Western Sandpiper

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

78620

D3 200f2 + TC17EII (340mm) f/4.5 1/2000 ISO4000 +.33EV Matrix HH Overcast
2/3 underexposed, lifted in custom picture control in raw conversion, crop to about 45% of original
PP: tone in LAB curves, eye lift, a little topaz detail II, a light touch selective posterize for a little extra edge detail, noise reduction, general cleanup, sharpening

Full gamut of processing on this one.

Thanks for looking,

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Mark Young]

I like the low angle, and slightly opened bill. Nice details in the bird, despite the slight noise.

[Lance Peters]

Hi Michael - nice to see the hIgher ISO - D3 is more than capable so best to utilise were necessary.
Like the low shooting angle.
Wondering if the HA might just be off a tad - a few degree's towards you would have improved I feel.

Whilst I do lie it as it is - I would have been lying on the ground if possible.
Keep em coming :)

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Thanks, Mark. Thanks, Lance - I think the HA is a straight profile (not toward me at all) judging by the nostril (seeing through it). Agree on wishing it toward me a little.

About lying in the muck... (that I wasn't wild about stepping in) ... hey, I'm just a novice bird photographer. I'm not sure I'm quite ready for such advanced technique. ;)

All kidding aside, I did lay down on some dry sand the other day to get some shots for the first time... Would have never occurred to me to do so without seeing shots like the low angle ones you put up.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Arthur Morris]

Sorry Michael, With the bird angled slightly toward us, the bird's head needs to be on straight, i.e., also angled a bit toward us. In fact, I am thinking that it is turned about 1 degree away from the plane of the imaging sensor, nares or not :) And as always, a less than ideal head angle hurts the image. The bird is a moderately worn juvie. Good stuff by Lance. Especially getting down into the mud; that would have cleaned up the green stuff in front of the bird a lot. Lastly, the bird's feather's could use a contrast mask, i.e., fake sharpening. Let me know if you need help with that.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Lastly, the bird's feather's could use a contrast mask, i.e., fake sharpening. Let me know if you need help with that.

Thanks, Artie... do tell. Was struggling against noise vs. detail.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Arthur Morris]

A contrast mask or local enhanced contrast as some call it is Unsharp Mask at 15/65/0 or thereabouts almost always applied to a selection. All covered of course in Digital Basics.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

A contrast mask or local enhanced contrast as some call it is Unsharp Mask at 15/65/0 or thereabouts almost always applied to a selection. All covered of course in Digital Basics.

Ah, just unfamiliar with the name (contrast mask). Some was applied... will look at it again.

Thanks much,

-Michael-

[Arthur Morris]

One final thought : 2/3 underexposed with a light toned image in soft light will result in an underexposed image by at least one stop with any camera system. That might explain the noise in the subject that resulted from the image having been lightened.... I can strongly recommend studying the Exposure Simplified section of ABP II (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/category.aspx?catid=32)(916 pages on CD only) :)

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Artie,

Greetings. Thanks for taking another look... I agree with the impact of the underexposure (& I had some ss room to better expose). I'm somewhat change-settings-due-to-conditions challenged... a large part of my current practicing.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Arthur Morris]

YAW Michael. I do not understand this: " I'm somewhat change-settings-due-to-conditions challenged... a large part of my current practicing."

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

YAW Michael. I do not understand this: " I'm somewhat change-settings-due-to-conditions challenged... a large part of my current practicing."

Artie, it just means that tend to lose myself in the find-frame-focus parts of setting up my shots. It isn't natural to me (yet) to evaluate and make exposure adjustments depending on the conditions of the particular shot. I tend to make one adjustment that carries through long periods of shooting, before it occurs to me to check it again.

My plan is to force the issue by practicing full manual at least part of the time, until thinking through the exposure becomes more natural.

Thanks for asking...

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Arthur Morris]

YAW and good luck. Digital photographers need to check the histogram after the initial image or two in all situations. I do that to this day even when I am positive that I have the right amount of compensation dialed in and I recommend that everyone make a habit of doing so :)