Do you cull or process

[bajadreamer]

One of the dilemmas I frequently face is the choice whether or not to even attempt to process an image. Often those images are marginal to begin with and they end up taking a lot of time with the end result being the same as it was in the beginning-a marginal image. The first image is an unprocessed shot and the second is a poor attempt to make it usable. Would you have even tried? During processing I brought up the bird so much I needed to run through Topaz DeNoise AI twice and it is still noisy, but that was the result of my poor exposure at the time of the shot. I tend to waste time on an image like this when I like the bird or the position. This is a Bridled Titmouse, a very personable bird that I find hard to shoot as it is constantly moving, especially its head and tail.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[gaknott]

I find myself in this situation almost daily. I hope you get some good responses to learn from. You may try reducing the white and highlights to bring the background down, and reducing the luminance on the green to help make to bird stand out, or add some black to the green.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

It would be difficult to make the bright background on the upper picture looking natural and less prominent without compromising the bird IMO. I would say the second picture has too much contrast and it is distracting.

 

[JAS]

For the first photo of a new species, subject, etc., I will do my best to salvage the shot. As I acquire newer, better images o that subject, I will be more selective on what I keep, discard, then process. I am now starting to go back through the keyworded images and cull the weakest examples, though I still tend to keep the first, because it was first. So the answer is - Yes, I would try to salvage the image if it is new. Once I have better shots, it is time to clean house. By the way, keyword your shots as it will help when you want to cull and discard the weak ones.

 

[pimnauta]

If I may show my example?

I edited the first shot in PS CC 2020 with a "level layer" with a white mask, move the mid-tone slider to the left to make the bird brighter.
Mask out the surrounding with a black brush.
Get a "curve layer", pull the curve down, and use a black brush to mask out the bird so it doesn't get affected by this move and stays as light as it was before using the"curve layer".
If you think you need to brighten the bird even more you can also use the "brightness/contrast adjustment layer" and adjust as you please.
After this, you mask out the surroundings again with a black brush.

For those who own NIK Software, you can tweak the photo even more with the Color Efix Pro Filters and choose the nature filters, a selected group of filters for nature.
I choose three filters from this group:

Detail Extractor 25% - 6% - 25% (Amount used most of the time, read from top to bottom if using NIK software this will explain itself)

Pro Contrast 0% - 7% - 0%

White Neutral 30% - 30% I use the "eyedropper tool" and pick a white spot in the photo and that's it.

You don't have to use all the filters I mention, it all depends on what photo you're working and of course, you can use the sliders to adjust the photo as you wish.

I hope this will help someone who has these kinds of photos and wishes to edit them, this is my method and it helps me out when needed.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[DRwyoming]

Would you have even tried?

If I have the time and the subject is interesting or unique I'll definitely try. It might not salvage the image enough for print or publication uses but it's in the trying that you learn new processing tricks and techniques that can apply to other shots. If we only process the images that work the way we want straight out of the camera we really don't expand our post processing tool kit so yeah I'd try.

Good advice on things you could try above but sometimes with an image like this where the background is so bright I'll play with varying the overall mood of the photo rather than trying to recreate the light as I saw it. For instance I might try taking the entire image down a stop or two and then just dodging the bird itself a bit for an overall darker mood rather than try to recreate a balanced daylight look. It might not work with this particular photo but it's a salvage technique I've gotten away with before with similar images.

 

[ericj]

Great question, gaknott. I too, frequently find that I can spend an inordinate amount of time trying to improve a marginal image with all the wonderful tools that Lightroom Classic offers. It can definitely become a frustrating process. However, even if the final image, after post comes out a less than pleasing image, I look at it as one more step down the photographer's path of learning. Maybe I've learned how to apply a filter or improve on a setting. There are so many ways to enhance or create a different 'look' with these wonderful editing tools that for me, it's a continuation of my post-processing education. That said, I've become a bit more ruthless in culling those borderline images and focus (pardon the pun) more on those rare, exceptional images. I like the first image of your bird, btw. And being a bit of a birder myself, where does one find a bridled titmouse?

 

[JohnW]

I'm not very good at culling and deleting images, and I may not initially process an image. However later as the tools have improved and / or my own skills have advanced, I might try and tackle one of those old images or reprocess the image. I found this to be expecially true during this Covid period where I have not been traveling or filling up my drives with new images. It's been fun going back to the vault and breathing life into an old or forgotten image.

 

[BirdDogDad]

Some great input here. I have trouble deleting images when I first look at them. I guess I expect them all to be good. My technique is to forget the files for a few days, then go back and look at them again. By that time, I'm more able to be honest with myself and admit that a lot of them were really lousy and belong in the trash can. Saves hard drive space and wasted time.

Bajadreamer, in my opinion your titmouse image is extremely salvageable. Pimnauta, I was hoping someone would be willing to do some post work on this image to illustrate what can be done. Nice job. In my experience, one of the biggest problems in post processing is overdoing the application of various tools, or using the wrong tools to begin with. I've had clients give me images to use in their advertising that they "improved," thinking they knew something about post processing. They invariably were awful. I finally had to tell them to just give me the originals and let me do the "improving."

