Little owl

[Steve Kaluski]

A blast from the past, but I have only just started to run through some of the last frames of my Little owls. Will they return this year, who knows, but all good fun either way.

Light is often of a premium with us across the pond, but no worries in having to use higher ISO for a decent SS. The 'bug' on the LHS can stay or go, WDYT? I'm easy on that. Stopping down even more may have reduced the highlights in the BKG, but how much I'm not sure?

Thanks to those who posted on viewed the previous frame 'bathing' Martial eagle.

Steve

Subject: Little owl (Athene noctua) on hay bale
Location: UK
Camera: Canon 1DX MKII
Lens: 500f/4 MKII with 2x MKIII HH
Exposure: 1/1000s at f/8 ISO5000 (yep ISO5000)
Original format: Portrait, slightl crop for presentation
Processed via: LRCC & PSCC2017

[Mike Poole]

Lovely detail as ever Steve, but the colours look very thin and the browns in particular are pale on this one.

Regarding the fly, it's a shame it wasn't on the side the owl was looking, and for me its an unnecessary distraction. Not sure that stopping down would have significantly altered the background highlights and improved them in any way.

Mike

[Alex Becker]

Hi Steve,

I agree with Mike re: the bug and also that the colors look a bit flat and could use more pop. Pretty great detail on this guy.

[Steve Kaluski]

Thanks Mike.


the colours look very thin and the browns in particular are pale on this one.

Owls do vary as individuals and age, plus light conditions etc. If everything else balances out colorwise then I'm OK, but agree some are much darker in plumage than others.


Not sure that stopping down would have significantly altered the background highlights and improved them in any way.

If I shot wide open the highlights would have been much more defined and sharper, going to perhaps f/14 they would have been even more softer I think, but here, no need for that. Artie wrote a good article sometime back on this.

Here's a fly on the RHS, LOL. :bg3:

[Isaac Grant]

I like this image very much. Image quality is great for ISO 5000. You guys are killing me with these 1dx ii shots and the performance at such high ISO's.

Agree the shot as presented is a bit flat. Did a quick version where I added a bit of contrast and saturation to the whole image. Then used detail extractor on the bird and sharpened a tiny bit to bring out some extra details. It might look a tad over sharpened now but going back like this never produces great results as compared to working on the original. My point in doing an edit was more to give the image a little more pop then to fix the sharpening. Then added some saturation and warmth to the background. Lightened the eye and added some saturation to it as well and then darkened the pupil. These high ISO situations typically leave the image looking a bit flat to my eyes and not how they seemed in real life and I think they require some extra processing than I would normally do to bring that pop back. Thoughts?

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Isaac, thanks for the RP.


You guys are killing me with these 1dx ii shots and the performance at such high ISO's.

With a better Dynamic range and well exposed images, high ISO isn't an issue and allows the capture. I always try to push the SS and if that means higher ISO then so be it, as I want sharp images.

We all see things differently and when output to print I'm OK as I said with the overall look & feel, which might be lost in a compressed sRGB JPEGs. If you are viewing in daylight, ambient light or on a laptop then it will change the appearance, as all my work is done in an area only lit by the monitors (with hoods) so I have no additional light affecting the image when viewed, which makes a difference IMHO. In my own WF I tend to address Contrast and rarely apply it, likewise Saturation as there are far better ways of handling Colour management, although I might add a tad of saturation if applicable, but it's more of a global effect rather than specific. DE is not something I use and will not, for me I just do not like what it does to the image, although it has it's Merits but not for me through personal choice, I can achieve the same if required.


These high ISO situations typically leave the image looking a bit flat to my eyes

Never found that, but I want my RAWs as dull as ditch water when I first start, with no pre fixed colour management.

Taking on board the above comments, I have upped the 'depth' to the subject and added a bit more pop to the BKG. Just remember, you want as much mid tone in an image as possible, that is where your detail is and I always tend to have my images more 'open' than others to retain the finer detail.:S3:

Thanks again, good to discuss.

