More on Whites...

[Arthur Morris]

In this pane, the first optimized image. Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens. ISO 400. 1/320 sec. at f/8 set manually. Used Recover slider in ACR conversion to eliminate highlight warnings. Please see the images in the next two panes. Ran about a 15% Linear Burn on the whites and added about 20 points of BLACK to the WHITES in Selective Color.

[Arthur Morris]

In this pane, the same image with the whites darker. Ran another 25% Linear Burn on the image above....

[Arthur Morris]

And finally, a JPEG represtentative of the converted RAW file. Nothing burned, but very white and bright. They look even brighter and whiter in the field. Evan at 7:04 am.

Which of the two versions above do you prefer, and why? (Please use a calibrated monitor and check your calibration strip :)

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

ps: Feel free to let me know also what you think of the image. (I love the chocolate strips on the wing.)

[Randy Stout]

Artie:

The jpeg looks too bright for me, hard to see fine detail in the whites. I like the detail in the 2nd pane, but suspect this is much darker than they look in the flesh. Overall, I prefer the 1st pane.

Monitor - NEC 2690wuxi2 calibrated with Spectraview

Randy

[Dave Phillips]

prefer #2 for the detail AND that early morning glow not seen in the others

HP LP2065 s-IPS Spyder :)

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Go with number 2 as well. Seems to have some nice gold tones in it. The brights in the first and jpeg burn my eyes, which usually means they are over -cooked. ~ To my eyes anyways.

[Jim Neiger]

#1 looks the most natural to me.

[EdNguyen]

I prefer the first image. The JPEG version seems too bright for my taste. Thanks for sharing the tips, Arthur.

[Phil Ertel]

I like the first pane. I agree with Jim that it appears more natural. Number two seems a touch too dark and the jpeg appears a bit bright to me.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

#2 hands down. for my eyes at least. But I havent seen them in the field. Guess that matters.

[Michael Lloyd]

I'm going to say either #1 or #2 beats #3. I lean slightly toward #2 over #1.

Hey Dave... Fancy seeing you here :)

[MichaelM]

Truth told, I'd like to combine 1 and 2. The feather details and depth on the wings in 1 and the breast and lower neck in 2. 2 also has a warmer feel to it. That said, I'd be way proud to call either mine. 3 looks like it needs the Brightness dropped a few notches..

[Brian Barcelos]

Lovely image Artie. Love the ripple around his legs. This is a very tough choice,I'd probably go with #1, looks like there is more feather detail visible on the head.Unless my eyes are deceiving me because I keep scrolling up and down.
Brian

[Stu Bowie]

No 2 works so much better for me. It is a little darker than the first, although not showing much more detail at all. ( the detail is there already) Super comp, and love the colour on this guy. Well done Artie.

[Tell Dickinson]

Hi Art, please bear in mind that I have never seen this bird species in real life so I am commenting on what is aesthetically pleasing to me as opposed to taking into account which is most 'life like'.

I prefer the 2nd one as I think I can see more detail but the 1st is more than acceptable. The 3rd whites are a bit too bright for me *BUT* I would not be surprised if this one printed the best as I think very often you can see detail in bright whites better in print than you can on screen :)

Tell

[Michael Wolf]

Excellent image!

#1 is ok
#2 Perfect
#3 too bright

[Kobus Tollig]

I like the last one. Reason is that it looks more natural. Great comp exposure and detail well done

[Jeni Williams]

I'm going for the #2 - it has more detail than #1 and the last one is a bit hot.

[Morkel Erasmus]

the 2nd one is more striking at first glance. while some may vote for the 3rd or 1st one for wanting it more natural, I think it is the art and privilege of the photographer to show hidden details in the subject that wouldn't normally be easily seen by the naked eye, and therefore my vote will stay with # 2. luckily it's all a matter of personal choice anyway :)

[Krijn Trimbos]

Hi Artie,
I wasn't there so I can't really say which one looks more natural, I believe more and more that this is an essential part of post-processing a photo correctly, how did it look at that moment, was I struck by the beautiful light or beautiful contrast the whitish feathers had with the BG??? Personally I feel the most for the 1st post, there is still more than enough detail in the whites and the bird really pops, something that the 2nd post lacks a little bit IMHO, the 3rd is a little on the too much side to my eye. I would suggest to enhance the catchlight in the first post though like the one in the 3rd post. Excellent shot by the way, I like the water colour and headtrun a lot!

All the best,

Krijn

[Mike Lentz]

First off, great tutorial!
At first I thought #1 was the choice, but then changed my mind to #2 as it is easier on my eyes.
#2 gives an overall appearance of softer light and I always like that vs contrasty light. The other thing that stands out in #2 is the pinks resonate color and the other two are more muted.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Mike and all. #3 was intended to show what the RAW looked like and what my eye perceived in the field. I would not offer #3 for sale. Between #1 and #2 I would opt for #1 for the reasons given by Krijn above. In the field, these birds appear stark white. In #2, I jacked up the SAT and made the whites darker (but then erased the face and neck to restore whiteness there). As is the whites in #2 border more on grey than on white.... That said, there are still some pinkish whites in #2 at 247.... One this is for sure, this ain't science!


I would offer both #s 2 & 3 for sale.

[Ilija Dukovski]

I'll go with #1. The image starts with gentle colors and # 1 keeps them gentle.
I also like the contrast (juxtaposition is probably a better word in this case) between
the colors of the bird vs. the stronger and darker BG.

[Chris Kotze]

Excellent image and so well captured. All three looks awesome.
However I like #2 Not knowing this species true colours the pink looks natural to me and it's almost as if it shows more feather detail.

[Don Thompson]

Artie,

How do you know where to start on the numbers, or how do you decide if you need to do anything? Is it just your judgement as to whether the whites look hot or not, and then you just adjust until you think they look correct?

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Quite lovely.

Second repost looks better to my eyes (not my monitor)
The BG helps the bird to stand out.

[Arthur Morris]

Excellent image and so well captured. All three looks awesome.
However I like #2 Not knowing this species true colours the pink looks natural to me and it's almost as if it shows more feather detail.


Thanks Chris. The problem is that the fledglings look pure white in the field, as in pane #3....

[Arthur Morris]

would suggest to enhance the catchlight in the first post though like the one in the 3rd post. Excellent shot by the way, I like the water colour and headtrun a lot! All the best, Krijn


Thanks for the tip on the eye! I had not noticed that.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, How do you know where to start on the numbers, or how do you decide if you need to do anything? Is it just your judgement as to whether the whites look hot or not, and then you just adjust until you think they look correct?

Hi Don, I never want any of the RGB #s to be above 254, and I usually shoot for 245 at the most. Then I try to reveal the detail in the whites using one of several methods: Curves, Linear Burn, or Selective Color (adding BLACK to the WHITES). Don't ask me how I decide which to use :) :D :)