Pelican #1

[Jay Gould]

A wonderful subject to practice upon!

I know it is tight in the frame gave it maxium CW without chopping tail.

Camera: 7D
Capture date/time: 3 Oct 09; mid-day
Light condition: sunny & clear
Lens: 300 f/2.8
Focal length: 600mm
Extender: 2X
Tube: none
Flash/Comp: no;
ISO: 640
Exp Prog: Manual
Speed: 1/2500 sec
Aperture: f/7.1
Exp Comp: 0
Metering: Evaluative
WB: Auto
AF Drive: AI Servo
Tripod: yes
Filter: None
Crop: 20%

All C&Cs gratefully appreciated!

[Mital Patel]

awesome details here jay, a wish for 1 round of NR on the bg and a lil bit of space on top and left would be nice to me. on bird you have done fantastic work to expose every pixel .....

[Randy Stout]

Jay:

Nice looking bird, HA, like the colors that compliment the bird.
Tight as mentioned. There is some noise, particularly noticeable in the blue BG.

Travel safely.

Randy

PS; Typing same time as Mital, sorry for redundancy

[Doug Brown]

Great pose with excellent eye contact. Sharpness is awesome. The bird is a little too tight in the frame for my taste and I do see a bit of noise in the BG. How are you liking the 7D?

[Joe Senzatimore]

As you stated, a bit tight but great detail and exposure.

[Jay Gould]

Thanks guys; promise to learn noise reduction right after I finish reading the Vivezia manual and the tutorial about isolating the subject so that I can apply NR to the BG only.

Doug, we both love the 7D; how do we justify buying the 1D4?

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Too good not to have enough room.

Love this image Jay and hope you don't mind my PS retouch.

The blue BG and warm light on the plumage makes this one for me. That 7D is making me dream!:D

Saving your jpegs at 72ppi decreases the quality of the final image, I would humbly suggest to save them at 96ppi.

[Ben Egbert]

Gorgeous image in spite of teh tightness. You could extend the canvas perhaps?

[Jay Gould]

Mi Amigo, you may correct my images anytime!! Thanks for the extension; so much to learn and remember as we travel. Not that I am complaining!! Cheers,

[denise ippolito]

Super image Jay! Very nice details and exposure. The perfect head turn IMO for a Pelican. Agree w/ advice already given. Great job w/ this!

[Jay Gould]

Juan, when I save for web in CS4 I save at the highest quality possible that will put me just under 200kb. Doesn't the level of ppi depend upon the complexity/detail of the image? The more detail he lower the ppi to stay under 200kb? Gracia,

[Arthur Morris]

Did you steal this image from Roman's collection???

[Mike Milicia]

Wonderful light, detail, and pose!
Other comments already covered.


Doesn't the level of ppi depend upon the complexity/detail of the image? The more detail he lower the ppi to stay under 200kb? Gracia,
The resolution attribute of a jpeg file (i.e. ppi) has no effect whatsoever on file size, image quality, or web display. The only time that the ppi is relevant is when printing, and, even then, it is only used (along with the pixel dimensions) to deduce the physical size of print you are requesting.

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Juan, when I save for web in CS4 I save at the highest quality possible that will put me just under 200kb. Doesn't the level of ppi depend upon the complexity/detail of the image? The more detail he lower the ppi to stay under 200kb? Gracia,
Jay I have a question:

Did you shoot this image RAW or jpg? just curious.

Now, as far as I know, (I learn it for Arthur Morris and his BAA) that when you are finished with your image, and for web presentation you save it at 96ppi.

Jay, once you are finished with your image and just before give it your preferred size, for instance, 900X600 as your choice resolution and then enter 96ppi or the value you prefer, then hit ok, now you will have to apply more sharpening, again, do it to taste, now go to Files/Save for web and devises or click control/Alt/shift/S, what a shortcut! then you have your image open in a new window and then you can star playing with the quality control (located at the upper right corner)and at the same time check the size of the image on the lower left corner, then just making sure the size does not exceed the 200K.

At least that's how I do it, is this clear enough? Any better way to do this? my ears are open, I am here to learn too.
I hope this helps.
JC

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Wonderful light, detail, and pose!
Other comments already covered.