I will often use the same technique in reviewing an image I've done extensive post work on--let it sit for a couple of days, then go back and look at it with a fresh eye. More than once I said to myself, "what the heck was I thinking," having applied way too many "improvements."

Here's an technique I've found works very well with images such as Bajadreamer's titmouse: photos with a darker subject in the center and very light outer edges are disconcerting, because the light areas draw the eye away from the primary subject. Back in my darkroom days, I would often "burn in" the outer edges of such an images when printing them, using the high-tech device of an oval piece of cardboard taped to a straightened coat hanger. Turn the enlarger on for a few more seconds while moving the cardboard around the center portion of the image ("dodging," this was called). The result would be a pleasing, slightly darker vignetting around the subject, subtle enough to not be blatantly obvious to the human eye, but serving to draw the eye to the subject, not off the edges of the image.

While there are vignetting tools available in the Photoshop "darkroom," I prefer to experiment manually with the Burn tool set to a lower exposure value, with a very large brush, and quickly sweep through the outer edges of such an image in a big arc. I think you will find that such vignetting, done sparingly, will reduce visual confusion and be much more pleasing to the eye. If it doesn't work to your satisfaction, undo, adjust your settings, and try it again.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

I would crop it down to the bird only, a portrait image, and keep it. Like this. I cropped it to an 8x10, repositioned the bird, sent it to DeNoise AI. Did an auto fix, when it came back to LR I took the highlights down and added just a touch of contrast.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[bajadreamer]

For the first photo of a new species, subject, etc., I will do my best to salvage the shot. As I acquire newer, better images o that subject, I will be more selective on what I keep, discard, then process. I am now starting to go back through the keyworded images and cull the weakest examples, though I still tend to keep the first, because it was first. So the answer is - Yes, I would try to salvage the image if it is new. Once I have better shots, it is time to clean house. By the way, keyword your shots as it will help when you want to cull and discard the weak ones.

Yes, I agree with your basic approach. In the past I was more concerned with having a "record" of each new species shot. I am less so now. As I have become more experienced, the photo is the quest, not the bird.

 

[bajadreamer]

If I may show my example?

I edited the first shot in PS CC 2020 with a "level layer" with a white mask, move the mid-tone slider to the left to make the bird brighter.
Mask out the surrounding with a black brush.
Get a "curve layer", pull the curve down, and use a black brush to mask out the bird so it doesn't get affected by this move and stays as light as it was before using the"curve layer".
If you think you need to brighten the bird even more you can also use the "brightness/contrast adjustment layer" and adjust as you please.
After this, you mask out the surroundings again with a black brush.

For those who own NIK Software, you can tweak the photo even more with the Color Efix Pro Filters and choose the nature filters, a selected group of filters for nature.
I choose three filters from this group:

Detail Extractor 25% - 6% - 25% (Amount used most of the time, read from top to bottom if using NIK software this will explain itself)

Pro Contrast 0% - 7% - 0%

White Neutral 30% - 30% I use the "eyedropper tool" and pick a white spot in the photo and that's it.

You don't have to use all the filters I mention, it all depends on what photo you're working and of course, you can use the sliders to adjust the photo as you wish.

I hope this will help someone who has these kinds of photos and wishes to edit them, this is my method and it helps me out when needed.


View attachment 1630

That is better. By avoiding cloning the bright spots you have an image with less "smudging". Thank you for your explanations.

 

[bajadreamer]

I would crop it down to the bird only, a portrait image, and keep it. Like this. I cropped it to an 8x10, repositioned the bird, sent it to DeNoise AI. Did an auto fix, when it came back to LR I took the highlights down and added just a touch of contrast. View attachment 1722

Interesting. That works for me. I did not think of using the crop as a tool in reducing the distracting hot spots. I like this. Certainly simple.

 

[bajadreamer]

I'm not very good at culling and deleting images, and I may not initially process an image. However later as the tools have improved and / or my own skills have advanced, I might try and tackle one of those old images or reprocess the image. I found this to be expecially true during this Covid period where I have not been traveling or filling up my drives with new images. It's been fun going back to the vault and breathing life into an old or forgotten image.

Oh yes! My master images are arranged in alphabetical order of bird species. I just finished "Zeledon's Antbird". 4900 images later!

 

[bajadreamer]

I truly want to thank everyone for their thoughts. In the short time this forum has been available, I have learned a great deal and have seen other people's perspectives on my shots and on their own shots.

 

[gordon_g]

When I have time I use shots I’m not 100% happy with and try to learn something new in post.... if it turns out better great if not..That’s okay.

 

[bajadreamer]

When I have time I use shots I’m not 100% happy with and try to learn something new in post.... if it turns out better great if not..That’s okay.

Good point. And over the last 4-5 months have certainly had the time. When I am done though, usually my original feelings are confirmed-it wasn't a very good shot and my efforts at PP have not improved it much.