Northern Flicker - Discussion on brightness and histogram

[arash_hazeghi]

Northern Flicker photographed last month in Victoria. I had to compress this file quite a bit to post here so I encourage you to see the large size (best viewed on a 4K screen) by clicking on the link below

https://ari1982.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Avian/Woodpeckers/Northern-Flicker-/i-dRhzLcD/O

167122

5DMK4, 400DO II + 1.4X III. ISO 1600. f/5.6 at 1/800sec hand held from blind processed with DPP 4.5

[Brian Desjardins]

Hi Arash, what a beautiful shot, great details and lighting. I was just outside shooting a few of these birds, love them in flight the red/orange colors in there wings is something to be seen. I also like the set you posted on your site, the one with his tongue sticking out and what looks like a Dark-eyed Junco above him is just awesome. TFS!


Brian.

[Nikhil Patwardhan]

Nice to see plenty details in the bird in the 4k version. The highlights are a little too bright for me, also the top left corner looks a bit too hot. Just out of curiosity, did you use flash on this? Asking because looking at the 4k version there are many small highlights in the moss on the tree.

[Isaac Grant]

Just beautiful Arash. Hard to get any better details on one of these birds. Fantastic perch against a perfect background. Its funny cause we have so many flickers but they are always hard to approach and even though I know where they nest and see them all the time I never have good opportunities to get pics of them. Was this from a blind?

Also could you help me with something please. Your tree trunk is thicker on the bottom than on top. I would be tempted to try and straighten it so it is vertical. But then the bird would be leaning back more I guess. Could you explain the reasoning behind leaving it like this. Thanks and always appreciate the information and help.

[arash_hazeghi]

Nice to see plenty details in the bird in the 4k version. The highlights are a little too bright for me, also the top left corner looks a bit too hot. Just out of curiosity, did you use flash on this? Asking because looking at the 4k version there are many small highlights in the moss on the tree.

Thanks for comments Nikhil, the small white seeds (they are not highlights) are woodpecker meal. I did not use flash. the highlights look good on my screen, I don't see any hot spots.

best

[arash_hazeghi]

Just beautiful Arash. Hard to get any better details on one of these birds. Fantastic perch against a perfect background. Its funny cause we have so many flickers but they are always hard to approach and even though I know where they nest and see them all the time I never have good opportunities to get pics of them. Was this from a blind?

Also could you help me with something please. Your tree trunk is thicker on the bottom than on top. I would be tempted to try and straighten it so it is vertical. But then the bird would be leaning back more I guess. Could you explain the reasoning behind leaving it like this. Thanks and always appreciate the information and help.

Hi Issac, yes this was from a blind. Perch is not a tree but it is a part of a branch that was placed near the feeder. The perch was not straight otherwise you won't see the tail of the flicker much, you have to place it at an angle.

[Stu Bowie]

Hi Ari, Excellent IQ, and I like the pose. Overall, tack sharp, and the detail and colours show up so well. Killer smooth BG too.

[David Salem]

Looks like you got some time in Tim's blind on your trip. Awesome looking frame!! The 4K version almost cut me it's so sharp :) Not sure where it looks to bright?? It looks good to me. Well done

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hey Arash lovely frame , all looks very good to me . Killer pose , crop and BG .
Overall the image does look a bit too bright on my calibrated Eizo CG screen , so i agree with Nikhil.
The histogram shows clipping in all three channel .
Might be down do the low res file .
Great work Arash
TFS Andreas

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks Andreas but it doesn't look too bright On my calibrated NEC so this might be one of those screen differences. It looks just perfect on my screen and close to what I saw there from the blind.
I also checked the histogram I looks OK with the brightest whites at ~225 level. The morning sun and the BG being in the shade created this effect



167181

[Jonathan Ashton]

Excellent Arash love it! I too think the brightest highlights are a little bright from a visual point of view, I fully accept the technically they are fine. I have applied a luminosity mask and lowered the brightest elements just a bit and to my eye it looks even better, I suspect you disagree but I think it is worth having a quick look see?? WDYT??

[Andreas Liedmann]

Thanks Arash agree with you regarding there are differences between monitors even if hardware calibrated . And sometimes brightness might be perceptual .

Here a screen grab that i took in PS ......as your screen grab shows the warning sign. As from my knowledge you have to update the histogram ???? I might be wrong , i am open to learn .

Cheers Andreas

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks guys but I respectfully disagree that this image is too bright, I just looked at it on a different monitor and the brightness looks exactly where I want it to be. Beyond that it is a matter for monitor differences and perception.

Thanks again

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks Arash agree with you regarding there are differences between monitors even if hardware calibrated . And sometimes brightness might be perceptual .

Here a screen grab that i took in PS ......as your screen grab shows the warning sign. As from my knowledge you have to update the histogram ???? I might be wrong , i am open to learn .

Cheers Andreas

Hi Andreas, you are quite right that you have to press the warning icon to refresh, I overlooked this. The histogram I attached was cached from the file that was already open in PS (16Bit TIFF), when I convert it to JPEG the image gets compressed so the histogram loses its full bandwidth. (truncation error) and appears clipped on both sides, however this doesn't mean overexposed or underexposed pixels it just means that the image's dynamic range is more than the 8Bit JPEG sRGB space. There is nothing you can do about it

To detect over exposure I do this

Use the eye dropper tool (5x5 average) and move over suspect areas, if the values are >245~250 it usually means overexposure, but here if you look at the highlights it's only ~225 ( unless there is an area I missed).

