www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Denise wrote: Although I have tried to use Paintshop Pro, I just can't get on with it, so any editing I do is very basic (windows stuff)

Hi Denise, I use the Photoshop CS3, but Photoshop elements is simpler. You can edit noise, colour, contrast etc with just a few clicks. And the crop tool is fantastic and also the resizing tool (need to make images smaller for the site) and it doesn't make the pixels all weird and stretches the image. Which can happen.
I will show you how to use it if you are unsure. Print screens are an amazing thing

If you are interested, you can download a 30 day trail from http://www.adobe.co.uk

Also there is a free (i think free) one called Gimp
http://www.gimp.org/

I haven't used this one, but I have heard it's rather good. I can download it and show you it if you want.

Mouse

Denise wrote:I would like to shoot in RAW, so that I can edit some of this out, but I wouldn't know where to start. Any help would be appreciated.

You don't actually alter RAW files but process them to produce an image which you can then edit (so no different to if you shot it as a JPG to begin with!). RAW just gives you adavantages on processing (adjusting White Balance, rescuing Highlights, etc)

I'd recommend getting an understanding of some of the simpler editing tools in something like Paintshop Pro - even if initially it's just Auto and cropping! Then when you want to do something slightly different it'll be easier for you to ask and others to give an answer which'll help! Having said that, you appear to have a pretty good idea as to what's required (and how to do it!) already!

Markulous wrote:

It is possible to alter EXIF data (there are plenty of editors around) so it's not reliable for proof purposes - you can even alter RAW although that is more difficult and may not pass a forensic examination

Well, now that film cameras are disappearing rapidly and digital are becoming the norm, how on earth do eg, Police, Insurance companies, get photos that are acceptable to the lawyers? How could I for example in the event of a burglary, take pictures that would be accepted in Court? This really does seem to be a major limitation of digital cameras.

And are all those Speed Cameras to be trusted? It would seemingly be the easiest thing in the world to alter the supposed read-out to earn more money for the local authority.

Jack

Thank you Emily,
I am a total idiot when it comes to anything technical but I'll give it a go. If I get stuck I shall be calling on you
Denise

jackharr wrote:Markulous wrote:

It is possible to alter EXIF data (there are plenty of editors around) so it's not reliable for proof purposes - you can even alter RAW although that is more difficult and may not pass a forensic examination

Well, now that film cameras are disappearing rapidly and digital are becoming the norm, how on earth do eg, Police, Insurance companies, get photos that are acceptable to the lawyers? How could I for example in the event of a burglary, take pictures that would be accepted in Court? This really does seem to be a major limitation of digital cameras.

Jack

I reckon your best bet, Jack, would be to take the photos (and depending on how serious, witnessed) and then take the memory card into either a solicitor or the police station where it's suitably logged in

jackharr wrote:And are all those Speed Cameras to be trusted? It would seemingly be the easiest thing in the world to alter the supposed read-out to earn more money for the local authority.

Easier for them to "accidentally" allow them to lose the calibration of the flash timing (they flash twice and timing's critical for checking speed). A significant proportion are said to be incorrect - if you're prosecuted it's said to be worth challenging when it was last certified

jackharr: I was only interested in the exif data to see equipment and settings used to understand what went on to produce the image and then advise, if necessary, how to change things to get better results. For example I could see if blur was due to too low shutter speed etc. and advise on how to correct that. I am not interested in proving authenticity here And yes you can edit exif data I believe, so not sure how reliable that would be. You can do whatever you like to an image in photoshop however and it will retain the original exif data.

Denise: The exposure is a lot better in the original than the one you entered in the competition. The competition entry is brighter and the highlight detail is lost in the whites. The yellows are a bit bright too. This also exaggerated the noise slightly I should think too. In your competition entry you have cropped it so the butterfly is too far to the left hand side and as a result the space to the right and below looks too much to me. To reduce the noise you do not have to shoot raw. You can stick to shooting jpegs and edit the noise in paintshop pro. I shoot raw but convert to tiff files before any noise reduction as I prefer photoshop's noise reduction. I am not sure how good the noise reduction in paintshop pro is however. I( have not used that for some time and in the past it was not so good, losing a lot of the detail as well as the noise. It was similar for photoshop until CS2 (and maybe CS1. I never used that). I also found the saved image file was visibly much better from photoshop than paintshop pro back in the days of paintshop pro 7 and photoshop 7. Paintshop pro may be better now however. Unfortunately in the digital age the pc skills are almost more important than the camera skills in producing the best final result I believe. You can take a fantastic image on the camera and then process it badly on a computer to get a disappointing result. On the other hand however with the right skills you can salvage something pretty darn good from a terrible image!

Shirley: Definitely have a play with it in photoshop first. I doubt I have ever done something with an image that I have not first enhanced in some way on the computer!

Markulous: My mistake. I had been on the critique for some time by then! I meant to say a small extension tube not 1.4x TC. You of course loose detail with the TC, however I believe it is very minimal, but with the extension tube you can focus much closer, image quality is not effected, and because you are closer ypou pic up a lot more detail. I know people who use both an extension tube and 1.4x TC combined on this lens and they are mighty good. I believe what small amount you loose on IQ with the tc you gain back and more by being that much closer. I have seen pics of brown argus etc. taken with this setup and they are stunning. The tc is not needed for larger species though. Just the tube. I am half tempted to give the setup a go myself some time as for travel it's a very portable telephoto and macro combo setup.

Shirley Roulston wrote:To Gruditch, I haven't got a chip on my shoulder, thanks. I took two photo's on Raw and my computor cannot open then, how can do change the camera to this, that and the other and expect the butterfly to wait until your ready, so it goes on auto focus. I've only had the close up lens for a couple of months and its extemly hard to use. I said its not sour grapes, on the funny side he he he he he I got 2 points and you got 1.
Shirley

Indeed you did Shirley, I note that one of your voters is a big fan of your greeting cards too.

