Part 2 - Off-Topic - advice, experiences, and examples for images being processed in DxO Photolab

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik7 / 3.3 ])]

@mikemyers

Here’s another image, hardly any editing, … I ought to do more editing, but not tonight. This should pass your requirements, and I also like this image, …

If you feel like you need/want to edit something, why post it before you do it? Or are you waiting for someone to do the work for you?

When you take so many pictures, you have to sort them and decide which ones you want to edit (first). After re-browsing, focus on the promising ones and leave the rest if you still can’t bring yourself to delete them (and clear your head).

---

To reiterate: Just like the much discussed pelican image, the resolution of the little bird is not high enough and your sharpening looks “overcooked” – simple as that.

---

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I think I took 1,000 or so photos in all.

What!!! I’m sorry but you are simply not thinking about what you want to get images of, apart from a bird, any bird, doing nothing in particular, that might or might not fill the frame and that might or might not be well exposed or focused.

@Wolfgang

I don’t understand why you continue to insist on this partially blurred image. It is NOT nice.
Yes, you kept shooting and I would have done the same but deleted those pictures instead of posting them. Don’t keep trash/bad examples.

Even the Topaz edition “didn’t save your butt.” Just like the much-discussed pelican image, the little bird’s resolution isn’t high enough and the sharpening looks terrible. Not long ago you promised not to publish such excerpts anymore, and you still do

@mikemyers - I have to agree with Wolfgang’s post and it reminded me that I have a series that I took at the Martin Mere Wetland Centre in Lancashire. Looking back, I took around 250 shots, mainly because I was trying to get the framing, focus, etc right in the camera.

Well, I have finally gotten around to culling all the photos the world should never see and that left me with 106. Of which, I wanted to show you one, which proves the rule that, no matter how long the lens, it can never be long enough for some subjects. This is the full frame version that was taken with my 80-400mm lens at 400mm, 1/2000sec @ f/5.6, ISO 400…

What I obviously needed was, at least, twice the focal length, but I was hoping that the birds were big enough in the frame. Although I’m still not totally convinced that the rear end of two birds disappearing really makes an interesting picture, apart from their imitation of a biplane. Finally, having now got Topaz in my toolbox, I managed to get this at 2x magnification and a bit of sharpening on just the birds…

The catch of the day, though, has to be this uncropped, full frame, barely retouched (apart from a tad of Topaz sharpening on the duck) image…

Not too shabby for a Nikon D100 The key was to use a long enough lens so that the bird filled the frame. Here, it’s the 80-400mm at 300mm.

---

@mikemyers

Why is it interesting to me? Because it’s using its foot to help dig out yummy bugs to eat!

Well, you could have fooled me. That is a narrative that only you can know, but that the image certainly doesn’t convey. It’s just a bird with its leg in the air.

[Stenis (Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))]

@joanna
Sometimes an export with Bicubic Sharpen can do it but the problem is that it’s absolutely useless when there av trees with leaves or other greenery with finer textures because these tends to look awful with a lot of white noise. I don´t know why that still is a problem after all years. Have you or anyone else tested the new version XD2? that they promote now with PureRaw?

[Stenis (Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))]

I had the brother lens Sigma 150-500mm also with OS stabilisation for Minolta A-mount. I sold it a few years ago when I bought my new Tamron 150-500mm. It was very obvious 10+ years had passed between these lenses. That Sigma had hard to focus in poor light at 500mm. It was much slower. Not really sharp fully open or at the long end. One my A7 III and IV with adapter it cannot coexist with the IBIS in the camera houses. Either you have to choose IBIS or Sigma OS. If both were on the images got unsharp since they disturb each other. The Tamron lens also is much more compact and easy to get into my camera bag or back pack. These Sigmas are also pretty heavy. The bokeh was pretty coarse too but it has given me quite a few animal pictures from several safaris I have been through and it was still price worthy I think if you don´t have a lot more to spend.

[Stenis (Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))]

@mikemyers

Joanna, I know what I currently think, but not enough to argue this one way or another. I know a lot of people in the Leica forums feel that the color quality they got from CCD was degraded when Leica switched to CMOS. I hear the CCD people saying it was better, and I hear the CMOS people saying it’s just as good.

