24 reprocessed invertebrate images

GardenersHelper

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Over the past couple of weeks I have been experimenting with alternative workflows for processing invertebrate images. It began as a simple question as to whether or not to make greater use of Topaz DeNoise AI now version 2 includes batch processing, but ended up with me deciding to make some major changes to my processing workflow. For those who are interested in such things and are prepared to wade through or skim a lot of text I have documented in my Journey thread what I did and where it led me. For those who are more interested in images rather than processing products and methods, the 60 images I worked on are in this album at Flickr.

For those who prefer not to click away from the site there are 8 of them here and another 8 in each of the two following two posts.

These 24 images were captured between 2012 and 2019 as raw, in our garden and at local nature reserves. All used close-up lenses on telezoom lenses (EF-S 55-250 STM on Canon 70D, 45-175 on Panasonic G3, G5, G80 and G9, and fixed 25-600 equivalent lens on Panasonic FZ200 and FZ330).

Four of the captures used natural light (images 1.1, 1.7, 2.5, and 3.7, the first three of these using a tripod, hand-held for the last one). The rest were captured hand-held using flash.

The raw files were converted and processed in DXO PhotoLab 3 Elite to produce DNG files that were then processed in Lightroom Classic to produce 1300 pixel high JPEGs. All but two of them had additional noise reduction and sharpening applied using Topaz DeNoise AI 2.0, either from within Lightroom before the JPEG was exported, or applied to the JPEG after it had been produced by Lightroom.

There are 1300 pixel high versions of these 24 images in this album at Flickr.
.
#1.1

1618 1.1 02.1 RAW 70D IMG_3423_PLab3 Local-Edit LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#1.2

1618 1.2 08.1 RAW FZ200 P1130491_PLab3 Local-Edit LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#1.3

1618 1.3 14.1 RAW FZ200 P1830278_PLab3 Local-Edit LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#1.4

1618 1.4 11.1 RAW FZ200 P1760800_PLab3 Local-Edit LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#1.5

1618 1.5 17.1 RAW FZ200 P1870704_PLab3 Local-Edit LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#1.6

1618 1.6 19.1 RAW FZ200 P1940044_PLab3 Local-Edit LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#1.7

1618 1.7 34.1 RAW G3 P1710921_PLab3 Local LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#1.8

1618 1.8 22.1 RAW FZ330 P1250061_PLab3 Local-Edit LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
They are all pretty damned amazing Nick (y)
 
Agreed...they are all at a standard, in both terms of photography and image processing, that I will probably never achieve, excellent work as always, Nick.
 
Cobra said:
They are all pretty damned amazing Nick (y)
Click to expand...
Son_of_Thor said:
Fantastic sets of images, very well seen and executed but 2.8 is my fav out of these
Click to expand...
Uncle Fester said:
Superb!
Click to expand...
The Weasel said:
Agreed...they are all at a standard, in both terms of photography and image processing, that I will probably never achieve, excellent work as always, Nick.
Click to expand...

Thank you all for your responses that are so positive and encouraging.

I apologise for not replying sooner. I have been rather busy discussing at DPReview the "horrific" colours in these images, the fact that "Unfortunately, all of the images you shared display an "all-yellow cast" due to your harsh deployment of flash", which has resulted in my "spreading an unholy, yellow light across the field", and being lectured on how to remedy the mistakes I have made by better understanding some technical details that I thought, wrongly it seems, that I understood quite well, and educated on how to avoid sub-optimal light and sub-optimal apertures, and helpfully shown images created by the author of these many improving suggestions which illustrate how properly to use apertures, light and time of day to produce a "more pleasant, immersive overall image" of the type that author routinely produces and has kindly consented to draw to my attention to to help me climb out of the pit into which I have fallen. (I made up the last bit about the pit - but not the rest.)

If you enjoy this sort of stuff you might be amused by this post I've just done at dpreview, which touches on some of this helpful advice towards the end of the post. :D
 
Last edited:
Nick,
I must compliment you on 2 pieces of great work -
1. your photos - amazing, your subject choice and technique are excellent! Well done!
2. your response on DP review, sadly it takes all types, and a large number of the other type seem to add comment out of spite or malice. Well done on a thorough and detailed rebuttal.

I know, as photographers, we are normally very critical of our own work, but if this was my work, I’d be chuffed to bits and wouldn’t care about the odd spoil-sport
 
Amazing photos, very impressive ... amazed with the FZ200 results.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thank you all for your responses that are so positive and encouraging.

I apologise for not replying sooner. I have been rather busy discussing at DPReview the "horrific" colours in these images, the fact that "Unfortunately, all of the images you shared display an "all-yellow cast" due to your harsh deployment of flash", which has resulted in my "spreading an unholy, yellow light across the field", and being lectured on how to remedy the mistakes I have made by better understanding some technical details that I thought, wrongly it seems, that I understood quite well, and educated on how to avoid sub-optimal light and sub-optimal apertures, and helpfully shown images created by the author of these many improving suggestions which illustrate how properly to use apertures, light and time of day to produce a "more pleasant, immersive overall image" of the type that author routinely produces and has kindly consented to draw to my attention to to help me climb out of the pit into which I have fallen. (I made up the last bit about the pit - but not the rest.)

