I mm not a pro at photo editing , but I have helped / am helping others with simple edits. However. what I tell people about inaturalist is that it is probably the only forum where “traditionally” bad images are acceptable, and such images are not judged by how they look but mostly what they show.
Having said that it would be interesting to see how the images are improved.
@txwoofus Welcome to the forums.
What is a lightroom mobile equivalent, that is free (and preferably open source) that is available for Androids ?
Thanks
Your work is much appreciated! Especially so since I’ve switched to shooting RAW so as to spare my Nikon D90 the conversion to JPEG (at least I think that’s what slowed continuous shooting) and I’ve come to realise how much the camera was doing.
I’m not sure it’s the kind of picture you’re looking for, but I’d love your take on the first picture here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/120033800
I’ve tried to tweak it somewhat already on Darktable, but I’m not sure I did it justice. I can provide the original RAW if you’d like (I’m not sure what the attachements/external links policy is on the forums), but feel free to disregard if that’s not what you had in mind! :)
It’s really great that you offer this, I have many I’m sure that aren’t worth the time but I wonder about ones like this.
Regarding digital zoom, I’m not sure how to tell when it’s at that point- loved that about the Coolpix, it’s very clear when it crosses the line.
Good luck with this- might be a good idea to have a project for before/after photos, if you’re interested.
One that I find very quick and easy on Android is Snapseed (by Google). Free, and loaded with tweaking tools. And even handles RAW image developing if your device camera can shoot in that mode.
Bvcruz, thanks for the appreciation – and your image submission.
You’re right of course, RAW is essentially the ‘real negative’ of digital photography and as such, capable of much more ‘triage’ options than a final JPG file. But I’m trying to avoid getting too techy in order to connect with the grassroots of nature photography here, so I’ll stick to working with the shot you linked to.
I confess to making one ‘beyond tuning’ move on this shot. I added a little corner darkening vignette because I felt it presented more clearly the subject. Of course, that’s my call, and not everyone’s.
And yeah – I doubt if the forum supports anything other than JPG, PNG, and GIF for image attaching. Which is another reason I think it would be great if in the future we could have some shareable server space to help in this… well, it’s sounding more like a project, isn’t it? Anyhow. Here you go!
Yikes! Another auto-focus casualty! If you’re not aware of what happened there, it’s the autofocus camera was focusing on foliage behind the fly. It’s a very limited window of treatment here.
As you can see here, about the only detail recovered is in the foliage!
Most point&shoot cameras with digital zoom show an indicator on the viewscreen or viewfinder as a line showing the amount of zoom the shot is using. And towards the right end (max zoom) there’s usally a little line that indicates the end of the optical (lens) zoom, and the start of the digital (computer) zoom. If you’re shooting small things like bugs, you might as well not cross that line and keep your digital zooming tricks outside of the camera, where there’s generally more control and (sometimes) more power to work with.
Thank you, you post made me so excited I went through the process of getting a new password. I am improving on my editing skills a great deal but I have quite a few captured in the moment pics that I have given up as hopeless. This one I tool before I even knew what raw was:
and I have to go looking for it… will paste here:
This one is a mutation so any improvement will be helpful…especially around the eyes!
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/28891950
Thank you, that’s amazing!
I don’t have a proper macro setup, so I’m using a second-hand 70-300mm zoom lens and stacked extension tubes, which unfortunately means I lose a lot of light and end up with very noisy pictures. I’m impressed at how well you managed to deal with that!
I also agree 100% with your decision on the vignette, thank you very much for your work!
As far as I know, open-source photo editors come in some combination of four flavors: Windows, MacOS, Linux, and web-based. I haven’t seen one for mobile OSes yet.
As I mentioned, Lightroom Mobile has a free tier that may be completely good enough for some people. Polarr is another app that’s very similar to Lightroom, and it also works on the freemium model. Snapseed is the only app I know that’s completely free.
If you aren’t restricted to mobile apps, webapps can be a decent option, especially in a pinch. I’ve used Polarr (again) and Pixlr for editing photos at the office because I don’t have any photo software on my work computer and the company doesn’t allow me to install my own.
“If your photographs aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” Robert Capa
Simple advice for improving photography that doesn’t depend on technical knowledge, expensive equipment, or software expertise.
“If your photographs aren’t close enough, try to avoid using the camera’s digital zoom to get closer.”
– me
I don’t think we’re trying to be pro photojournalists here. But I do think the tech can often do things that are perfectly helpful at recovering hidden quality.
For instance, the fact that RAW files contain image data that is actually outside of the display space of our monitors is not something the film days could play with.
Plus, I love finding potential gems in the digital virtual underbrush here almost as much as I love discovering living treasures in the real stuff.
Free tip: watch out with the bug spray if you’re changing lenses!
My point is that people shouldn’t be taking pictures of tiny specks from 50 yards away and expect to get an ID for it. Maybe no one in this room is guilty, but I (and I’m sure you) have seen plenty of examples. Tech can help us wring out tremendous amounts of data from an image, but it can’t manufacture information out of thin air.
Why not? There’re many things you can get a phone photo of from a distance ans still have an idable photo. People mostly do that because they can’t get closer, not to make things harder for ider.
Well, “close enough” is a relative measure. Maybe the photographer can’t get close, but they could try to get as close as possible.
I would say as close as ethically possible, for many instances it’s better not to get as close as possible physically, and for making good photos it also is complicated.)
Man, another poor focus shot. Well, this is as close as I can get without spending more time checking out the colour accuracy against other specimens. And if it’s a mutant, I might still be guessing. Here goes… nuthin!
I have struggled with zoom/extensions in the field too for small stuff. It’s so frustrating because so many shots require a steadying tripod and something that isn’t about to move (good reason why spiders are such a popular macro subject!).
One of the things that I have been turning to more and more for good, but not terrific macro shots is a magnifier app on my old Samsung Note 8. I use an app called ‘Cozy Magnifier’ which allows quick captures and focus. Here’s one I was lucky to find yesterday as an example.
Lots of upsampling artifacts (edges, in particular). But the controls for that kind of stuff are pretty limited in the app. Still, the shot would be fine for ID. Of course, a moth that big could probably be taken at the other end of a zoom and still get identified…
Hey! :) If you’re still doing these, do you think you could try helping me with this fly? I’d love to get at least a genus-level ID on it someday but my hopes aren’t high with photos like these, unfortunately.
Can your camera shoot to RAW? If so, and if it’s compatible, have a look at DxO PureRaw. (https://www.dxo.com/dxo-pureraw/) I downloaded the demo and tried it on my Sony and was blown away with what it did to high ISO shot noise. It’s like gaining a couple of f stops, seriously. And it does it all pretty much with one click (in batches, of course). And it takes time to digest each shot, but it’s a small price to pay. I paid the 100 bucks for the full software and I felt like I had just upgraded all my cheap (mostly second hand) lenses in one go. Highly recommended.