"There is some quality of the CCD sensors that makes the color rendering amazing straight out of the camera. You can achieve the same look with CMOS sensors in post, but the RAW files just have a different native look. I have a difficult time describing what those differences are, but they are there. They are really apparent in mixed-source lighting. The CCD sensors seem to handle mixed-lighting sources more elegantly. "

I have had two system DSLR-cameras with CCD-sensors and heard the same words said about both KonicaMinolta D7D (6 MP) and Sony A350 (14,2 MP) especially compared to some later CMOS DSLR-cameras like A550 or A580. In fact, there has in the Sony-world even been a perception that there is something like a unique Minolta-flavour of colors. I also read once a Dutch Nikon guy who were almost lyric about how much better his new Sony A350 was in that respect than I think it was his D300 was. He bought the Sony because the D300 was in for a repair and that he wanted to be able to save in 16:9 aspect ratio.

One explanation of the “Minolta”-colors effect might have been the old Minolta-lenses in the AF gen. 1 that gave comparatively quite more saturated colors than the Nikon-lenses did. I have myself used even Konica AR-lenses and they too has a character that is more blueish. My old Pentax SMC-lenses on the other hand tends to give more earth-colored colors. Personally I like the Pentax-colors the best.

I prefer CMOS every day. Even Leica abandoned the CCD-tech because it had because of its severe technical limitations. The worst problem with the CCD-sensors I had was the hopelessly poor ISO-performance. From what I remember my A350 started to struggle over ISO 400!!! - which made it a pretty limited camera to use as an allround camera.

I have just processed say 5-600 pictures I once took 2005-2006 in Croatia and Bosnia with my MonicaMinolta D7D. Just before I processed the same amount taken at a roundtrip in Andalucia Spain with my pretty new 33 MP Sony A7 IV.

My comparative experience from that is that it has been a lot more difficult to process the older Minolta pictures. The technical quality is quite different and gives a lot less headroom both when it comes to cropping and dynamic range. It changed a lot when Sony increased DR a full two stops in the Sony A580 and Nikon D7000 that both share the same 16 MP CMOS. Another thing that really gets evident is that AF in A7 IV is just so much better. It was of course possible to get sharp images with a D7D (the world’s first system camera with “Anti shake” / IBIS) and a very slow screw driven Minolta 70-210 Beer Can-lens from 1985 too - but it was very much harder - especially when it came to moving targets.

What about a burst shooting? Well D7D when it came was supposed to support 3 frames/second - but not with my Kingston memory cards - despite that I had the fast Premium version. That speed demanded a new firmware (1.01) and was supported only with San Disk Extreme Cards. Så my burst rate was 1 frame/second when I took the images below.

I don´t know about the colors really because most of it is due to the color management in Photolab and the use of the P3 color space - if your screen supports it.

If I have had my A7 IV in 2005-2006, when these pictures were taken, I´m sure they had been noticeably better technically and to a much less effort in post.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

The catch of the day, though, has to be this uncropped, full frame, barely retouched (apart from a tad of Topaz sharpening on the duck) image…

I was about to ask if any of you had tried bird photography, and understood what was involved, and what “birders” want to see - but Joanna, that last photo is awesome! Your other photo shows how difficult it can also be.

This is the website of Steve Perry, the fellow who has been the most help to me regarding bird photography:
https://www.youtube.com/@backcountrygallery

I’ve been reading his articles, and watching his YouTube videos.

At this moment in time, these are the kinds of photos I would like to capture, when I go bird watching - but there’s lots of other advice there as well. …and I also want to take good photos of birds that ARE artistic, and non-bird-fanatics will enjoy.

I plan to take photos that will “work” technically, and also take photos that I know I’m not (yet) prepared to take, just to get the practice, even if the photos are pixelated. Getting the timing right is a huge part of bird photography - along with steady hands, a decent exposure, a suitable shutter speed, and all the rest. It’s all wasted effort in one way, but it’s good practice until I can “fill the frame” with my 2,500mm super Nikkor lens that I can’t afford and will likely never buy, and which will be far too heavy for me, even on a monopod.

