Handlebar mustache... GBH style...

[David Roach]

EOS R EF400DO I f5.6 1/640 ISO 2000

[Arthur Morris]

As far as EXP, HA, and image design, this is top notch.

with love, artie

[David Roach]

As far as EXP, HS, and image design this is top notch.

with love, artie

What is HS and thanks for.comment?

[Arthur Morris]

What is HS and thanks for.comment?

YAW. HS is a typo for HA. The s is right next to the a on my keyboard :( I will fix it now.

with love, artie

[David Roach]

YAW. HS is a typo for HA. The s is right next to the a on my keyboard :( I will fix it now.

with love, artie

Been there, done that. I'll stop racking my brain now.
Peace
David

[John Mack]

This is one of your best portraits yet. Really like the curled up plume.

[gail bisson]

Well done David. One of your best posts . Do you have a bit more room on the RHS?
Gail

[Dorian Anderson]

This looks really good David. Sharpness is almost perfect but still very good; the feather detail on the head is a bit smooth, but I don't know what to expect from the R since I've never used it and not seen many sots out of it. The soft color palette is very nice as well. Agree with a bit more at right.

[Isaac Grant]

I like the crop here and the curled plumes. However, I am going to be the odd man out on this one, very far out. Details look just OK to me, and not great at all. As Dorian mentioned the feather details on the head almost non existent, the throat looks way too smooth as well. On these tight shots I think you really need some eye contact and this bird is almost perpendicular to the camera so it is lacking there as well. Image quality is not great either. On a tight shot like this you should be able to see every bit of feather details on the wings of the bird and this birds wings just look kind of muddy to me. For me this would be a delete.

[arash_hazeghi]

I agree with Isaac, this image is lacking the fine details that you would expect to see from such a close up on a GBH. I immediately noticed it. I am not sure if it is from the processing or the focus that wasn't quite tack sharp.

TFS

[David Roach]

Thanks as always, for comments, suggestions and discussions. It was just after the sun set on a thinly clouded horizon, when I created this image. Very soft light against a very light sky. You are correct in that I didn't boost contrast, with curves, as much as usual because I liked the softer feel (Dorian mentioned it) of the entire image. The previous posted GBH (different place, different light) entitled "first light" was taken a little closer just as a very golden sun with no clouds hit the face full on. In addition, I was off the sun angle on that one and the subject was looking almost directly into light. Lots of strong golden directional light (and slightly off angle) and thus shadows to show details in the white. I like them both for different reasons. I am far from an expert and would love your take, but I believe the main difference is simply the type of light and thus shadow for contrast. Nothing to do with the equipment.

[Isaac Grant]

The lack of fine feather details typically come from improper exposure, motion blur, not obtaining sharp focus or improper processing. You can have a highly detailed image in completely flat light. I will post a photo for this months theme of a Great Blue that was taken in the rain and very low light which shows plenty of fine feather details but no shadows.

[Arthur Morris]

David, Isaac, Arash, et. al.,

I agree that as on many of David's images there is a lack of FFD particularly on the grey throat feathers. We have seen this many times before. The eye looks very sharp to me so I doubt that focusing accuracy is the problem. I would look either at the camera or the processing. Like Isaac, I do not believe that the quality of the light has anything to go with it. If you would like to e-mail me the RAW for this one I'd be glad to try and help. Please use a larger file sharing program like Hightail. I am pretty sure that Arash would not mind taking a look at it either.

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

ps to Isaac and others who mention eye contact ... I have no clue as to what everyone means by eye contact. If the bird turned its head toward us one or two degrees more it would still be looking at the same thing. At times, when the bird is looking forward, the pupil may be well forward in the iris but that is not the case here. In short, I do not see how this or similar images could show any more "eye contact" (whatever that is ...)

with love, artie

[arash_hazeghi]

Yes send me the RAW I will look at it.

I have never tried the EOSR so I have no idea what its files look like

[David Roach]

Went back to raw and did normal contrast boost and lowered suggested noise sliders (were at 6 and 8) to 3 and 4 in DPP. Also added room to right. Thanks as always for comments, suggestions and discussions.

[Isaac Grant]

Very often birds heads will be angled a few degrees towards you and they will actually be looking at you as opposed to looking away or even worse angled away.

[arash_hazeghi]

repost much better but still not there

Do you have the DPP4 guide and the PP guide?

[Arthur Morris]

Very often birds heads will be angled a few degrees towards you and they will actually be looking at you as opposed to looking away or even worse angled away.

Still don't get it. And I was the first person on the planet to mention that a 2-3 degree head turn toward us is often better :)

with love, arite

[Arthur Morris]

Neck feathers look sharper. I was fine with the original framing.

with love, arite

[David Roach]

Thanks once again for looking and for all your inputs. Just for further clarification, this image was not a closeup portrait. It was cropped from a frame that had two complete herons and lots of room/branches around them. My other GBH on this page was taken from a portrait type distance. That's why the body is completely OOF in that one. You can almost assume most errors are mine and in PP. Yes, Arash, I have Your's and Artie's excellent guides and have not yet gotten into them in detail. Just enough to setup and do minimum processing. In fact, the previous noise settings in DPP were using your chart for the 5DmkIV. Sometimes, I find them too aggressive for the EOS R and I don't yet have anywhere near your skills to create a chart for the EOS R. I did change the sharpness to 2 from the 3 suggested in your guide for 5DmkIV given input from a very in depth and technical review of the EOS R I read before the purchase. Also, as I stated earlier, I did not apply the full curves adjustment to boost contrast for the 400DO because I liked the soft feeling. And Isaac, my comment on the light has to do with the whites. I still believe light and it's directionality and hue do make a difference to FFD. Every day, even in the same spot at the same time has very different light and affects perception of depth and detail. I am certain I will improve further next time due to all of your valuable inputs. Thanks again.