Great Egret in Alexandria Virginia

[Dave Goldberg]

This is a Great Egret in the classic pose. This poor fellow was chased around by a Great Blue Heron until he finally settled on a close perch about 27 yards from me. It was taken in mid-morning under clear skies and harsh sun, so I positioned myself with my shadow pointed directly at him to minimize shadows. These photos are always a challenge for me. Because of the high contrast, I usually opt to set the background very dark and concentrate on bringing out the bird's tonality, instead of exposing the water and land because it then becomes muddy and ugly and detracts from the bird's grace. The down-side is that these photos can look like they were taken by flash. I also brought up and desaturated his log perch and removed some reflections and distractions, and tried to bring out his leg so we could see how he was balancing himself.

Shot was taken with a Canon R7 and Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary, 1/2000", f/9, ISO 320, FL 500 mm, and edited on Darktable with basic color, tone and sharpening adjustments as well as selective removal of distracting elements.

[Steve Kaluski]

It was taken in mid-morning under clear skies and harsh sun

Hi Dave, I do think you like to give yourself a good challenge, any particular reason for shooting at this time rather than earlier in the day where the sun is a bit more sympathetic and is more on your side? :S3:

The good news is that you have detail and it's sharp, but I think the execution is letting the image down. I'm OK on the framing and I very much like the pose/shape of the Egret with the 'S' shape of the neck. I think I understand your rational in how you have chosen this route to display the subject, but I would go even further in its look, making it more 'contrasty' in appearance (not to use contrast) but to go with a more punchy black and striking whites, which gives you the 'contrast'. I think it's important to see the logs & branches the Egret is standing on, not aesthetically pleasing, just darken it down enough for the viewer to see what it is, but more a hint perhaps?

There's seems to be some colour noise in that lower section and some black areas are clipped, easily resolved.

Let me know if you would like a RP to clarify my comments, as often visually seeing something is a lot easier than the interpretation of the above.

I know you said DT is free and I have only dabbled with it, but I'm not sure it's delivering the overall look & feel, and it does have some limitations.

TFS
Steve

[Dave Goldberg]

Hi Dave, I do think you like to give yourself a good challenge, any particular reason for shooting at this time rather than earlier in the day where the sun is a bit more sympathetic and is more on your side? :S3:

Yes, I certainly do. Basically, this was a shot of opportunity. It was mid-morning, and I was skunked in my search for migrating warblers and a local rarity (although I did get some decent shots of green tree frogs that I can share later). The egret was there and showing off, so I figured I'd give it a go.

I appreciate and agree with many of your observations, but personally I was concerned the image was a bit too contrasty and exaggerated. But I guess it makes sense to work with and not against the effect if that's where the shot and lighting is headed.

As for software, I'm not wedded to DT and I have other paid software that I use. It's just that I have a lot of run time with that program so I understand it's nuances a bit better. It does have some limitations with highlight reconstruction and it's noise reduction doesn't work as well in higher ISOs. But I think it has advantages with white balance, shadows/highlights, and sharpening. I have Topaz denoise and have been very unsatisfied with the outcome, but it's probably a result of my experience level with the tool. I'll submit some shots using other editors in the near future.

I would be happy to share the raw with you or anyone else if they'd like to play with image.

Thanks again!

Dave G.

[Steve Kaluski]

Thanks for the reply Dave.

At the end of the day I would never push anyone into using something else, if the software they are using works for them. Yes HL reconstruction is good and if you understand the 'nuances of DT' fine, I'm just not sure it can deliver the right outcome for both the image and you, but...

Topaz DN AI is a very good software programme and to get the best I still feel it should be applied to the raw, not a 'backed tiff' but for Social media it's not work shouting about. Certainly at ISO320 you shouldn't even be thinking of using it, however perhaps the nature of the capture does mean its required?

One thing I would suggest is, (if you haven't already) is to learn just some simple 'selective' adjustments with PS, it has been and still is the best Software out, it is daunting and few really get to understand the wealth that it can truly deliver, but it would I feel, help you and where you are able to add just a few like tweaks that enhance the initial output from DT.

Another element which is crucial Dave is your monitor, if you are using a desktop monitor, is it set for Photography (ie Kelvin (white point), Gamma 2.2 & Luminance) prior to calibration, plus you should calibrate once a month. In addition make sure the monitor isn't placed where the light from a window is hitting the face, ie put the rear of the monitor facing the window if possible, reducing any additional ambient light hitting the screen as this could impact on the final outcome, just a thought.