The resolution attribute of a jpeg file (i.e. ppi) has no effect whatsoever on file size, image quality, or web display. The only time that the ppi is relevant is when printing, and, even then, it is only used (along with the pixel dimensions) to deduce the physical size of print you are requesting.
Thank you Mike for the explanation, today I learned something new. :)

[Jay Gould]

Did you steal this image from Roman's collection???

Artie - oh wise and generous giver of time and wisdom, coming from you that is a very high and appreciated compliment. Thank you very much; I too think very highly of Roman's images and sage wisdom.

The image was shot while sitting in Tampa Bay within spittin' distance of Capt. James; approximately one minute after the Curlew (http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49488).

It does feel good to be posting images instead of just participating in important discussions.

Buenas Noches from Santiago, Chile.

[Jay Gould]

Jay I have a question:

Did you shoot this image RAW or jpg? just curious.

Definitely RAW!

Now, as far as I know, (I learn it for Arthur Morris and his BAA) that when you are finished with your image, and for web presentation you save it at 96ppi.

I am doing my final processing in CS4.

When I first transfer from LR to PS, I apply Pixel Genius Capture Sharpening; then I flattten the image.

When I complete the levels, curves, etc., I then size using File - Automate - Fit Image.

Thereafter I apply Pixel Genius Output Sharpening for Web Presentation.

Finally, I do a File - Save for Web - where I save as a jpeg - high quality - and the level of quality is determined by the size of the file.

Learn something new every day - hopefully: where, within CS4, are you setting the ppi for web presentation.

I save all of my images as layered .psd files unless I am sizing to print in which case I ultimately will save as a flattened TIFF file.

Jay, once you are finished with your image and just before give it your preferred size, for instance, 900X600 as your choice resolution and then enter 96ppi or the value you prefer, then hit ok,

When I open File - Automate I am only given a size option and I always choose 1024 x 800; there is no option for ppi.

now you will have to apply more sharpening, again, do it to taste, now go to Files/Save for web and devises or click control/Alt/shift/S, what a shortcut! then you have your image open in a new window and then you can star playing with the quality control (located at the upper right corner)and at the same time check the size of the image on the lower left corner, then just making sure the size does not exceed the 200K.

At least that's how I do it, is this clear enough? Any better way to do this? my ears are open, I am here to learn too.
I hope this helps.
JC

Anybody and everybody can particiate in this discussion! :)

[Aidan Briggs]

Nice low angle, light, and BG Jay. Good exposure too. As Artie pointed out the tight crop is similar to some of Roman's work. I think Artie sells double bubble levels that fit in the camera's hot shoe so you don't have rotate the image after it was taken.

Looking forward to more.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie - oh wise and generous giver of time and wisdom, coming from you that is a very high and appreciated compliment. Thank you very much; I too think very highly of Roman's images and sage wisdom. The image was shot while sitting in Tampa Bay within spittin' distance of Capt. James; approximately one minute after the Curlew (http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49488). It does feel good to be posting images instead of just participating in important discussions. Buenas Noches from Santiago, Chile.

Jay, I was trying to say politely that the pelican is much, much too tight in the frame. For whole birds, my rule is never to go greater than 75% of the frame either way. And, you have either cut or clipped the virtual feet. JC's repost is an improvement but even it is too tight in the frame for me. All that you needed to do was swap the 2X for the 1.4X.....

[Harshad Barve]

Nothing much to add , but lovely imege with nice details
TFS

[Rohan Kamath]

Have learnt a lot from this discussion on how to save the files and also why my final re-sized images never looked as sharp as the full sized ones... thanks everyone for valuable inputs... They really help newbies like me to learn... :)

Loved how every pixel is so perfectly exposed on the bird here...

-Cheers,
Rohan
__________________________________________________
Conservation begins at HOME... We CAN make a difference...

[Jay Gould]

Jay, I was trying to say politely that the pelican is much, much too tight in the frame. For whole birds, my rule is never to go greater than 75% of the frame either way. And, you have either cut or clipped the virtual feet. JC's repost is an improvement but even it is too tight in the frame for me. All that you needed to do was swap the 2X for the 1.4X.....

Hi Artie, no need to be "polite"; the pelican is much, much too tight in the frame! I guess I didn't, still don't, understand the reference to Roman.

"cut or clipped the virtual feet": do not understand as even if I used the 1.4X, the feet were still covered by the water.

"swap the 2X for the 1.4X": another vote for the Vested Interests vest with its nice large pockets. Unfortunately, where we were sitting in the water, the lower half of the vest would have been under the water :(.