Best

[Andreas Liedmann]

Well Arash i am fully ok if you are happy with it , your call.
I just want to know your opinion regarding " my histogram " , just for the sake of interest .As i said i am open to learn wether there is clipping or not ?

Cheers Andreas

[Andreas Liedmann]

Sorry Arash double question ....:w3... thanks for the additional info , i do work exactly the same with the eyedropper .
Just wondering if i downsize my images i " normally "do have no clipped histogram .
Andreas

[arash_hazeghi]

your histogram is correct and shows clipping but the clipping is not from exposure. Let me see if I can explain it better

I had an image in Adobe RGB space, 16Bit TIFF that was very rich in tones, it has very dark and very bright tones. The histogram was healthy and looks like pane #10

now I convert to sRGB 8Bit JPEG, what happens? the answer is some of the colors that were in the original no longer exist in sRGB. e.g. Adobe RGB (0,220,0) is NOT overexposed but this color does not exist in sRGB, so it gets translated to (0,255,0) sRGB as shown below. now it is looks clipped but the original was OK. In this case I would just look at the image and see if I am happy with how it looks as opposed to rely on the histogram. the histogram will look clipped because the color gamut is too wide for sRGB. If you go to the original and compress the color gamut you can prevent the clipping but the image loses its true colors, punch and appeal.

the diagram below shows this graphically. does that make sense?




167192

[Jonathan Ashton]

Arash I don't want to nit pick and I appreciate you have a fine image, the TIFF as you indicate and as I suspected was spot on (I saw the !) but am I right in that you concede the jpeg is clipped?
The reason I ask is two fold, the first being that we are looking at the jpeg not the TIFF, the second being that I have also encountered this phenomenon, and when it occurs to me I check the histogram on the jpeg and if necessary go back to the TIFF to lower the brightest elements... I have to admit that more often than not I do not check the jpeg I assume the TIFF was OK so the jpeg would be.

Just seen pane 18 - yes I understand

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Jon,

yes, I agree the JPEG histogram is clipped on both ends but IMO it does not mean the image was over exposed or it is too bright as I explained in pane #17 (RGB truncation or tone compression). I usually do not rely on histogram to tell if the JPEG is good or not, I just go by the looking at it on my monitor and see if it looks good to me or not. I sometimes use the eye dropper tool as well. My goal is to make it closest to what I saw in the field but that is subjective and also depends on the monitor, I use Mac Pro with NEC 32"4K LED calibrated to Mac native gamut and PhotoPro RGB.


best

[Andreas Liedmann]

I understand your point and for sure agree with your explanation .
Maybe it is the downsizing method that causes this ... i do not know .

I work from 16 bit ( Pro Photo ) PSD from C1 or from 16 Bit ( wide Gamut ) Tif from DPP .
Once finished with PS work i downsize with a script someone has created or go via File - Automate - Fit Image to get the desired output size .
And as stated before i do not have that " issue " with the clipped histogram , only if the PSD/TIF is borderline on both ends i might get that .

Cheers Andreas

[arash_hazeghi]

Sounds good Andreas, once again I wanted to say I appreciate everyone giving their honest opinion. It is very productive and also a wealth of information for our readers. Unlike other sites that just say "great shot" to whatever users post here we scrutinize the details and hit all the points and honestly that's the only way we all improve.

I'll make this one a sticky for a while so other members can skim through

best

[Joe Subolefsky]

Beautful image and very informational read as well. TFS

[Daniel Cadieux]

Lots of good stuff in here!

[Doug Brown]

I'm not seeing any areas of overexposure on my calibrated MacBook Pro retina display. And the histogram looks fine too.

167239

[Jonathan Ashton]

I'm not seeing any areas of overexposure on my calibrated MacBook Pro retina display. And the histogram looks fine too.

167239

Doug there is an ! so the histogram isn't quite accurate. I may be wrong but I think the folks with pro retina displays will see things slightly differently to those with other monitors.

[arash_hazeghi]

That's actually not true, retina is the same as other displays (if calibrated properly) it just has more pixels. The NEC 4K monitor that I use has about the same DPI as a retina screen. Images look crisper and more detailed on high dpi or retina-class displays but the colors/brightness/contrast will be identical.

[Jonathan Ashton]

That's actually not true, retina is the same as other displays (if calibrated properly) it just has more pixels. The NEC 4K monitor that I use has about the same DPI as a retina screen. Images look crisper and more detailed on high dpi or retina-class displays but the colors/brightness/contrast will be identical.

That's fine by me, I was just quoting PhotoPlus magazine (December2016)

[Glenn Conlan]

The high res version is remarkable, great work Arash

[Stuart Philpott]

Fantastic work as always Arash,but further here, i'd like to thank all parties for the debates following incredibly interesting to read and a joy to see the" spirit" it has been debated in

Stu

[Arthur Morris]

Arash, You are one smart dude :) Thanks for this post and your replies.


with love, a