@Joanna

Well, you could have fooled me. That is a narrative that only you can know, but that the image certainly doesn’t convey. It’s just a bird with its leg in the air.

Yes, this is a problem in a way, as I also thought what you wrote, until Ray Schneider, a good friend of mine, explained what was going on in my photos. Posting that image here just shows what you wrote, but in the bird forums, chances are the other photographers either already know what’s going on, or soon will. Regarding my photo, I had no idea what or why the bird was doing, but it looked interesting, so I tried to capture an action photo that showed it. That night, I learned what it was about. (Ray goes “birding” several times a week, every week, when the weather is appropriate.)

To be honest, I don’t understand most of my photos, what the birds are doing, or why, or even what kinds of birds they are. I’m a beginner at this, and every time I do this, I learn more, mostly from feedback on my photos.

@Stenis

It was very obvious 10+ years had passed between these lenses. That Sigma had hard to focus in poor light at 500mm. It was much slower. Not really sharp fully open or at the long end.

Sigma has been making variations of this lens for years. Some are better than others. When I posted my test photos in the Sigma Lens forum, the comments were that I had a good one. Advantages - wide focal length range, only a little over 4 pounds, and I could afford it, and the optical stabilization means I can shoot it hand held. Supposedly. I think a monopod is a better idea though.

Regarding the lens that I bought, I need to call Sigma to learn about what “Bigma” I actually bought. I found a review that was close, but there were so many variations that I haven’t nailed down exactly what I have. Here’s a “review” of one of them…
Sigma 50-500 mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM review - Introduction - LensTip.com

I am much more comfortable with my smaller Nikon 70-300 “P” lens, but as the responses up above demonstrate, it’s not long enough to prevent pixelization because I can’t fill the screen.

@Stenis

I have had two system DSLR-cameras with CCD-sensors and heard the same words said about both KonicaMinolta D7D (6 MP) and Sony A350 (14,2 MP) especially compared to some later CMOS DSLR-cameras like A550 or A580.

@Stenis, I’m no longer thinking about this too much. Sure, I can go back to my Nikon D3 with CCD, but my newer cameras are and will be CMOS, and the ISO capability is far more important to me than the colors. What you wrote below sums it up nicely, for me:

@Stenis

I prefer CMOS every day. Even Leica abandoned the CCD-tech because it had because of its severe technical limitations. The worst problem with the CCD-sensors I had was the hopelessly poor ISO-performance.

They weren’t “technical limitations” at the time, that’s just how things were. Nowadays though, those limitations are real, compared with just using the newer gear.

Finally, Joanna, even you might find something useful here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zwIWhDcTEY&t=329s
I sure did!

[George]

@Stenis

One my A7 III and IV with adapter it cannot coexist with the IBIS in the camera houses. Either you have to choose IBIS or Sigma OS. If both were on the images got unsharp since they disturb each other.

On my Nikon Z6II the ibis is switched off automatic when a VR lens is adapted. Also when you swich the VR off.

@Stenis

Have you or anyone else tested the new version XD2? that they promote now with PureRaw?

I did on some old night shots with my old D80, lot’s of noice. DeepPrime and XD did do a wonderful job however XD gave it a to much plastic look. On these specific images.

George

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

What!!! I’m sorry but you are simply not thinking about what you want to get images of, apart from a bird, any bird, doing nothing in particular, that might or might not fill the frame and that might or might not be well exposed or focused.

Joanna, what you wrote was exactly what I was doing. I wasn’t as much trying to get a great photo, as I was trying to learn how to capture bird photos - it didn’t matter what the bird was, or what it was doing. Once I got one photo of the bird, I only then tried to get a “good” photo of the bird.

As to flying birds, I never got that right; it was impossible for me to fill the frame with the bird, and keep it there. I struggled to just keep the bird within the frame. But, the more I did it, I improved.

There’s that line “practice makes perfect”.

@Stenis

it was still price worthy I think if you don´t have a lot more to spend.