Dave I will drop you a PM, but in the meantime how about this from your OP????

Kind regards
Steve

[Dave Goldberg]

One thing I would suggest is, (if you haven't already) is to learn just some simple 'selective' adjustments with PS, it has been and still is the best Software out, it is daunting and few really get to understand the wealth that it can truly deliver, but it would I feel, help you and where you are able to add just a few like tweaks that enhance the initial output from DT.


Yes, that version is much closer to what I intended. The bird is much brighter and stands out better, plus the perch is more subdued.

One of the features of DT as well as ON1 is the ability to invoke multiple instances of the the same modules and then apply masking to perform local adjustments with various blend modes without the need to create new layers. But I'd like to understand a bit better what sort of selective adjustments that you make in PS, because I am considering a subscription to LR/PS later this year.

Cheers
Dave G.

[Steve Kaluski]

One of the features of DT as well as ON1 is the ability to invoke multiple instances of the the same modules and then apply masking to perform local adjustments with various blend modes without the need to create new layers. But I'd like to understand a bit better what sort of selective adjustments that you make in PS, because I am considering a subscription to LR/PS later this year.

As I said Dave, if DT works for you great, I just can't remember how you scoot the file from DT to PS, plus there is something I read and need to go back to, to see if there was a workflow.

Adobe have hiked their prices considerably this year, but the Lr/PS package is still the same. Just remember, once you sell your soul to Adobe CC, there is no return, ie if you stop you can't access your Lr/PS files, so just bare that in mind.

Things like Colour balance, Vibrant/Sat, Curves, Selective Colour, Levels are probably key, but often coupled with a Channel Curves adj so it's not just a simple adj, but once you get your head around things its easy. Also with your knowledge of Layers & Masks, deploying these in PS is just a great feature where you have control over the whole adj via Opacity, Fill and Mode Blends.

None of this is achieved overnight, but slowly getting to understand the adjustments and ultimately knowing what adjustment are required is key, but the biggest point is, just because you have all the tools to hand, you don't need to throw the kitchen sink in for good measure - basically keep it simple and the file will look better and reflect the original capture.

Hope this helps and I have replied to your mail too. :wave:

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dave, I just checked and I think DT is perhaps not the greatest for storing outputs or at least, having a sensible pathway, but you may disagree as you know more. However I might suggest if you output from DT then create a Watch Folder, in that, create new folders where you can store the output files. Just remember to set up the Output colour profile ie Adobe ProRGB and also in DT storage output the file settings are right with ie unsigned intergers, 16bitt tiff etc, but you know al; this.

[Dave Goldberg]

Steve, the most direct way is to export the output in TIFF format into an export folder and then open in another editor. There is an option to automate the process through a LUA script, but I haven’t really investigated what’s involved.

The question in my mind is what I could perform in Photoshop that I can’t already do with my existing software. My experience, FWIW, with DT, ON1, Affinity, Topaz and with trial runs with Lightroom is that that all have their strengths and weaknesses, but I can get similar results with all of them if I work at it long enough. The difference is how much effort I need to put into them. It’s more than just ergonomics because some programs have more refined controls that require more effort but allow you more say in the result.

So in the end, I tend to view any shortcomings in my photos as a result of my personal vision of the scene, rather than the limitations of the particular software. Usually. Perhaps this would be a good discussion under the Digital Workflow forum.

Cheers
Dave G.

[Steve Kaluski]

Yep, let’s not hijack the thread Dave.

What you are saying is correct, I call it a ‘Watch folder’ where you export to from DT. As I said, just make sure the parameters that you are working in, in DT ie Adobe ProPhoto, is also set within Lr or PS so the talk the same language and avoid miss matches should you pursue another bit of Software.


in the meantime hope you have updated the camera setting etc and look forward to seeing more.

Cheers
Steve

[Dave Goldberg]

Thanks to Steve for the comments and discussion, on and off the forum. I took another stab at the photo, brightened the bird, cropped and removed more of the awful clutter and applied more careful color rendering:

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dave, at the end of the day, you are the author, is it an Improvement, does it echo what you set out…?

[Dave Goldberg]

I think so, more or less. I think the egret's tone and colors came out fairly well given the circumstances of the shot. Thanks for the feedback.

[William Dickson]

The final product looks good here Dave. And, I think we all learn from the discussion. Good post, and image.

Will

[Dave Goldberg]

Thanks Will. I’ve learned quite a bit in the last couple of weeks that I’m putting to use. I appreciate the help from everyone who has commented.

Dave G.