Hoopoe

[Brutus Ostling]

Hoopoe in Hungary, found by Csaba. Thanks Csaba. I was there first time three years ago, getting too little, it was too late, already June and it was awful, 40 degrees outside the hide. And I don't think nobody had been there since that when I went there in April, visiting Bence Mate 60 km further south west. Csaba helped me and let me use his low budget hide, which had been in his garage collecting dust the last years, but a good hide.

[Juan Aragonés]

Nice light and backgrond Brutus. I like the pose and the insect in the bill, a nice bonus to the image. My monitor is not calibrated so I am not sure but some areas in the crest looks hot but the light coming through the feathers is really sweet. thanks for posting:)

[Manos Papadomanolakis]

What a great backlight!!!
Nice colors and timing Brutus,thanks for sharing!

[Brutus Ostling]

Hi Juan,

I don't know exactly what you mean. But I have also shopped the photo on my laptop with a bad screen. I have lightened the midtones on the bird a bit and may have done it too much, is that what you mean?

Brutus

I am gonna look at it if I'll use it.

[Gyorgy Szimuly]

Nice backlight :) Love the details on the head.

Szimi

[Juan Aragonés]

Hi Juan,

I don't know exactly what you mean. But I have also shopped the photo on my laptop with a bad screen. I have lightened the midtones on the bird a bit and may have done it too much, is that what you mean?

Brutus

I am gonna look at it if I'll use it.

Hi Brutus. I checked your image in CS2 and the whites are hot or overexposed as you can see in the attached file (see de areas encircled with red line). You have a good amount of points in the level 255 and that means that the whites are clipped or burned. I am sure that you use RAW and there is some room to try to fix this common problem. I suggest to open a copy of the raw with the same setting of the one you have posted here (let´s call version 1) and open another copy of the RAW file but underexposing enough as to have a better result of the whites (let´s call version 2). Copy and paste the version 1 as a new layer over the versíon 2. Choose a soft brush in erase mode to work on the layer containing the version 1 and to delete the white, hot, areas. This way, the white areas on the version 2 correctly exposed will be visible. It may seems a bit complex but is really easy. If you post a jpeg with a underexposed version of the hoopoe it would be a pleasure to show you how can I fix the problem.
In an image like this one I would work on three different versions of the original RAW fiole, one exposed for the midtones, one for the whites and a third one for the darker tones. It is the best way to optimize the amount of information recordered by the sensor, it is like a kind of High Dynamic Range method used for landscapes.
Hope this helps :)

[Brutus Ostling]

Thanks. The burnt out highlight areas get much worser when I downsize the image for internet here. That is because I have to sharpen it while downsizing - therwise a sharp image will look terribly unsharp. And the shartpening has that effect of both burning out and darkening the opposite areas. The original is no problem and the much smaller burn outs in the highlight area is much easier to cope with. Besdes Arties way of rescuing these highlights it seems like you had even another merthod - thank you very much. I will try to follow your guide lines.;)

There i a small burnt out area in the RAW-file, but in these situations you have to make a choise. If I don't burn out it just a little bit in very small areas I will get a much too dark bird, and then I will get noise when I make the bird brighter. And a very little burntout will work very good in printing (probably you have to get 3-4 % added so you will get printing dots in the burnt out arera, and not just totally white.

[Milan V]

Great catch with such light on the crest!
Best!

[Juan Aragonés]

The burnt out highlight areas get much worser when I downsize the image for internet here... ...dots in the burnt out arera, and not just totally white.

Hi Brutus, I totally agree with you. Fortunately the RAW files allow us a lot of possibilities in the field of whites rescue. I strongly encourage you to use my method because it really works. The key step to obtain a nice result when appying the method I suggest to your hoopoe image is to made an accurate selction (with masks) of the areas to be deleted. Please, have a look on the following thread ( http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11412 ) where you will find detailed information (and screen captures) about my method and how does it works. And feel free to ask if you need anything :)

Juan

[Sebastian Erras]

What a great image.

