Waxwing Poetic

[Brian Sump]

188007

Been on my shot list all summer. Have a few with dead perches, not ideal for me.

Was watching what I believed to be a juvenile Indigo Bunting with this one perched atop a leafy crest in the tree next to me.

My main wish is there was some green in the background to break up the neutrals. What say you?

D850
600mm+1.4x
Handheld
ISO 1000
1/3200
f5.6

LR and PS. No cloning other than spot healed a couple small dead dots on the leaves.

[David Roach]

Me thinks it's sweet perfection. Nothing like a neutral and uniform BG to make a subject pop. TFS

ps
Always love your titles, but the canvas always takes it further...

[Joseph Przybyla]

Hi Brian, really nice image of a Cedar Waxwing. In answer to your question... nope. The color of the background compliments the color of the bird. There is green in the leaves, a green background would take away from the leaves that stand out now. I do think your blacks are heavy, if mine I would back them off while looking at the image. Other than that a wonderful image, thank you for sharing.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Brian, one of the nicest Waxwing I have seen posted here. Cool details with a killer background, is this a set-up in the garden?

I think you can get more from within the eye and surround, good to see you being mindful of both Contrast & blacks. Just a thought, but getting more separation brings out more in what you captured rather than than being bathed in a warm yellow/orange, but just an optional thought.

Nice work, looks like you are nailing things very well now. :cheers:

TFS
Steve

[annmpacheco]

lovely Brian. Nice subtle details on those very smooth feathers. I like your square crop. If you did have room, I'd like to see the bird to the left w room to the right. Neutral bg works well here against the prominent greens. Its a very nice frame.

[Geoffrey Montagu]

Very nice calling pose, Brian. Like the perch, and beautiful complimentary background. I also like Steve's repost, but of course it's a subjective thing. Good detail as well.


Geoffrey




http://500px.com/geoffreymontagu

[Brian Sump]

David - always thankful for your comments

Joe - great thoughts and point noted on the blacks. Actually lifted them some from the raw file, but might could use some more. Always try to keep blacks black and whites white without creating an image that is thin in depth.

Steve - thanks for the kind words and the shot at repost. I like yours as well, but something that was important to me was to remember this shot as a snapshot into the events in our state; that being the worst wildfires we've ever had. There is so much smoke/haze in the sky that many shots ended up with a strong yellow and pink hue. The bkg color in your repost is a nice version however the mountain I shot against is all beige and some greens as it consists of wild grass, sage and some red rock formations. I find the bird a bit more desaturated and 'thin' but I can see why the WB dropper might correct as it did. Your points are well noted.

Ann - thank you for your critique! Chose the crop here based on how the leaves fit the frame and stopped with margin on both ends while still keep the bird left of center. Can certainly see a version with bird left more too.

Geoffrey - appreciate your comments!

[Brian Sump]

188016

.....

Here is a version with blacks lifted more, subject position more left in frame and a touch reduction on yellow.

[Dorian Anderson]

Excellent view of a bird that has eluded my lens to date. I agree with others about the BG; it's awesome as it. Details look great, and the calling pose is really engaging. My only issue is the crop. It's caught in-between standards for reasons which aren't clear to me. I only deviate from 1.5 x 1 for horizontals and 4 x 5 for verticals if I have a very specific reason. I'd love to see the full frame to see what you have omitted.

[John Mack]

It's a beauty. I would take any of these frames. Love those leaves. The calling pose and that killer background.

[Brian Sump]

Excellent view of a bird that has eluded my lens to date. I agree with others about the BG; it's awesome as it. Details look great, and the calling pose is really engaging. My only issue is the crop. It's caught in-between standards for reasons which aren't clear to me. I only deviate from 1.5 x 1 for horizontals and 4 x 5 for verticals if I have a very specific reason. I'd love to see the full frame to see what you have omitted.

Dorian, thanks for the compliments.

Guess I'm not sure what standards you mean? I always thought cropping was a blend of creative expression and framing the subject and surroundings in the most suitable way to the eye. With exception of commissioned or contracted work. Care to elaborate?

Rather than ad extra margin that makes the subject appear too small or too large I chose this.

[Brian Sump]

It's a beauty. I would take any of these frames. Love those leaves. The calling pose and that killer background.

Thanks a bunch John!

[Dorian Anderson]

Cropping is obviously personal preference and another avenue for creativity, but there's a reason - to me, at least - why most landscape/horizontals are presented as 3 x 2 format: it's the ratio on the sensor and through the viewfinder. It is also very visually pleasing to most. I don't see a reason to deviate from that standard unless there's a very specific purpose, like my wide-angle sandpiper conceived around the negative space. That shot would suck without the exaggerated crop; the frame is more about the crop than the subject in that respect. The subject is hella boring on its own. I think you're beautiful subject and perch would be equally strong in a standard 3 x 2 crop, so I don't see a reason to deviate from it. I'm also curious how yours would look asa proper 4x5 vertical. That crop as is feels like you can't make up your mind between a horizontal and a vertical. No one says you have to chose one or the other, I just find intermediates suggest indecision on the part of the photographer/editor. Unless, again, there's a very specific reason to deviate.

