Guianan cock-of-the-rock round two

[Ivan Sjogren]

Another one on the same perch. It is not always that you see the bill on these birds so I’m starting to prefer this pose. The head still intersects with the perch but maybe in a bit less distracting way. I toned down the dry branch in the bottom but by adding more room to the right I included a oof branch, distracting or complimenting? Do the colors look better on this one? Problems raised by Arthur on the previous post. Again, all comments welcome! I appreciate every suggestion

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV | 500mm f/4 IS L USM II | ISO 800 | f/5.6 | 1/40s | Processed in Lightroom and Photoshop CC

[gail bisson]

Way better for 2 reasons- the branch doesn't intersect with the head as much and I love seeing the bill and the feet
OOF branch is not ideal but not an image killer. It would be tricky to clone it out but doable if you have the skills and the desire.
What a great bird!
I am still hoping you post a pic of the scary bridge!
Gail

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Beautiful bird. I think this image is better than the previous one because of the above points.

If you have the time you can try to clone the out of focus branch. It will improve the image.

TFS

[Mike Poole]

Nicer than the last Ivan, the branch intersecting the head is unfortunate but it is what it is. I do think the lower right branch could take a little gardening, just 2 minutes with the patch tool and a little gentle cloning to tidy up works for me

180005

Mike

[Bill Dix]

What a bird! Love seeing the bill and feet. The intersecting branch is what it is. Mike's repost shows some cloning/patching artifacts, but gives an idea what might be done to remove the oof branch. Worth another go. Color looks good to me but I've not (yet:S3:) seen the bird IRL.

[Isaac Grant]

Such a cool bird. This one I have never seen. I have seen many Andeans but never Guianan. One day. You have excellent details and love the raised crest. For me this image is not processed as well as it could be. These low light files are very hard. If not done optimally then you wind up looking a bit like you are looking through a dirty windy and everything in the image is a bit thin. You have to build these back up some and add some blacks and contrast to get them looking a bit more 3 dimensional. Easy fix would be to go to IMAGE > ADJUSTMENTS > CURVES > LINEAR CONTRAST and right away you will see the image have a bit more depth to it. I would play from there and see if you can up the blacks a bit more either with levels or selective color and see if you can really make this one sing. Your repost looks better with the branch cloned out.

[John Mack]

The side view of this is very neat. Love the hair do. That big branch is still an issue for me though. Nice and sharp.

[Arthur Morris]

Great repost by Mikey. As I will never see this bird in life I will quit commenting on the color and the detail-less enamel look. And yes, this one is much better than the first post.

Mikey: what tools did you use to lose the big branch?

Isaac: what is a "dirty windy"?

with love, artie

[Mike Poole]

Great repost by Mikey. As I will never see this bird in life I will quit commenting on the color and the detail-less enamel look. And yes, this one is much better than the first post.

Mikey: what tools did you use to lose the big branch?

Isaac: what is a "dirty windy"?

with love, artieHi Artie,

Patch tool used to lose the branch then the clone tool with a soft brush at about 20% opacity to beaten up the area

Mike

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Isaac Grant]

a dirty windy is a typo. Should have said dirty window.

[Ivan Sjogren]

Such a cool bird. This one I have never seen. I have seen many Andeans but never Guianan. One day. You have excellent details and love the raised crest. For me this image is not processed as well as it could be. These low light files are very hard. If not done optimally then you wind up looking a bit like you are looking through a dirty windy and everything in the image is a bit thin. You have to build these back up some and add some blacks and contrast to get them looking a bit more 3 dimensional. Easy fix would be to go to IMAGE > ADJUSTMENTS > CURVES > LINEAR CONTRAST and right away you will see the image have a bit more depth to it. I would play from there and see if you can up the blacks a bit more either with levels or selective color and see if you can really make this one sing. Your repost looks better with the branch cloned out.

Thank you very much for your suggestions Isaac, I'm learning a lot! I tried the linear contrast and the image indeed got a small lift.

Thak you for the repost Mikey! Well done on the cloning. I see the advantages of removing it. Although such a large object is on the limit of what I'm comfotable of removing from a image so I think I will keep it in.

[arash_hazeghi]

pretty cool Ivan, in addition to cloning I'd tone down the red channel a bit to get more detail there, when you convert to JPEG the red channel often saturates because of JPEG compression looking a bit flat in terms of detail.

handsome and unique birds, wish to see one up close some day!

TFS

[arash_hazeghi]

Great repost by Mikey. As I will never see this bird in life I will quit commenting on the color and the detail-less enamel look. And yes, this one is much better than the first post.

Mikey: what tools did you use to lose the big branch?

Isaac: what is a "dirty windy"?

with love, artie

Hey Artie, you are correct re. detail-less enamel look. that due to the blown red channel as seen below

180036

[Ivan Sjogren]

Hey Artie, you are correct re. detail-less enamel look. that due to the blown red channel as seen below


Thank you Arash! In the TIFF the reds are not blown but also look very different from the JPEG presented here. I never worked with a file that looks so different after conversion. When I convert to JPEG and sRGB the reds/orange indeed jumps and gets very saturated as well as lose detail. I can't regain that feather detail by toning down the reds as the detail is already gone and smoothed out. Is there a better way to convert to sRGB without losing all that information and retaining the colors of the TIFF more accuretly? Now I just convert by using EDIT>CONVERT TO PROFILE


To Gail: I found a picture of the scary bridge!