I love those kinds of images with backlight!

I don´t really understand why there has to be structure in every part of the picture??
It is a backlight pic and I personally don´t see any need to change the "burned-out" areas!

Sebastian

[Jan Bleil]

A wonderful picture!

[Juan Aragonés]

What a great image.

I love those kinds of images with backlight!

I don´t really understand why there has to be structure in every part of the picture??
It is a backlight pic and I personally don´t see any need to change the "burned-out" areas!

Sebastian

Good point Sebastian. As far as I know there is not an standard about the amount of hot areas that are acceptable on an image and I am sure that “acceptable “ is not the best word to be used here. I think that the most details you have in an image the better the result, of course considering that you are not looking for a high key image, for example.

Today we have very powerfull tools to extract each byte of available information on a digital file so my question is why do not use it? If the camera sensor recorded information on that area why not to use it? The image of the hoopoe here is a very clear example of an image with a hot area IMO (a good amount of pixels in the 255 level). This is the objective fact and the subjective fact is how much we like this hot area (we have to consider the personal taste of each viewer, of course). I think that the hot area is, probably, due to the processing and that the camera sensor recorded more information. I like the area of the crest with the intense white light, and I like it a lot, in fact I think that this is one of the main points of interest in this image. In my opinion, a key element like this one should have more details and it deserves some postprocessing work to extract them.
Maybe I am wrong and I am very interested in hear other´s point of view on this interesting matter.:)

BTW I think that an image with hot areas can be valid as well, of course

[Brutus Ostling]

Good point Sebastian. As far as I know there is not an standard about the amount of hot areas that are acceptable on an image and I am sure that “acceptable “ is not the best word to be used here. I think that the most details you have in an image the better the result, of course considering that you are not looking for a high key image, for example.

Today we have very powerfull tools to extract each byte of available information on a digital file so my question is why do not use it? If the camera sensor recorded information on that area why not to use it? The image of the hoopoe here is a very clear example of an image with a hot area IMO (a good amount of pixels in the 255 level). This is the objective fact and the subjective fact is how much we like this hot area (we have to consider the personal taste of each viewer, of course). I think that the hot area is, probably, due to the processing and that the camera sensor recorded more information. I like the area of the crest with the intense white light, and I like it a lot, in fact I think that this is one of the main points of interest in this image. In my opinion, a key element like this one should have more details and it deserves some postprocessing work to extract them.
Maybe I am wrong and I am very interested in hear other´s point of view on this interesting matter.:)

BTW I think that an image with hot areas can be valid as well, of course

HI Juan,

if it goes to printing in a book I will see what can be saved, but I still think my file - before downsizng and sharpening - has a lot more info in the highlight areas. But as I said, to expose darker, that would have increased the level of noise in the darker area a little bit too much (because I have also to lighten those a little bit).

You have good suggestions. Thanks.

Brutus

[Sebastian Erras]

@ Juan

I understand your point and I´m also really gald that we have such powerful tools to improve our images, but sometimes i have the impression that it goes a little too far and that the original image loses its natural character.
But this does not apply to your post, just a general view on some things and I agree with you that there is room for little improvements in this picture.

Sebastian

[Juan Aragonés]

@ Juan

I understand your point and I´m also really gald that we have such powerful tools to improve our images, but sometimes i have the impression that it goes a little too far and that the original image loses its natural character.
But this does not apply to your post, just a general view on some things and I agree with you that there is room for little improvements in this picture.

Sebastian

Sebastian you are wellcome.:) One of the best things that I really like about BPN is the possibility of discussion about points of view in the photography field. I love to hear other´s opinion and discuss about different points of view. I think is the best way to improve my technique and to learn more about bird photography ;)
Juan

[Rosl Roessner]

This is a stunning, phantastic Image!
I did not see it before, so that's the reason for the late comment...

I love the light and the pose!