Also, square shots are the thing ever in my mind, so any crop that leans in that direction gets my hackles up!


Dorian, thanks for the compliments.

Guess I'm not sure what standards you mean? I always thought cropping was a blend of creative expression and framing the subject and surroundings in the most suitable way to the eye. With exception of commissioned or contracted work. Care to elaborate?

Rather than ad extra margin that makes the subject appear too small or too large I chose this.

[Brian Sump]

Cropping is obviously personal preference and another avenue for creativity, but there's a reason - to me, at least - why most landscape/horizontals are presented as 3 x 2 format: it's the ratio on the sensor and through the viewfinder. It is also very visually pleasing to most. I don't see a reason to deviate from that standard unless there's a very specific purpose, like my wide-angle sandpiper conceived around the negative space. That shot would suck without the exaggerated crop; the frame is more about the crop than the subject in that respect. The subject is hella boring on its own. I think you're beautiful subject and perch would be equally strong in a standard 3 x 2 crop, so I don't see a reason to deviate from it. I'm also curious how yours would look asa proper 4x5 vertical. That crop as is feels like you can't make up your mind between a horizontal and a vertical. No one says you have to chose one or the other, I just find intermediates suggest indecision on the part of the photographer/editor. Unless, again, there's a very specific reason to deviate.

Also, square shots are the thing ever in my mind, so any crop that leans in that direction gets my hackles up!

At least you have valid reasoning Dorian. Appreciate the thoughts and per your request (the 2x3 is good by me, 4x5 not s'much)

188021

----------------

188022

[Dorian Anderson]

yeah, I agree the vertical doesn't work at all - the L-R leaf axis is too wide - but I love the 3x 2 with more space around the leaves!


At least you have valid reasoning Dorian. Appreciate the thoughts and per your request (the 2x3 is good by me, 4x5 not s'much)

188021

----------------

188022

[Steve Kaluski]

Steve - thanks for the kind words and the shot at repost. I like yours as well, but something that was important to me was to remember this shot as a snapshot into the events in our state; that being the worst wildfires we've ever had. There is so much smoke/haze in the sky that many shots ended up with a strong yellow and pink hue. The bkg color in your repost is a nice version however the mountain I shot against is all beige and some greens as it consists of wild grass, sage and some red rock formations. I find the bird a bit more desaturated and 'thin' but I can see why the WB dropper might correct as it did. Your points are well noted.

Hi Brian, for me, I feel you have come the furthest in both shooting & your PP skills, both are as important as each other, so kudos for all the hard input you have put in, within such a short space of time, it really is barring fruit, no question! :cheers:

In addition, I feel changing some of the kit & ultimately, swopping software has illustrated it all comes down to what suits the person to generate & deliver good images. Just look back and some of the early postings compared to what you are doing doing now, chalk & cheese'. LR may be considered a bit 'basic' by some, however for me, what is noticeable is that you are mastering the Blacks & Contrast that LR adds in and in doing so, the images are cleaner, full of fine detail and so minimal sharpening is required. My only comment in addition, is that if you are using Topaz DN, then ensure you use it at the RAW stage and NEVER after exporting as a 'baked' 16 bit tiff, its just so wrong!!!

Regarding the RP, I have to work with what I have, which means I'm working on your 'corrected' image compared to the Raw and so I'm making assumptions. However, based on your reply I'd think you can get more separation & definition which does help in portraying the image, just my take.

With regard to desaturation & thin, that I will put down to monitor set-up and how you are viewing the images, even if you had the same monitor with the same set-up, things will be marginally different and ultimately how our eyes perceive colour. :w3

Keep up the hard work as getting to the fourth base is always the one we all strive for, but as this medium is all about continually developing & honing as we learn and software improves on a constant basis, I think we will never quite reach it... :S3:

[Bill Dix]

A lovely Waxwing shot, Brian. BG is fine with me. Most of all I like the detail you were able to extract on this silky smooth bird. Your 3;2 repost is the one. Well done.

[Arthur Morris]

Wesley,

I'm dizzy from all the reposts. I love the original post. As for the crop, from where I sit, the original framing is perfect for this bird and bush. That from someone who does not generally like boxy crops and loves 3X2.

For a football player, you sure have a way with titles ...

with love, a

[Brian Sump]

A lovely Waxwing shot, Brian. BG is fine with me. Most of all I like the detail you were able to extract on this silky smooth bird. Your 3;2 repost is the one. Well done.

Bill, thanks for chiming in and staking your claim on the 3x2. I also like that one!


Wesley,

I'm dizzy from all the reposts. I love the original post. As for the crop, from where I sit, the original framing is perfect for this bird and bush. That from someone who does not generally like boxy crops and loves 3X2.

For a football player, you sure have a way with titles ...

with love, a

Haha, well you know there is such a thing as a hasbeen....

Without fun and creativity where would we be?

Definitely appreciate your perspective on the crop. Super glad to have won you on the og version :-)