Cedar Waxwing

[Joerg Rockenberger]

This was photographed in Seattle (Union Bay) in May. It was the first time I had the opportunity to photograph Cedar Waxwings up close. A definite highlight on that trip despite the drab overcast and occasional rain. Cropped from horizontal, eliminated some remnants of rain drops and some spider "stuff".

Thanks in advance. JR

Canon 40D, 400F5.6, 1/800s, F5.6, ISO 800, Manual Exposure, Handheld

[Per-Gunnar Ostby]

Beautiful background, very sharp, good exposure - well done! The end of the wing is overlapped by the perch, which is a tiny shame, but no big deal

[Stu Bowie]

I like the raised crest, and interesting detail around the eye. Good clean BG too.

[James Salywoda]

Excellent! I'd give this a slight midtone adjustment beautiful shot though.

[Doug Brown]

Like the alert pose, sharpness, perch, and BG. Nicely done!

[denise ippolito]

Very nie pose and details. Lovely color for the BG. I do see a little noise.

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

I agree with Denise regarding to noise, that must be because of the crop, and agree with James about the midtone adjustment. I also think this is a stunning bird and you captured it using a nice perch and a killer BG.

[Chantelle Voss]

Beautiful work Joerg! I love the background, the colors of the bird and the subdued background work wonderfully. Thanks for sharing!

[Joerg Rockenberger]

Thank you all for the kind feedback. And yes, noise is a challenge in this image as it was shot at ISO 800 with the 40D AND it is a significant crop. Still happy though. :)

Best, JR

[Hal Everett]

Considering Seattle weather this year, that is an excellent shot with the 400mm, f5.6.

[Robert D. Gregg]

I love this capture!

[Daniel Cadieux]

Lovely image, I love the soft colours and the "plump" pose this guy assumed. I like your comp too - ther vertical works well.

I think the noise has more to do with the significant crop than the ISO 800...I use the same camera and see no issue. Perhaps the image was originally underexposed and brought back up in PS?

[Joerg Rockenberger]

Thanks Daniel, Robert and Hal for the additional comments!


I think the noise has more to do with the significant crop than the ISO 800...I use the same camera and see no issue. Perhaps the image was originally underexposed and brought back up in PS?

Daniel, I hope you still see this post as I'd be interested in your feedback. Of course cropping exaggerates noise issues. The original posting was cropped to 1262*1578 pixels from a 40D's 3888*2592 pixels. So yes, it is a significant crop. I guess I should have classified "close up"... :)

Then, I've attached a crop (505 * 757 pixels) from a 100% view in ACR 6.1 with settings at default in the exposure tab and no sharpening or noise reduction. I'd be interested in hearing your assessment as for the level of noise and how it compares to your experience with the 40D at ISO 800.

Note, that the whites just above the beak were actually slightly blown in the original capture according to ACR before adjustments. For the image in pane 1, I've used recovery (+15) to get them back but also increased exposure by 0.35 to get some detail into the blacks. Other than that I've slightly increased contrast in ACR, selectively sharpened the bird and reduced noise in the background in CS5.

Looking forward to any feedback. This could be a good learning experience for me and others. Thanks, JR

[Daniel Cadieux]

Hi Joerg, thanks for the repost and questions. When it comes to luminance noise I experience just about the same as you do at ISO 800 and I regularly run NR on my BGs, but the issue I see here is more of a colour noise one, which I don't normally get on my images. It is mostly apparent on the waxwing's chin and "eyebrow" (both images) but you can also see it on the BG of your 100% crop. In the OP, you can also see it a bit in the darker primaries and darker tail feathers.

The best way to combat this is to "expose for the right" and then pull back the exposure during raw conversion. From your explanation, the bill offered a bit of a problem as it was already blown and adding even more light would have likely completely blown the upper mandible. Although you did not increase the exposure by much I suspect this is what caused the colour noise. I think you did best you could (thanks to that bill!!). I'm not familiar with CS5 NR as I use a third party software for that but you may have the option of running "color noise" NR, and this selectively on the affected areas only. In ACR you could also experiment with the "Shadows" slider to see if that works better than overall exposure adjustment.

Although easier said after the fact, I'm sure some fill-flash may have helped with that as the darker shaded areas would already have been somewhat filled by light. Hope this helps a bit!

[Joerg Rockenberger]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Interesting that you see less off an issue with color noise...


Although you did not increase the exposure by much I suspect this is what caused the colour noise.
Given that the color noise is already evident in the original unadjusted(!) image as in my last posting I think that this is not the case but may reflect some particular sensor characteristics...


In ACR you could also experiment with the "Shadows" slider to see if that works better than overall exposure adjustment.
That overall may have been the better strategy for optimizing the image.


Although easier said after the fact, I'm sure some fill-flash may have helped with that as the darker shaded areas would already have been somewhat filled by light.
Agreed in principle though in practice often difficult. I unfortunately stink at flash work. One of those many things still to learn...

Best, JR