Photography Quality ?

Both photos look out of focus to me, the ducks more so than the butterfly. It also looks as if you've overdone the noise reduction on parts of the ducks. However, if the ducks have sold and been printed by FAA, either the green box preview is not giving a true representation of the photo, or I don't know what I'm talking about. Both are possible, I leave it to you to decide which to choose!

From my humble point of view the two images are fine.
They are planed also in the noise ... but do not overdo.
Certainly the mallard duck does not have the right point of focus, or maybe it's a little move. But I find it too planed in noise.

But as I say is only my point of view that in my pictures the noise did not take off even when there is. But is it right for this type of photo should be removed.

Sure that the butterfly is spectacular!

I did not realize the butterfly is out of focus. I guess I truly lost.

No matter that the duck sold. E 'right that is superior if you can.

Thank you Roberto! I thought I nailed the butterfly, I think it depends where people preview it too. I worry that I am overdoing the noise reduction. That's where I am trying to figure out how much and what not.

Jan. your butterfly image looks sharp and fine to me.The ducks look a little soft but if they have been already printed then not to worry. If you have the image without the noise reduction you may want to look at that at 100%

It is unfortunately true, I like the photo but the butterfly is out of focus. It has just lost.

Thank you Jessica, I guess it they print that's great but I am still trying to see what others are seeing. I'm thinking maybe they are seeing the motion blur of some of it's parts moving. maybe?

You can try to halve the noise, then controls. Pay attention to the contrast mask is exaggerated because if you get the opposite effect. And that becomes a blur.

On prints noise not excessive and do not see the picture sharpness remains a less contrived.
But then again normally in the photo hunting, where you tend to have a very blurry background, trying to plane noise much more. In many cases it makes a local planing only for the background.

But even in this case we must be careful not to give an effect too invasive.

I will have to keep on practicing but I think I see what you are saying.

I think we all learn every day.
I after 30 years I still have not learned ... I have not learned how far as my eyes. I'll settle for this and try to do better.
Your work is good but it will be better and better.
Good light! :)

Thank you Roberto! I don't expect to be great just starting out and I'm just trying to figure out what I can do to make my work better.

The butterfly is not out of focus. It looks sharp enough to me to be printed to a large size.
One thing you will find, Jan is that the market is odd. I upload images that I like for various reasons. I am not always thinking about the market. Some of the ones I think would sell don't and several of the more odd ones that I uploaded have sold. You can never tell what one individual will want. Keep it up. There's no need to get disheartened. You sold some work, go for it!

Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

don't use the recently sold page as an indicator of quality. because when you sell, it goes right to that page no matter how it looks. i wish it would send it after it was approved. i think both your things will print, the ducks are oversharp. don't use sharpen on anything. it will try to do something with the soft feathers. if you don't think its your best - DO NOT UPLOAD IT. in your case it sold, but its based on subject. bugs don't sell well despite being a butterfly.

the image should simply be clear up close, the main subject in focus, shouldn't be a bunch of aberration, no noise, blocks, it just simply look good.

but always upload your best, its not about selling it, its about your rep as an artist.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Your journey in photography is ever expanding. Just figure your learning never ends both on capture, post processing and most important in discovering your own personal style. Ultimately offering what others do not is what will set you apart.

Shoot more and shoot what interests you. Don't worry about what other people are shooting. Bring your own vision to the world.

“If you want to make more interesting pictures, become a more interesting person.” – Jay Maisel

Great advice Richard and you have put my mind at some ease lol. At least I know my images are of print quality so that is a big plus. I think I just need to be careful with the noise reduction I think.
@Jane I am wondering what aperture you used on your butterfly pic? I noticed the sharpness around your entire butterfly. Very impressive.

the butterfly is in focus, but the noise removal is a bit too high. it has a little bit of motion blur, though its not eyeball sharp. it looks like it was shot with a small camera, and an ok lens. rather than an slr with a prime. but if you look at the wing tip, you can see scales.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Perhaps the butterfly is sharp, but not in the right spot. The trouble is the strong reduction of the depth of field. The antenna is clear.

Well I guess I need to work with my camera more. It was shot with a D750 and a 150-600mm tamron lens and I used my monopod. I think its a decent camera I just need to use it better :/

Thank you Richard too... must have missed some comments while starring at my butterfly. Trying to figure out what post processing is right and what exactly I am doing off. Thanks again and if anyone has any good articles on post processing for wildlife that would be awesome. :)

If this thread tells you anything, Jan, it's that different people can have different opinions ad you need to judge for yourself if any of us knows what we're talking about, LOL. And also remember that no one who has commented so far is with FAA, unless I missed someone, and their opinions obviously matter more. The butterfly shots looks pretty good to me. It looks sharp enough to print.

