely bad quality) of a kookie with a snake in it's beak.

 

As for the original subect I think others have said it all about just needing a relatively small tweak to bring out the best in the picture.