Curlew

[Simon Wantling]

I just love these birds. Difficult shot to expose for but I'm pleased with the result in the end. I took my time processing this one using all the techniques I've learnt here and I hope its paid off. I've cleaned up the odd background and recovered it separately from the bird itself. The only thing that is a shame is the water running through the bird in the background and possibly I've left it a tad bright, but I'm not sure. Apart from that - I'm happy. Comments always appreciated

7D, 500mm + 1.4x, f5.6, 1/2000, ISO1600. DPP and levels, USM in PP CC. NR on background and a very small amount of NR on bird.

[Miguel Palaviccini]

Simon,

Nice image indeed. I think that your assessment is spot on. It would have been ideal to get down lower to help remove some of that background, but I see that the ground looks like mud!

Miguel

[Daniel Cadieux]

What, are you guys afraid of a little mud?:bg3: Getting down and dirty (if possible at the location) is all part of the fun! Anyhow, all this to say that yes, a lower angle would have been beneficial here, but a bigger drawback here IMo is the head angle which is turned slightly away from the viewer (relative to body angle). A catchlight would also have been welcome. Exposure looks good to me, and you have some nice details on the bird. Whatever you did processing-wise is spot on as I cannot tell where anything was done.

[Diane Miller]

Well, it's attractive, as mud goes! Nice color to match the bird, subdued tonalities, the white streak adds interest, for me, and the bird is well isolated by the DOF.

[arash_hazeghi]

Dan hit the main point, which is the head turned away from us. These guys look a lot better in good light

TFS

[Simon Wantling]

Thanks for the comments everyone. I kind of knew they would be mentioned :bg3:. Unfortunately at the site I couldn't get lower to the subject which is a shame. Do you think the sharpening is enough? That's one area I struggle with in how much to apply. My thoughts are it could do with a bit more but don't want to risk over sharpening it.

thamks

[Tiago Caravana]

I believe the sharpness you gave to this photo it's ok, I woudn't give it more. What I would like is to see the eye more focused/sharped as it seems that your point of focus was on the bird's body.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Yes, the sharpening looks fine to me here.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Processing and sharpening looks great - I would not have guessed ISO 1600 by any means. The only thing I would have wished for is a slight head turn and a lower angle. Maybe I will have to revisit DPP yet again!

[Simon Wantling]

Thanks all for the comments. I really like DPP Jonathan. Ever since I purchase the document by Arthur and Arash I haven't looked backl. Agree the noise reduction isn't that good and it does seem to show a lot more noise, but I use Topaz Denoise for reducing that from within PS which seems to work well. Basically, all images where I've got the focus correct and the exposure isn't a million miles out, its DPP for me.