Cheers
Steve

PS Minus bug :w3

[keith mitchell]

Steve your first repost looks about right for me and the fly looks good to me with the bird looking at it,they don't miss a thing,very nice job.

Keith.

[Steve Kaluski]

Cheers Keith.

[Stuart Philpott]

Steve desparately interesting read,thanks all parties. Lovely image, always that detail,repost with fly on right works ,but I guess I like au natural i'd actually keep rather than delete ,but appreciate the other side of this. Could you please point me towards the artical by artie,Steve this facet is completely new ,i'll dig myself anyway.

I'm unsure whom to ask ,but why is the owl of a much warmer colour, in Isaac's repost he mentions warming the bkg but not the bird,where in post did this happen?
Wonderful image cool debate

many thanks

Stu

[Steve Kaluski]

Article sent Stu.


I'm unsure whom to ask ,but why is the owl of a much warmer colour, in Isaac's repost he mentions warming the bkg but not the bird,where in post did this happen?

No idea Stu, perhaps it was the whole image, not just the backdrop, but he did apply Detail extractor which may have also altered the warmth?

[Isaac Grant]

I added a bit of saturation to the bird and the DE as well which as brought out additional colors. Warmth was specifically changed on background.

Steve, I still find your repost a bit flat. I use DE on some images at 25% opacity to bring out a bit of extra detail. It certainly can overcook things when done more than that. With regards to my repost really I did a quick work up that took maybe 1 minute. Did not experiment with the best means to get to the end, as I was just after adding a bit more pop to what seemed like an image that was a little too flat.

Interestingly, I have the opposite approach to my RAW files. My favorite time to shoot is early morning and late evening in direct sun. This results in warm and colorful RAW files that I often have to desaturate to present. The more light in the file the more information there is. In RAW conversion I will 99% of the time only touch the highlight and shadows and perhaps adjust the exposure down a bit. That is about it. I then import the bright and colorful TIFF to do additional work. Agree that there are many ways to get to the same goal at the end and love to see how others process their images. It is one of my favorite parts of this site.

[Steve Kaluski]

As I said Isaac, we will always see things differently, the main being the ambient light and how a monitor(s) are set-up. At the end of the day, it's the high res file that is paramount.


Interestingly, I have the opposite approach to my RAW files. My favorite time to shoot is early morning and late evening in direct sun. This results in warm and colorful RAW files that I often have to desaturate to present. The more light in the file the more information there is. In RAW conversion I will 99% of the time only touch the highlight and shadows and perhaps adjust the exposure down a bit. That is about it. I then import the bright and colorful TIFF to do additional work. Agree that there are many ways to get to the same goal at the end and love to see how others process their images. It is one of my favorite parts of this site.

Early morning and late afternoon are the key times for sure, what I am saying is I have things set to Neutral within the camera, plus after importing I will change things within the Colour management avoiding Saturated images because I feel it may impact on the overall output and my judgement. I do not want the camera to do the Colour work for me, so if it's flat & Dull, cool as I'm very conscious also of what some Convertors can do and how they affect Contrast within an image - the real killer to any detail. The real key is understanding where you want the image to look like at the end of the day and how to achieve that, however 'Less is more' IMHO to processing, as some folks throw everything at an image and it looses the essence of the original capture.

[Stuart Philpott]

Steve ,Isaac,many thanks both. Isaac the colour shift in the owl is what really grabbed me,cheers for the reply
Steve, thanks for my reading for later

take care both

Stu

[keith mitchell]

This is all very interesting and food for thought ! I am way behind you guys when it comes to the technical stuff but recon I know my owls and still think your first repost Steve is closer to a the natural colour of this Little Owl,even though Owls vary in colour and of course the light when the shot was taken,just my personal thoughts and I would be very pleased with it.

Keith.

[Steve Kaluski]

Keith, you just have to ask, i'm a phone call away. :S3: