Need help for Autumn In Lake Joy: I was shooting activity at a bird feeder with manual settings of: 1/3000 sec, f/ 7.1, ISO 400, manual focus with BBF, using a flash extender on a...

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

I was shooting activity at a bird feeder with manual settings of: 1/3000 sec, f/ 7.1, ISO 400, manual focus with BBF, using a flash extender on a speedlight. At one point of no activity around the feeder I looked out over the lake and saw two ducks in-coming at top speed just skimming the water. I just had time to raise the camera, press the BBF and shoot. With the speed and aperture setting, and the distance too far for the extended flash, the result is badly underexposed.

I'm using PSE-15 and Lightroom 6.

Attached are the JPG from the RAW file, and the JPG from the TIF of my best effort. If it was possible I would gladly send the RAW file itself. Any help in improving my best effort will be greatly appreciated.

JPG from TIF
JPG from TIF...

(Download)

JPG from RAW (RAF)
JPG from RAW (RAF)...

(Download)

cmc65

That was an 'if only' moment. But considering everything you actually got some beautiful color and you know the noise kind of works here.

cmc65

Did you try any noise reduction software?

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

cmc65 wrote:

Did you try any noise reduction software?

Just that in Lightroom. I have Noiseware Community Edition that works a lot of the time, but it only produces in JPG, and I didn't want to lose the TIF. As a final step I suppose I should give that a go - save to a different filename, and nothing lost.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Noiseware CE cleaned up a lot of noise, with the subsequent loss of detail in the water ripples. Tried a 100% 4 x 6 crop of the Mallard Drake with the full image resized to 11 x 14.6. Interestingly, the noise in the body of the Drake is not apparent in the 4 x 6 print. At this point I guess it's a personal decision if the colors in the image trump the extremely soft focus. From the Missus comments it's looking like they do, at least for this abode.

I'd still like to get a cleaner image without the amount of detail loss in the project so far.

4 x 6 crop of the 11 x 14.6 image, no Noiseware

(Download)

post-Noiseware CE
post-Noiseware CE...

(Download)

cmc65

Nope. Like the original wi the noise. 😊

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If the raw file is less than about 23MB it should download OK. Or you could use LR to convert to DNG (losslessly), which will probably be more widely compatible.

In either case, just click on "Choose File", select the file and check "Store Original" as usual before clicking "Add Attachment". Then add text such as "Link to DNG" in the text box and click "Update".

Before looking at the posted jpg my advice is to make good use of LR's Masking slider in "Details" (probably 100% or thereabouts), then keep the denoise Details slider well to the right (just low enough to catch the noise, but not any lower - probably 85-90 or thereabouts).

You could probably use the HSL tool to tint-shift green and Aqua towards blue a bit. And rather than using lots of Contrast or Clarity (which will both aggravate the noise), use the luminance sliders in Basic (Blacks, Whites, Shadows, Highlights, Brightness) to add contrast.

I'll wait to see if you can post a raw or DNG before trying a serious edit.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Here's a try at sending the RAW file.

link to RAW file
Attached file:
(Download)

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

...and here's the DNG.

link to DNG
Attached file:
(Download)

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

R.G. wrote:

If the raw file is less than about 23MB it should ... (show quote)

Thank you for the short course in file transfer and noise handling, R.G. You answered a few questions I've had, but was afraid to ask.

Now, back to the editing table.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

cmc65 wrote:

Nope. Like the original wi the noise. 😊

R.G. Loc: Scotland

neilds37 wrote:

Thank you for the short course in file transfer and noise handling, R.G....

Thanks for the DNG. What I said before about contrast would probably have been the best option for a properly exposed shot, but this one starts off so dark it needs a boost from the Contrast slider.

To do my edit I used the Adjustments brush to do a few selections, and if I was taking it further I would make more selections such as the ducks to work on in isolation. But mostly it's what I said earlier. Plus a touch of split toning to add more of the sort of colours that would be expected (blue for the water instead of intense green).

If you have access to Content Aware it might be an idea to add more canvas to the bottom and left to give a better composition (i.e. give the ducks a bit more room to fly into), then trim a bit off of the top and right.

-

(Download)

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

R.G. wrote:

Thanks for the DNG. What I said before about cont... (show quote)

Very, very nice, R.G.
I went for a more dramatic, in-your-face, look. I stayed off the contrast and clarity completely. The colours in the water I interpret as reflections from the trees, so the greens seem natural to me. I still have a lot of noise, but I'll have to see how it prints before doing anything else.

So now, your perspective on my effort, please.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

neilds37 wrote:

Very, very nice, R.G.
I went for a more dramatic, in-your-face, look. I stayed off the contrast and clarity completely. The colours in the water I interpret as reflections from the trees, so the greens seem natural to me. I still have a lot of noise, but I'll have to see how it prints before doing anything else.

So now, your perspective on my effort, please.

You've got the ducks looking good and vivid, which is no small achievement. However, your vignette takes even more away from the bottom left hand corner, which I think is less than ideal. I'd extend the canvas for you but Elements is very limited in what it can do.

Have you used any colour denoise? I had mine up at 50 with Smoothness at 100. It'll clean up the colours, especially in the top half where there's a fair amount of coloured speckling.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

R.G. wrote:

You've got the ducks looking good and vivid, which is no small achievement. However, your vignette takes even more away from the bottom left hand corner, which I think is less than ideal. I'd extend the canvas for you but Elements is very limited in what it can do.

Have you used any colour denoise? I had mine up at 50 with Smoothness at 100. It'll clean up the colours, especially in the top half where there's a fair amount of coloured speckling.

Extending the canvas is no problem, and content aware works wonders. The Missus didn't take to the vignette either, and wants the ducks raised. I did use the colour denoise, but have never had any luck with it doing anything. The speckling, especially in the upper right, is almost the deal-breaker for me, so something has to be done about it - just not sure what.

My treatment of the ducks was simply to select the bodies and then increase the brightness