Surf Scoter flying

[Grace Scalzo]

My gosh, these buggers are fast. Cracked me up how they position their legs around their tails when flying. Processed on laptop, hope it looks ok .

1/2500, f5.6, iso1000
canon 1dx, 600f4 + 1.4tc + gitzo tripod

[Henry Domke]

137337
If you look at the histogram of your image you can see that it is extremely dark.
You might try seeing if you can bring out more shadow detail by moving the white point to the left with a Levels Adjustment Layer in Photoshop.

There is a very dark area on the beak. What is that?

[Bill Dix]

Terrific flight shot, Grace. They are indeed fast, and also extremely difficult to expose correctly. On my screen it looks very good. These are basically black birds, and I can see some detail in almost all of the black. You might do a tiny levels adjustment, but not much. That spot on the bill is his natural (admittedly weird) coloration. Well done!

[Grace Scalzo]

Henry, What I see in that histogram is the mid tone blue water and black duck on the left hand side. I don't want to make him brown when he's black in real life. Educate me as to where the flaw in my understanding lies.

[David Salem]

Very nice capture Grace. I like the pose with a nice wing position and a great look at those bright feet. The blacks look good on my calibrated monitor and there is beautiful detail in the wing.
I got my first shots of this species this year. We don't see them here to often. Well done.

[Iain Barker]

Perfectly captured Grace. I love the light on the bird it really shows off the detail.
Well done.
Iain


Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

[Sidharth Kodikal]

Super image, Grace. Not too many of these in flight that I've seen posted. Love the waves in the bg.
The sheen and details in the blacks looks excellent on my monitor. There are some shadows but that's natural.
Sure, one could process per the histogram and make every shot look like it was take in peak noon light.
As long as there's no clipping on either side, I prefer to keep an image faithful to the original scene and it looks like you've done just that.

[Henry Domke]

Henry, What I see in that histogram is the mid tone blue water and black duck on the left hand side. I don't want to make him brown when he's black in real life. Educate me as to where the flaw in my understanding lies.
I agree that the bird needs to stay very dark, but there is detail that can be pulled out of the darkest shadows. That detail would be most important if you printed this image.
I've reworked the image to show you what I mean.
137343

[Arthur Morris]

137337
If you look at the histogram of your image you can see that it is extremely dark.
You might try seeing if you can bring out more shadow detail by moving the white point to the left with a Levels Adjustment Layer in Photoshop.

There is a very dark area on the beak. What is that?

Hi Henry, Thanks for posting the perfect example of a lying histogram. It is a concept that I teach regularly on IPTs. The WHITEs on the head are perfectly exposed. But they are NOT seen on the histogram as there is so little data. Had Grace gone even 1/3 stop lighter it is likely that she would have at worst had blinkies on the subject, or at best, detail-less WHITEs. So thanks a stack--even though you are wrong here you provided material for a great lesson.

[Arthur Morris]

I agree that the bird needs to stay very dark, but there is detail that can be pulled out of the darkest shadows. That detail would be most important if you printed this image.
I've reworked the image to show you what I mean.
137343


Henry, Thanks for the repost. Your version is way over-done. The BLACKs look noisy now, the WHITEs are too bright, and there is a magenta cast. The bird's face in particular looks absolutely grungy because you have over-lightened it.

[Arthur Morris]

I like the image Grace. I wish only for a bit more of a downstroke pose. Where--Shinnecock?

[Shawn Zierman]

Rich image. I totally dig it. Sharp results with that much focal length and having to track a fast moving duck like this...impressive. The water is nicely toned and patterned.

[Grace Scalzo]

Thanks to Henry and Artie for elaborating on my question in Pane 4. For web purposes, I stand by my original post, but I think that Henry may have a point regarding printing ....a subject that I do not know much about. I have printed birds with deep blacks in them (BB Plovers, for example) and you do have to be careful or the blacks just end up looking like a blob. So I'm asking ... is there a way to address the neck area for printing. (Not that I plan to print this, but just for future edification). I think Henry's repost goes too far and as Artie pointed out introduces a bunch of noise and color cast. Again, I think you both for taking the time to help me learn.

Artie, agree with you on wing position...not quite perfect, but my closest to date in a flying scoter. Yes, Shinnecock Jetty, west side. Going back later today as we have bright overcase conditions which should be perfect. Winds are SE though, so might be wasting gas.

[Henry Domke]

Henry, Thanks for the repost. Your version is way over-done. The BLACKs look noisy now, the WHITEs are too bright, and there is a magenta cast. The bird's face in particular looks absolutely grungy because you have over-lightened it.
Thanks Artie. I keep trying to learn and you keep helping. I appreciate it!

[Diane Miller]

When you print, you need to soft-proof for the paper to be used. (View > Proof Setup.) Different papers will hold detail very differently, especially for dark tones, and they will need to be optimized for the paper to be used (or the most optimal paper for the image found).

If I need to recover detail in darks without impacting whites, I go back to the RAW file (in LR / ACR) where I have a lot of leeway for bringing out detail in both. In the most extreme case you can composite two different RAW files in PS, but that is hardly necessary with the new algorithms in LR 4 or PS CS 6 or later. Once you have rasterized a file by opening it in PS, the tonal detail that can be brought out in darks or lights are much more limited than in the RAW file. Of course there are limitations to what you can bring out in darks without bringing out noise.

I'm curious as to the RAW processing here -- it's a wonderful flight image but the highlights in the water look gray.

[Diane Miller]

Henry's repost does not have an embedded profile, which can make it look really bad with a browser like Internet Explorer. With Firefox set for full color management, which assumes a non-tagged image is in sRGB color space (the most likely scenario) there is only a very subtle difference in Henry's RP over the OP (which is in sRGB and tagged).

How do I know that? Because I have PS set up to tell me when I open an image that doesn't match my working space (Edit > Color Settings). When I want to compare two versions of a post I will often open both in PS and layer them (or stack the windows) so I can easily click back and forth to really see the differences.

See my tutorial in a sticky in ETL on seeing colors properly on the web and posting images that will show correctly to the largest audience.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/115811-Seeing-Images-Properly-Web-Color-Management-and-Monitor-Calibration

[Grace Scalzo]

Diane, Late afternoon light hitting calm water made it the color that you see. the bluer part of the water was moving - it's an inlet between two spines. (jetties)

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Artie. I keep trying to learn and you keep helping. I appreciate it!

YAW Henry. And thank you for being open :)