The duck shot wouldn't make it off my computer if it were mine. I expect to see the face of the duck closest to me tack sharp. It almost looks like the focus point was on the rear of the first duck. Again, just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Different cameras see things differently. I'm always surprised when someone says never sharpen a full size image, because many times if I didn't, those pictures would not make it off my computer either. Also, my first digital camera, the Canon 300D, regularly produced sharper images than I get off camera from my 60D. But then I shoot RAW now and didn't then; the 300D was already adding some sharpening.

One of my "rules" of photography is to never say never. Railroad photographers tend to say "never put the nose of the train in the center of the photograph" and this is probably true 99.9% of the time. But there's always that one time where you have to forget the nevers and just shoot the scene or process the shot.

Sounds like some pretty good advice. I have been shooting everything in RAW since buying my camera cause I'm determined to figure it out. Yes and the ducks is one of my first images and at the time I uploaded it I probably thought it was good and since it has had a sale and others haven't I haven't come to terms with removing it lol.

Jan,
I send you an article on the subject.
And 'it is written by the owner of this forum of photography. A person that I feel very competent in this field.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&t=riduzione_rumore_photoshop

It is written in Italian but the good google translate us a hand.

People buy what appeals to them. Many people buying photography as art may look at the full resolution preview, but they buy because it is pretty and it interests them and they like it how it is. If people buy it, they like it and that is what sells.

The butterfly is in focus. At least for sure the exact point of focus is somewhere on the butterfly. I would consider it sharp also, which is not the same as in focus. Jane's is exceptionally sharp. The problem with taking photos of butterflies is there is very little depth of field and often part of the butterfly is out of focus. Pros use off camera flash and stop down to f/16. A macro set up with 2 small flashes mounted from the camera body is available to purchase for that.

The mallard image has a number of issues but it struck a chord with someone. That's what sells images.

Passing inspection here at FAA is a mediocre standard for image quality. On my own images I set a high standard. For example I will carefully denoise a sky even if the noise is barely visible at 100%. It's about the overall impression, not passing inspection. After I nit pick the details I put the image on full screen with a black background and walk around a bit in the room.
I may at that point see it needs some further editing such as a selective brightness or saturation adjustment.

I've found that pictures almost always seem a little softer using the preview here on FAA, not what you usually see blown up at 100% on your computer screen. I think it is because you're just looking at a small piece at a time. Most lenses get a little soft around the corners and that is amplified when you're looking at a small chunk. And like you said, motion blur can factor in too. Overall I think the butterfly is fine.

When you handhold the camera take lots of shots, just so you can be sure one or two of them are the sharpest they can be.

Check quality at 100-300% and if focus is soft or blurry reduce the available size to not noticeable, or rethink uploading

Make sure your monitor is up to scratch - at least 1080p, and the more px the better

If you're unsure about noise reduction, after applying it fade it back until the best balance - and try to do it selectively. take your time with it, even over the course of a few days

Contrast is more important than sharpening, which is a sort of micro-contrast, but if you do it do it on small obvious selections like eyes

Clone out scrappy bits like stray weeds and glowing fluffs that change the compositional balance

In looking at the previews, neither image looks tack sharp on my screen. Photographing insects and animals has its challenges and getting them in focus is one of them. As mentioned above, on the butterfly photo, the depth of field is shallow, which makes things more difficult. I am working on some close-up butterfly images myself and am having very, very few that are actually sharp enough.

One thing that makes a lot of difference in terms of the success of a shot of insects and/or animals is to have the eye(s) in critical focus. It can take a lot of practice and a lot of shots to achieve this.

I purchased an ebook recently that has educated me a LOT on photographing wildlife. Even though it does not cover specifically the types of photography that you are doing with the butterfly, I think that it can be helpful when trying to photograph any kind of animal. You might be interested in reading it - the cost is very reasonable. I hope that it is ok to post the link here. http://www.backcountrygallery.com/secrets-to-stunning-wildlife-photography/

Good luck!

Does the 100% preview on FAA show a slice of the cruddy, compressed, low-quality thumbnail or does it show a slice of the high-resolution file used for printing? If the green box magnifies the thumb, it isn't a true representation of the print file.

I seem to have read that enlarges the original file and not the preview.

I have learned a bit and yes I notice the different areas that have some blur on the butterfly. Some I think from it's movement and the other most likely is that I shot it at f/8. I shall try another day using f/16 on some insects. I think it turned out well and actually the way that I wanted. I wanted to have the background blurred like that and the dof look this way. Being this was shot out in my pasture field and not in some butterfly garden I think it's awesome lol. Followed it around up and down the hill side for a while. Now I shall be on the hunt for tack sharp images because until today I thought that I nailed it will the butterfly shot :/

the preview compresses things more i think. so if you had a lower compression, it will amplify with the loupe.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Jan, with regard to your thoughts on changing from f/8 to f/16, although it will increase your depth of field, you actually may lose sharpness. Most lenses are sharpest around f/8. Past f/11 or so, sharpness starts to decline because of diffraction. Another suggestion might be to set your camera to use a single focus point for AF and then try to get it to focus on the critter's eye. And, use a burst with continuous mode rather than single mode.

Good luck! You are doing well. All of these things come into play and it takes time to learn them and to practice with them.

Thanks Adele... I will try that. I think that I had it set to AF-C. I will continue to play around. Just a little disappointed cause I thought this pic was really good. opps lol

You are welcome, Jan. Your butterfly photo is quite good! I like it a lot. The ideas here are given to help to just get a bit more edge on the process. I have become a little obsessed with sharpness, so I for my own work, I am trying to do all that I can to make things as sharp as possible.

Hey Jan! I may be biased because you are a fellow Buckeye, but I think the butterlfy is spot on!

Remember, just because it sold and passed QA at one size and format doesn't mean it would in a larger size or in a different format.

An 8 inch print or a card is WAY different than a 40 inch metal.

Thank you Adele and I agree with trying to do what I can to improve my work. This has helped a lot today. Also been nervous about critiques but it is needed to improve. Thank you Gary! JC that is very good to know. I may have to delete the ducks or maybe just not offer it in anything but a card or phone case.

What size did you sell?

Quoting Kathleen above:
"Does the 100% preview on FAA show a slice of the cruddy, compressed, low-quality thumbnail or does it show a slice of the high-resolution file used for printing? If the green box magnifies the thumb, it isn't a true representation of the print file."

The preview is not a magnification of the thumb. It a set of separate small files made from the original . The squares don't meet so you there is no way you can piece them into a big file. As Mike said they seem to have a certain amount of jpeg compression applied. That can exaggerate sharpening artifacts or overly compressed images. It is not the original file used to make your print. But if it looks cruddy it is likely the original file is degraded also. Looking at the original file offline on the computer is the best way to judge the image quality.

A quick look at Kathleen's recent images will show you how good the preview will look if you start with a good image. I have to admit I have a few old photos that don't hold up under the preview but I still leave the preview on. It is what it is.

JC it sold as a card. Makes me think that it wouldn't print well larger. I've pretty much have the previews on everything to let those that know art better then I know it to decide whether or not it's good quality larger.

@Jan - I looked up the EXIF on my butterfly photo for you. It was f9.5, 1/60 sec, ISO 100, 53mm, with on-camera flash.

I used the same photo again in this one, with a different treatment:

Thanks Jane... I may have to play with flash more. I was just happy being able to get close enough.

I wouldn't worry about it to much. To me the butterfly is sharp and the mallards ate not bit what does it matter unless returned. Someone may or may not buy your butterfly print. Don't worry about it, carry on.

Jan, I think it's great that you're looking at other photographer's works. I love admiring photographs that are done to perfection and once I get over the envy, it inspires me to do better, lol. Sounds like it does the same for you. I've learned that there really are no tricks or shortcuts, in either shooting or editing. Both take practice, and lots of it. If you see something that strikes you particularly and you want to know how it was done, just ask. Worst case, they won't answer, but I've found many photographers more than willing to share techniques freely. :-)

Thanks Loree and yes I am trying to get there. I just noticed that I will see what looks like great work and when I look at the preview I'll see what looks like a lot of sharpening and didn't know if that's ok. I've been removing noise to get the background smooth on pics and from what I'm reading I think I have been doing it all wrong :/ So that's why I am really wondering what the previews should look like. What do you want to see at 100%? I was using my 2 picks as what I thought wasn't good (the ducks) and then I thought I was doing the post process stuff right on the butterfly but not sure now cause I may have went overboard on noise removal. Trying to figure out where sharpening and noise removal limits are for a good quality photo I guess.

I believe that a good quality photo global you have to see it well on your Photoshop. I would not rely on the total magnification 100%. So many things in the press are not seen. Including noise not too pronounced.

My point of view is to prepare the press in general that it is pleasing to the eye. If something bothers you then say that's not good.

I will say it is always a combination of SWAG and TLAR for me and then it is a big compromise.