Well, that’s true, but the inability to keep the flying bird in my frame, holding the camera still, is MY problem, not the camera or the lens.

Think of it this way - before a person gets good at riding a bicycle, the first step is to simply lean how to ride the bicycle without falling. That’s where I’m at, the “beginner class”. When/if I get better, I’ll think about everything suggested up above.

For @Joanna - I’m sure you will tell me I’m wrong, but this what I think when I view your photo up above, but a little lighter to bring out more detail. To me, the “stuff” at the top and bottom just takes away from the heart of your wonderful, and unique, photo!!! It speaks for itself! …if you were to post it in the bird forum.

[Stenis (Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))]

@George

@Stenis

One my A7 III and IV with adapter it cannot coexist with the IBIS in the camera houses. Either you have to choose IBIS or Sigma OS. If both were on the images got unsharp since they disturb each other.

On my Nikon Z6II the ibis is switched off automatic when a VR lens is adapted. Also when you swich the VR off.

@Stenis

Have you or anyone else tested the new version XD2? that they promote now with PureRaw?

I did on some old night shots with my old D80, lot’s of noice. DeepPrime and XD did do a wonderful job however XD gave it a to much plastic look. On these specific images.

George

I think Nikon seems to have done a better job than Nikon with old lenses on adapter.

I also think Deep Prime XD has been a life saver for me working with these old CCD-pictures. It is also important to be careful not to use Microcontrast at all because it destroys the skies if there are any on the pictures.

[mikemyers]

@Stenis

I think Nikon seems to have done a better job than Nikon with old lenses on adapter.

I’m confused - do you mean Nikon on DSLR and on Mirrorless???

[mikemyers]

Joanna, I have eaten dinner, and had a nice glass of wine, I was thinking of this discussion, and something hit me like a brick. I don’t think I need to say more, just ask you a question.

Remember your photo of the two birds you posted earlier today?
…and do you remember my edited version?

If the local newspaper wanted to use that image along with a story, which of those two versions of your image do you think they would print?

If I was the editor, I know exactly which one I would use, and why.

At heart, you are an artist.
At heart, I am a photojournalist.

We see things very differently, and @Wolfgang and you (and I think many others) see things the way you do. I’m the “oddball” who always thinks of what editors want to show their public. I’ve been that way since I went to college, and too photos for the College newspaper. At least now, I can “see” both, probably due to you, and certainly due to the members of this forum. And you’re right, I’m no longer a working photojournalist, but old habits are difficult to lose.

Maybe I need to change hats, and go off looking for shapes, sizes, colors, and so on, that come together into something that might be worth framing, like the lovely photos some of you have been posting lately. That was great fun for me a year or so ago. …if I find one photo in a day, that’s enough, if I don’t mess it up in PhotoLab that is…

[mikemyers]

Help requested, if in fact there is an answer.

Is there any way in PhotoLab to add a “text comment” to an image?

Maybe I want to add a quick note, or a person’s name, or a type of bird or animal.

I know I can do this in “PhotoMechanic” if I start to use their tools to identify and keep track of my images, but I was thinking of a small file that could be saved in the same folder as the image.

If not, and since I always use PhotoMechanic, I’ll figure out how that works.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

Well, you can always use the IPTC sections that PL provides…

Contents | Description could be appropriate.

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik7 / 3.3 ])]

@mikemyers

I’m the “oddball” who always thinks of what editors want to show their public.

… be printed in “newspaper quality” – what a great suggestion!

After being told (thoroughly explained) what works and what doesn’t, you still come up with silly ideas – provoking attention.

Please stop fooling around if you want to be taken seriously.

[Required ( M1 | Nikon)]

@mikemyers

I can go back to my Nikon D3 with CCD, but my newer cameras are and will be CMOS, and the ISO capability is far more important to me than the colors

I might have misunderstood your post but every pro body camera from Nikon after that the D2x do use CMOS. So do the D3-series.
D200 used a CCD.
D300 moved to a CMOS.

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

After being told (thoroughly explained) what works and what doesn’t, you still come up with silly ideas – provoking attention.