Cheers,

[Jay Gould]

Nice low angle, light, and BG Jay. Good exposure too. As Artie pointed out the tight crop is similar to some of Roman's work. I think Artie sells double bubble levels that fit in the camera's hot shoe so you don't have rotate the image after it was taken.

Looking forward to more.

Thanks Aidan, I was using a double bubble; the camera was in the horizontal mode as I was panning over a 120 degree area shooting the curlews and godwits. The pelican was all of a sudden in the clear with no small birds in the way of the shot. The very soft sand/mud didn't help keep things level as the legs slowly moved around in the muck - any solution? Thanks for explaining the "Roman reference" - I will have to look at some of his bird images regarding tight crop. Cheers,

[Doug Brown]

I'll jump in here Jay. Virtual feet simply refers to where the feet would be if you could see them. I generally leave room in the frame for the space that the feet would occupy if they were visible.

I believe that Artie's reference to Roman is none other than BPN's own Roman Kurywczak who has a reputation for tight crops.

[Jay Gould]

Thanks Doug, I gathered that from what Aidan and Artie said!

Any assistance regarding the ppi/jpeg question; 72 cf/ 96 ppi: where do I set the option?

Thanks,

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie, no need to be "polite"; the pelican is much, much too tight in the frame! I guess I didn't, still don't, understand the reference to Roman.

"cut or clipped the virtual feet": do not understand as even if I used the 1.4X, the feet were still covered by the water.

"swap the 2X for the 1.4X": another vote for the Vested Interests vest with its nice large pockets. Unfortunately, where we were sitting in the water, the lower half of the vest would have been under the water .

Cheers,

Gentle but honest..... And as Doug said, I am always busting Roman for his bill-tip to tail-tip compositions. But we are good friends. :)

Again as Doug explained, we need to be able to imagine that we can see parts of the bird that are underwater or obscured by vegetation; if you had gone to the 1.4X, you would have been able to (properly) frame wider all around. (You still could have cut the virtual feet if you had the bird too far down in the frame.

As for the no-TC story, that's an easy one if you learn to think digitially in the field. You could have locked focus and exposure and then created additional images of the area on each side of each the frame edge and used them to create a stitched pano. You would had only to use a part of each image. Try to train yourself to think that way whenever you are too tight.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Did you steal this image from Roman's collection???
Now that's funny! I am still exploring the virtues of "Dead Space".......not quite there yet as you can see with my spoonie image!;)

PS It is even a little tight for me Jay also.....but you know that already!

Have fun Jay and be safe on the world travels! Thanks for the laugh this morning Artie!

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Thanks Doug, I gathered that from what Aidan and Artie said!

Any assistance regarding the ppi/jpeg question; 72 cf/ 96 ppi: where do I set the option?

Thanks,
Here we go again Jay

When you are finished with your image, and ready to give it its proportions, you hit crl/alt/I, then a window opens, that's where you give your image the final size, you will give to that image. Then you will see a ''Resolution'' box, it's in here where you type 96...72... or whatever resolution you want to give to your image.

That is the way I do it in my workflow, but I see yours is a bit different than mine. Any how, you must resize your images for final display on the web, so may be you just have to include this step in your workflow.

Hope this little explanation helps you.:D

[Arthur Morris]

Now that's funny! I am still exploring the virtues of "Dead Space".......not quite there yet as you can see with my spoonie image!;) PS It is even a little tight for me Jay also.....but you know that already!

Glad to put a :) on your face. Maybe I like dead space because there is so much of it in my brain!

Hey, I will almost surely get to Barnegat for a few days in DEC. Hope to hook up at least with you and Denise I. Maybe we should do a GTG....

[denise ippolito]

Glad to put a :) on your face. Maybe I like dead space because there is so much of it in my brain!

Hey, I will almost surely get to Barnegat for a few days in DEC. Hope to hook up at least with you and Denise I. Maybe we should do a GTG....


Sounds good-Count me in.:)

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Denise, I e-mailed Roman who had e-mailed me. My weekend schedule it not good because of Monday commitments but I might stay later; if I do that the weekend of the 19/20 would work. Speaking of work, do you work or are you free weekdays or both?

[denise ippolito]

Artie, I work but my schedule is flexible. I spoke w/ Roman and he said he would contact you. Sounds like fun.