IF an image is noisy how much noise removal. (blurring) is too much? Well, it kind of comes down to is the detail needed? clouds? Blur the snot out of them unless of course they are the main focus of the image.... Same with the sky in general. The rest of the image that is not the main subject? Maybe but depends on the image. Can't blur anything without killing the image? OK, reduce the price I allow to be sold. How much? Back to SWAG and TLAR.

be aware that the site compresses all the images here and then runs a sharpening on it, so what you see may not be a 100% of what it is, especially if it looks too sharp. when i clean noise, i don't do the whole thing. i only select parts that i want to do. i use a median blur (under noise), on its own layer and use a black mask on it. i paint the areas that i need to be softer like backgrounds. while keeping the rest sharp. however for macro and such, its more about the lens, lighting and speed of getting it.

butterflies are a pain because they are much deeper than you'd think and they move around a lot. they seem flat, but you need a good depth of field for them. at the same time you need speed to lock them in place... unless you have a good flash rig (2-3 flashes), they are harder to capture than you think. so if you see a really good one, they might have had 100 bad pictures, and still used top of the line stuff to get it.

i've had to clean noise more aggressively on this site because they do sharpen it. i think they add a touch of contrast as well. and lately, a bit of saturation.

when i judge sharpness i look at things that should be the main focus. the eyes of something, the center of a flower, being able to read text in the background, etc. focus should be some place.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Wow thanks guys, all great tips and input.

It all depends on the image. There is no formula for what's right. My approach is everything in moderation. If there is noise, then I generally reduce up to 20 in LR. Same with sharpening, only if needed. I figure if an image needs more than that, it's probably not good enough. Of course, there are exceptions. That's when you have to use your eyes. ;-)

Good subject. Thanks Jan. I'm also a novice at photography although I been interested in it for many years. But, when it comes to the crunch, I'm not sure what makes a photo with that wow factor that everybody talks about. Fine Art photography centres on composition, lighting, focus and subject matter of course but, despite taking all those essential criteria on board, I still cannot take that "amazing" photograph. I am yet to get past taking unintended "snap shots". A professional photographer can take a shot of some everyday, mundane subject and somehow capture something unique in that shot. I can take the same shot and it still looks mundane. They say practice makes perfect. I still have a lot to learn. Cheers.

I agree Peter and I feel that everyday I am slowly getting closer. Not going to give up and I'm going to take in all the tips I can from those that have that wow factor and hope that I get there.

The best way to deal with noise is to avoid it in the first place, as much as possible. To do that, you really need to get to know your camera and be aware of its limitations. High ISO is usually the culprit, and while some of the top-end, very expensive cameras can probably get away with high ISOs, I know mine can't, so I set it (almost) permanently to 100 and compensate with the shutter and aperture settings to get the right exposure.

Noise given by the ISO sensitivity and under exposure. Noise present even at 100 ISO. But it is not good to use 50 ISO expansion.
The digital photo always needs sharpening because in itself is not clear.

I agree that avoiding noise is better than trying to correct it. However, shooting at ISO 100 all, or even most of the time, is just not practical. When I was shooting for stock, maybe. But, now that I shoot for art, I have to find ways to minimize noise without keeping my ISO constantly at 100. As Roberto mentioned, under-exposure is one of the major culprits. So, when shooting something that is not still, and in low light conditions, it helps to over-expose slightly in order to minimize noise.

Here is a good article on the subject: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise

iso 50 is just a gimmick. its iso 100 with a noise clean up. while the iso is important, it also depends how much you push the exposure up in photoshop. if you shot it bright and made it darker, you'll will lose the noise. if you do it the other way around, you'll gain noise.

and it depends where the noise is. i can get away with about 10,000 iso. there is noise, but its correctable. with iso 500, my skies looked noisy, brightening it up a little bit. it really depends on the image.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

All right, Mike, 50 iso is a processing 100 iso. All sensitivities over ISO 100 are generated by the software; 10,000 ISO sensitivity set, the sensor records for 100 ISO and the software processes it to 10,000 ISO.

However, if we know our light meter we know it is always better to expose to the right; 2/3 of overexposure. Especially at home Canon that it has a light meter consevativo (remember the matrix Nikon was phenomenal). Unless you do a targeted exposure of a subject or working according to the rules of the zone system. Certainly are general rules, then it depends from situation to situation.
If over-expose about 2/3 stop we find that the correct exposure is in the light medium, medium low .... as it should be for a good exposure.

If the camera monitor warns us that a white area is slightly over-exposed it is ok. This is because the monitor will show a compressed jpg and worked on our Raw but whites will not be burned. Something different if we see a strong burning on the monitor. Then it is also burned the Raw.
But if we expose to the right we solve many problems in post-production.