If you enjoy this sort of stuff you might be amused by this post I've just done at dpreview, which touches on some of this helpful advice towards the end of the post. :D
Click to expand...

Hmm, I really don't understand where they are coming from with those comments. There is certainly no obvious colour cast across the images, variation in WB (which is to be expected over a set created in different lighting conditions) yes, but colour cast no. As others have said, I aspire to the level you're at with regards to insect macro photography - keep doing what you're doing, the quality is fantastic! :)
 
Absolutely stunning images. The very first was mind blowing in its level of detail. Currently reading through the 6 year journey and learning huge amount
 
Thank you all so much. You provide a reassuring counterweight to some unpleasant stuff elsewhere which has gone from bad to worse (and from which I have now withdrawn).

I have embedded a few specific responses below.

Keithz said:
Nick,
I must compliment you on 2 pieces of great work -
1. your photos - amazing, your subject choice and technique are excellent! Well done!
2. your response on DP review, sadly it takes all types, and a large number of the other type seem to add comment out of spite or malice. Well done on a thorough and detailed rebuttal.

I know, as photographers, we are normally very critical of our own work, but if this was my work, I’d be chuffed to bits and wouldn’t care about the odd spoil-sport
Click to expand...
I know, rationally, that it is pretty obvious what is going on there, and the support here has been great, but despite that I find it difficult not to get a bit ruffled by it.

gramps said:
Amazing photos, very impressive ... amazed with the FZ200 results.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people are surprised about what can be done with small sensor cameras. I'm thinking about doing a post along the lines of "The equalising effect of very small apertures", which is I think the crux of the matter.

Lez325 said:
Lovely set Nick - I aspire to reach your level when it comes to Macro :)

Les
Click to expand...
Son_of_Thor said:
Hmm, I really don't understand where they are coming from with those comments. There is certainly no obvious colour cast across the images, variation in WB (which is to be expected over a set created in different lighting conditions) yes, but colour cast no. As others have said, I aspire to the level you're at with regards to insect macro photography - keep doing what you're doing, the quality is fantastic! :)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reassurance about the white balance.

AgentOrange76 said:
Absolutely stunning images. The very first was mind blowing in its level of detail. Currently reading through the 6 year journey and learning huge amount
Click to expand...
Not a trivial undertaking reading all through that long and rambling thing! I hope it retains some interest as you carry on through it.

alfbranch said:
Stunning work as ever Nick
Click to expand...
drsilver said:
Oh my. These are spectacular. You're my new TP hero.
Click to expand...
 
I think that they are all good, most very good, some 3.2 perfect.
BTW one of your critics was banned from another forum.
 
Last edited:
davholla said:
I think that they are all good, most very good, some 3.2 perfect.
Click to expand...

Thanks David. I have reprocessed 3.2 a number of times over the past two and a half years, trying to make something of it. I can see the potential, but I've found it very difficult to handle. Each time I have had an uneasy feeling that I have pushed it too far, demanding too much of it. Including this time.

davholla said:
BTW one of your critics was banned from another forum.
Click to expand...

Oh, I had no idea. That is very interesting indeed, although not entirely surprising. That puts a bit of a different perspective on it. Thanks for letting me know.
 
GardenersHelper said:
I think a lot of people are surprised about what can be done with small sensor cameras. I'm thinking about doing a post along the lines of "The equalising effect of very small apertures", which is I think the crux of the matter.
Click to expand...
Is it only you who is getting good photos with these cameras? I have not seen many others do so.
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks David. I have reprocessed 3.2 a number of times over the past two and a half years, trying to make something of it. I can see the potential, but I've found it very difficult to handle. Each time I have had an uneasy feeling that I have pushed it too far, demanding too much of it. Including this time.



Oh, I had no idea. That is very interesting indeed, although not entirely surprising. That puts a bit of a different perspective on it. Thanks for letting me know.
Click to expand...
You are welcome.

I can't see any yellow flare on any of your photos - I wonder if your critics have some strange type of colour blindness that makes them see things differently.
 
davholla said:
Is it only you who is getting good photos with these cameras? I have not seen many others do so.
Click to expand...

I suspect it may be because almost everyone who is well into this sort of thing knows that you need to use decent kit to get good macro images and you can't get decent image quality out of small sensor cameras. I think it is one of those well known facts like "autofocus isn't useful for macro" (I use autofocus almost all the time), and "you can't capture images for stacking hand-held" (which for flowers etc I do almost all the time). To be fair, in both cases it does depend greatly on the kit you use, and with the kit most people use both of these assertions are probably substantially correct. And of course I don't use my small sensor cameras these days for botanical subjects (unless I'm experimenting), but that is mainly because it is only the two most recent generations of my micro four thirds cameras provide the facilities I prefer to use now for botanical subjects (video-based stacking and aperture bracketing), and only the very latest of them that provides a flat profile that I find useful for higher dynamic range scenes like contre-jour.

