Black-throated Green Warbler

[Bill Dix]

I didn't need to get down on my belly, but I was fortunate to coax this little warbler to an eye-level perch, in the dim light of the deep Maine Woods. I've broken one of my rules on this one (although I'll admit to have broken it before): that is, I've posted this at 1600px which shows the bird larger than his natural size of 5 inches. I'm curious to know what others think of showing a bird larger than life.

D500, 500f4 + 1.4 TC, ISO 2500, 1/500s @ f/7.1 manual. Cropped to about 80% of full width.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Hi Bill, beautiful bird but I do not think this larger size shows it well. Please read my most recent comment on the Greater Scaup post. I am interested if you still think it needs more sharpening.

[Isaac Grant]

Looks good to me Bill. Nice view of the Warbler in habitat. I would brighten the image a bit.

[Randy Stout]

Bill:

I am ok with the larger than life presentation, as the background keeps it in context for me.

I do agree with Joe, that the sharpening seems a bit off, some areas better than others, so possibly a bit of motion blur on the head.

The brightness of an image is always a tough call. On my monitor it looks appropriate for the setting, but agree with Issac that it might pop a bit more if a bit brighter.

I tend to have my monitor brightness quite low, and work in a very dim room when proofing.

Cheers

Randy

[John Mack]

Very nice really like all that green makes the yellow of the bird really stand out.

[David Salem]

Just started looking at images in the larger size and I really like it. Much more feather detail seen in these images. Looks pretty good to me and yes just a hair brighter. Well done

[Glenn Pure]

Bill, I enjoyed viewing this one a lot. But I like my small birds and don't mind viewing them larger than real life at all. In fact I enjoy the new perspective of seeing detail and features that might be much less apparent otherwise. I think you've done very well on this right down to the shadow on the throat which still has a nice bit of detail. Colours look very good and I like the setting although I could live without the OOF sprig in the lower left but no deal breaker either.

[Daniel Cadieux]

This individual has been through the rigors of breeding season judging form the worn plumage! I love the head angle, and the leg positions. Great evergreen habitat.

[Stu Bowie]

Hi Bill, super pose here, and nicely in the open of the upper BG. I like the feather detail, and the brightness looks fine with me.

[Geoffrey Montagu]

Beautiful capture Bill, but he's too large in post for my liking. Like his pose and lovely BG. Agree with Randy re the sharpening a bit off.

Geoffrey




https://500px.com/geoffreymontagu (https://500px.com/geoffreymontagu)

[Bill Dix]

Thank you all. Here's another case where the web-sized jpeg looks very sharp on my screen prior to posting, but not after I posted it. (See the Lincoln's Sparrow post.) In this repost I've sharpened past the point where it starts to look crunchy, so I'll see how it looks after posting.

ps. Based on the preview, the repost looks ok to me. Maybe just slightly over. So maybe the problem wasn't just with the Lincoln's Sparrow at 1200 px. Has anyone else experienced this problem recently?

And Geoffrey, I'm inclined to agree about the size.

[Glenn Pure]

Bill, the sharpening looks a bit much on the repost. The original was closer and I liked the look there (although a touch more sharpening of it would have been fine). I don't know why it looks different for you when posted. The cause might be different zoom levels on preview and web view. Are you viewing both at 100% (1 pixel on the image = 1 pixel on your screen). I think BPN will normal display the image at 100% when first opened. Viewing at 100% only reliable way to view an image. Anything else will look soft.

[Bill Dix]

Thanks Glenn. I agree that something in between the two would be better. I am viewing both at 100%, so I don't understand the cause.