@Wolfgang and others, please watch this video:

Red Tail Hawks, and a few other birds, with the Nikon D780 in high wind - pure magic!

Judging by what he shows, and does, and his equipment, I think he is a very experienced bird photographer. He also shows a series of photos, one after another, that he captured. I huge number of them were what you would call pixelated and worthless, yet here he is taking those images. One example is 1:11 minutes into the video.

My advice here in the forum is to not bother to take these images, no matter how appealing they look, because they will be pixelated. Me? I would take them anyway, knowing ahead of time they are too far away, and I don’t have a lens long enough to zoom in on the birds, no matter how exciting things get.

As I see it, my problem is not taking those images, but it is from posting them here in this forum.

Also, the more I try to follow birds around with my camera/lens, the better I get at doing so. It’s good practice/training.

The only person in this forum that I know has captured bird photographs is @Joanna. Maybe more of you have, maybe not, and if the images are so small in the capture, you’ll never bother to post them here in this forum.

I’m not as capable as this fellow, nor do I have such a long lens, nor do I have enough ability, but if the birds get within my acceptable range (fill at least 1/3 of the image with “bird”, I’ll try anyway.

Please do watch the video as it looks to me just like what I saw most of the time while following birds.

@Wolfgang

Please stop fooling around if you want to be taken seriously.

What you call “fooling around” is what I always go through when trying something new, along with “practice makes perfect”. Without what you call “fooling around”, I’ll never improve - at anything. Even riding a bike when I was a kid. Lots of bandages on knees, etc. It’s not a matter of my being taken seriously - I’m a beginner, and it shows. With time and practice and feedback, maybe I’ll improve. But along with all the pixelated crap I capture, I’m starting to also capture images I’d be happy to print and put up on my wall.

As I see it, the best way to learn, is to practice, endlessly, correcting mistakes, or trying to, as I go along.

(This image doesn’t “work” until I enlarge it, for the detail.)
780_3699 | 2024-04-04.nef (26.8 MB)

(And I may never catch up with the rest of you, as everytime I post an image, one of you edits it and improves it - which is great, as if I like the edits here, I’m likely to do things in a similar manner in the future. I’m always learning, and “doing”, and following most of the feedback I get here (but not all). )

Oh, and the cropping in this image was limited by desire to include so much of the iguana. Tighter cropping would allow the detail in the iguana to show up better. Heck, until someone pointed it out, the iguana blended in with the leaves so well, I looked right at it, and didn’t see it. I could finally see it best, through my camera, zoomed in.

This is what I would put up on my wall:

…but next time, I will do the cropping in my camera, not in PhotoLab.
…something else I need to remember.

@Required

I might have misunderstood your post but every pro body camera from Nikon after that the D2x do use CMOS. So do the D3-series.

Thanks, I didn’t know that. Maybe that’s why I can use higher ISO speeds on the D3 (but nothing like the D780).

Time to stop, and make breakfast.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Well, you can always use the IPTC sections that PL provides…

Thanks - I hadn’t thought of that, but this might be useful.
I assume I’d use EXIF Editor ?

I used to add “key words” back when I used LightRoom.
Is there a way to do that in PL that I’ve never yet noticed?

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I assume I’d use EXIF Editor ?

No, just the metadata palette in PL.

@mikemyers

I used to add “key words” back when I used LightRoom.
Is there a way to do that in PL that I’ve never yet noticed?

Yes, just use the Keywords palette…

---

You could always look up the user manual

Look in the help index for more on the same subject.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

Talking of birds, here’s one of Helen’s…

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Talking of birds, here’s one of Helen’s…

If I had posted that, I think I know what you would be saying.

Me? I think that’s a lovely photo, the bird looks good, it’s “doing” something (but I don’t know what is in its mouth), the composition is good, and it all adds up to what I think is a wonderful, lovely photo.

How much cropping was involved? I’m guessing the bird was only there for a few seconds, so it’s a great catch. …and the cropping fits the image nicely. It has proportions that make me think maybe it was from a mobile phone, not her D810. Do you know what kind of bird it is? …or maybe I shouldn’t be asking all these questions. I like the photo!