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... f=1&t=2689

Gruditch

FISHiEE wrote:

jackharr: ...and then advise, if necessary, how to change things to get better results. For example I could see if blur was due to too low shutter speed etc. and advise on how to correct that.

And at risk of starting a flame war, may I ask why you feel you are qualified (Art College perhaps?)to advise a photographer of some 60 years experience? Incidentally, I was making my hobby pay for itself some 50+ years ago by selling some of my pictures.

Jack

My only qualification is experience of 5 years or so of amateur photography and probably 100k+ photos. I don't have any kind of paper qualification in photography, but I am pretty well experienced enough that if I see for example someone shoots an image on a 100mm macro lens at 1/50s and it's a blur I can tell them what to do to increase shutter speed and get rid of that blur.

I was requested to provide critique to this months comp as winner of the last one, and part of my critique is to advise how to improve the shot where necessary. That is what good critique is in my book. If I just tell the author it's blurry that doesn't help them a lot. They wanna know how to stop it being blurry!

In the case of your shot for example, if I'd seen you show on an slr with a wideangle lens to give that big depth of field I could have said try a macro to blur the background more and give a better result. I maybe could have seen you shot at iso 1000 hence the noise, maybe I could have seen the shutter speed was low even at that iso and then realise the light was poor hence you used such a high iso... all sorts.

In my time as a photographer I probably shoot 20k+ images of insects every year, 90% of those butterflies, so yeah I think I'm pretty well experienced enough to advise on ways to improve a shot where I see fit on a butterfly macro shot. You can choose to take or ignore that advice. It doesn't matter to me.

Please could we all can the incipient net rage before it gets out of control? This has always been a nice friendly site .

FISHiEE wrote:-
Denise: The exposure is a lot better in the original than the one you entered in the competition. The competition entry is brighter and the highlight detail is lost in the whites. The yellows are a bit bright too. This also exaggerated the noise slightly I should think too. In your competition entry you have cropped it so the butterfly is too far to the left hand side and as a result the space to the right and below looks too much to me. To reduce the noise you do not have to shoot raw. You can stick to shooting jpegs and edit the noise in paintshop pro. I shoot raw but convert to tiff files before any noise reduction as I prefer photoshop's noise reduction. I am not sure how good the noise reduction in paintshop pro is however. I( have not used that for some time and in the past it was not so good, losing a lot of the detail as well as the noise. It was similar for photoshop until CS2 (and maybe CS1. I never used that). I also found the saved image file was visibly much better from photoshop than paintshop pro back in the days of paintshop pro 7 and photoshop 7. Paintshop pro may be better now however. Unfortunately in the digital age the pc skills are almost more important than the camera skills in producing the best final result I believe. You can take a fantastic image on the camera and then process it badly on a computer to get a disappointing result. On the other hand however with the right skills you can salvage something pretty darn good from a terrible image!

Fair comment. I shall have to get to grips with the processing factor over the winter months, as what I post is almost unedited. Thanks for the advice. I'm still on a huge learning curve!

I can put my toys back in the pram now

Denise

Someone in the top three of each comp, is invited to do a critique of the next comp.
I for one enjoy the critique, I find views of how perhaps I could of, "in their opinion", improved the image, very useful.

As for Fishiee's knowledge/experience as a photographer, I think his images speak for themselves.

Denise wrote:Unfortunately in the digital age the pc skills are almost more important than the camera skills in producing the best final result I believe. You can take a fantastic image on the camera and then process it badly on a computer to get a disappointing result. On the other hand however with the right skills you can salvage something pretty darn good from a terrible image!

Speaking for myself, terrible images usually get deleted, it has to be a pretty good image for me to even bother working on it. I often come home with nothing worth the effort of opening up Paint Shop, so sit there in a grump, kicking myself about what I done wrong in the field.

Gruditch

Actually Fishiee wrote that, not me Gary. I was just quoting him.

Denise

I thought it sounded familiar, to be honest, I done a bit of speed reading, he did go on a bit

Gruditch

Yea, but he was right! I bin a lot too.

Denise

hehe sometimes I only come back with a bad image and that's all I have to work with. I am thinking for example when I was on holiday with a new camera in Uganda. I took a load of photos all quite badly under exposed as my 10D used to expose much brighter than the new 30d. I couldn't go back and re-take the photos so had to make do with what I had

Gwenhwyfar wrote:Well done all and a huge thanks for my votes, even if I was over taken at the last minute!

Guy, Eris and Marcin got my votes, and I'll mention Eris particualry, because it was just so creative and different.
Cheers Chris for my Critique, at least you liked my boring roosting Common Blue!!

Thank you for my mention,

I was really pleased to pick up 4 votes on my first attempt at the comp. I'm starting to understand these pesky things called DoF and EV's a bit better by reading everyone's comments on this forum. Sorry it was another common blue though!

I don't photo shop, or edit other than to reduce the size so it fits the screen.

Hi FISHiEE

Thank you for your critique which is spot on. However, I was soooo excited at seeing the Brimstone like this that I rushed into the house, grabbed the camera and came out again only to find a Purple Hairstreak also on the Buddleiah with its wings open. I didn't know what to try for first and just took a couple of initial shots before adjusting camera settings but by then it was just tooo late.

All the best

Pauline

Anyone using photoshop or similar should be thrown out of the competition, its no different than an Athelete using drugs to win a race, the same should apply to SLR/DSLR, we need a level playing field so could i suggest that everyone uses a compact digital from now on.