The only person I know of who has used small sensor cameras a lot for macro, and was well respected for the images he produced with them, is Mark Berkery. For some years he used Raynoxes with a Panasonic FZ50 (three and four generations prior respectively to my FZ200 and FZ330). Mark is using Panasonic G series cameras now, with Olympus 60mm macro and Raynoxes.

As you probably recall, I have done comparisons between my small sensor FZ cameras and micro four thirds and APS-C setups, and have never discerned any systematic difference in the images I get with any of them. But that is a special case of course because I am using minimum aperture, with diffraction being the dominant factor in resolution. Most people don't use the very small apertures that I do so they may well be gettin better results than they would with a small sensor camera.

My post processing might be a key factor too, as might the fact I keep my outputs to 1300 pixels high, although tbh I'm dubious about the latter.

davholla said:
I can't see any yellow flare on any of your photos - I wonder if your critics have some strange type of colour blindness that makes them see things differently.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that, or a screen setup that is not calibrated correctly. His own images are very cold. When I applied yellow bias to some of his images (birds as well as invertebrates) they looked much better to me, with the colours coming to life with more vibrancy (I didn't change the vibrance or saturation, it was just a white balance adjustment), and although I obviously don't know what the colours of the scene were really like, they did look more credible to me when adjusted.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
I think it is one of those well known facts like "autofocus isn't useful for macro" (I use autofocus almost all the time), and "you can't capture images for stacking hand-held"
Click to expand...

Strange isn't it - I quite often use AF for close-up macro work and switch to manual when I need to and I've also successfully created stacked images handheld - yes, it's a bit hit and miss but it's certainly possible. Both of these with APS-C and FF cameras

GardenersHelper said:
The only person I know of who has used small sensor cameras a lot for macro, and was well respected for the images he produced with them, is Mark Berkery.
Click to expand...

Wow, some stunning stuff on his site too. Just goes to show that whilst the kit helps, it's all the other things like having an eye for it, practice and technique that make all the difference :cool:

GardenersHelper said:
I wondered about that, or a screen setup that is not calibrated correctly. His own images are very cold. When I applied yellow bias to some of his images (birds as well as invertebrates) they looked much better to me, with the colours coming to life with more vibrancy (I didn't change the vibrance or saturation, it was just a white balance adjustment), and although I obviously don't know what the colours of the scene were really like, they did look more credible to me when adjusted.
Click to expand...

I usually find auto-WB on the camera is pretty much spot on. The only things that really throw it are ND filters and low light conditions. People's perception of colours and WB are all different - there are so many variables: people's eye/brain combinations, lighting conditions when the shot was taken (impossible to know the conditions unless you took the image yourself and can actually remember), the WB as shot and then post-processing. Then there's artistic license, so many possibilities... I tend to try and keep things pretty much as I remember them with wildlife and macro, occasionally adding a touch of warmth to the WB where I think it improves the finished image. Not that I profess myself to be any kind of expert on these matters, just my tuppence-worth
 
Last edited:
Son_of_Thor said:
Strange isn't it - I quite often use AF for close-up macro work and switch to manual when I need to and I've also successfully created stacked images handheld - yes, it's a bit hit and miss but it's certainly possible. Both of these with APS-C and FF cameras
Click to expand...

Interesting to hear you have done that.

Son_of_Thor said:
Wow, some stunning stuff on his site too. Just goes to show that whilst the kit helps, it's all the other things like having an eye for it, practice and technique that make all the difference :cool:
Click to expand...

Yes, all that, and also being able to find/knowing where to find good subjects. And, for me at least, tolerance for very high failure rates.

Son_of_Thor said:
I usually find auto-WB on the camera is pretty much spot on. The only things that really throw it are ND filters and low light conditions. People's perception of colours and WB are all different - there are so many variables: people's eye/brain combinations, lighting conditions when the shot was taken (impossible to know the conditions unless you took the image yourself and can actually remember), the WB as shot and then post-processing. Then there's artistic license, so many possibilities...
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Interesting to hear you have done that.
Click to expand...

I've nothing particularly worth sharing - usually find the subjects have moved in between shots when trying to do it handheld and when I stack I end up with two many legs! This is where I was thinking a camera with an auto-stack function might help, but hard to say without trying it out.

GardenersHelper said:
Yes, all that, and also being able to find/knowing where to find good subjects. And, for me at least, tolerance for very high failure rates.
Click to expand...

Locating the subjects is something I'm trying (and sometimes succeeding) at getting better at. I tend to try and go out later in the evening when my targets are starting to settle down for the night. I don't get chance anywhere near often enough and usually draw a blank but it's very rewarding when I do find something worth photographing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top