Whooping Crane

[Antonio Lopez]

I made this image last February at the Aransas NWR. This was from a chartered boat in the inter-coastal canal. PS cloning, levels, curves and saturation.

1DMKlll, 600mm, f/9, 1/8000 sec. -1.33 ev, ISO 500

[Arthur Morris]

EXP good but for a few splotchy white patches on the neck... A good head angle for the pose, and sharp.

Did you have any more room below? The virtual feet are close to being clipped.

Was the bird banded?

[Mike Milicia]

Handsome bird, nice pose and setting!
Agree about more room at the bottom.

Is SS of 1/8000 a typo?
If my math is correct, that would put the light about 2 1/3 stops brighter than Sunny f/16.

[Antonio Lopez]

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately the bottom of the frame is all there is.

That's what my metadata says. This was about 9 AM with clear blue skies and the whites kept blowing out. I was shooting in AV and adjusting to keep the whites in check, thinking I could tweek them in PS.

[Robert Amoruso]

If your shutter speed is that high, lower ISO and take advantage of less noise.

[Antonio Lopez]

Thank you Robert. I'll keep that in mind.

[Arthur Morris]

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately the bottom of the frame is all there is.

That's what my metadata says. This was about 9 AM with clear blue skies and the whites kept blowing out. I was shooting in AV and adjusting to keep the whites in check, thinking I could tweek them in PS.

Antonio, Something is wrong here somewhere :) At -1 1/3 stops, there is no way that this image should be overe-exposed with a Mark III.... And strange as well.

Please re-check your shutter speed and the compensation.

Did you read the various threads on saving the whites in the ER? There is some great information there.

[Jim Bridges]

The Exif information is correct according to my Firefox Exif reader.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Jim. Correct but very strange...

Does it show what exposure mode he was in?

Let's think out loud here: Sunny 16 for ISO 500 for a middle tone should be 1/500 at f/16. For whites that would be 1/1000 at f/16. That works out to 1/3200 at f/9.

Unless my math is wrong, and I am pretty sure that it is not, that means that Antonio's image should have been underexposed roughly 1 1/3 stops. And that is just about right considering that I would have figured that zero EC would have been right for the image above in bright sun....

Antonio, was the original well underexposed? (It should have been....)

[Arthur Morris]

Handsome bird, nice pose and setting!
Agree about more room at the bottom.

Is SS of 1/8000 a typo?
If my math is correct, that would put the light about 2 1/3 stops brighter than Sunny f/16.

Mike, as above, I am thinking that your math is quite wrong.

Sunny 16 for ISO 500 would be 1/500 at f/16. That works out to 1/1600 sec at f/9.

Unless my math is wrong, and correct me if it is, that means that Antonio's exposure of 1/8000 at f/9 was 2 1/3 stops darker than Sunny 16 (not 2 1/3 stops brighter).

So it looks as if your math (the 2 1/3) was correct but that your thinking was off :) Or that you suffered from a brain typo as I often do.

[Jim Bridges]

Thanks Jim. Correct but very strange...

Does it show what exposure mode he was in?

Let's think out loud here: Sunny 16 for ISO 500 for a middle tone should be 1/500 at f/16. For whites that would be 1/1000 at f/16. That works out to 1/3200 at f/9.

Unless my math is wrong, and I am pretty sure that it is not, that means that Antonio's image should have been underexposed roughly 1 1/3 stops. And that is just about right considering that I would have figured that zero EC would have been right for the image above in bright sun....

Antonio, was the original well underexposed? (It should have been....)


Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) 1/8000 second ===> 0.00013 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop 9/1 ===> ƒ/9
Exposure Program aperture priority (3)
ISO Speed Ratings 500
EXIF Version 0221
Original Date/Time 2010:02:16 09:03:37
Digitization Date/Time 2010:02:16 09:03:37
Shutter Speed Value (APEX) 13/1
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) 1/8192 second
Aperture Value (APEX) 51/8
Aperture ƒ/9.11
Exposure Bias (EV) -4/3 ===> -1.33
Metering Mode pattern / multi-segment (5)
Flash Flash did not fire
Focal Length 600/1 mm ===> 600 mm
Last Modified Subsecond Time 00
Original Subsecond Time 00
Digitized Subsecond Time 00
FlashPix Version 0100
Colour Space sRGB (1)
Image Width 541 pixels
Image Height 700 pixels
Focal Plane X-Resolution 144000/41 ===> 3512.2
Focal Plane Y-Resolution 81000/23 ===> 3521.74
Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit inch (2)
Custom Rendered normal process (0)
Exposure Mode auto exposure (0)
White Balance auto (0)
Scene Capture Type standard (0)

[Arthur Morris]

Thank you sir.

[Jim Bridges]

Thank you sir.

No problem at all. The reader doesn't work on all the images posted here...I think it depends on how they are posted, but sometimes you can get the Exif on them and I was able with the one Tony posted.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks again. As you probably know I am not very technical minded or computer savvy. I am happy when I am able to turn my laptop on :)

[Antonio Lopez]

Thank you Artie and Jim. I can't remember my logic for these settigns a year ago but do recall that my highlights kept blowing out according to the camera. I will go back and read up on Saving the Whites.

[Antonio Lopez]

Artie, I forgot to answer your question regarding exposure. Yes it was under-exposed but not so bad I couldn't work with it. Here is the original file in jpg.

Thank you again for your comments, I appreciate your and everyone's comments.

[Mike Milicia]

If my math is correct, that would put THE LIGHT about 2 1/3 stops brighter than Sunny f/16.

Artie,
My math and thinking were correct but I worded it badly and should have been more specific about the particular situation. I was trying to say that in order for 1/8000 to be correct, THE LIGHT would have to have been 2 1/3 stops brighter than Sunny f/16 conditions. But since it's more like Sunny f/22 for bright white bird in bright sun, I should have said that THE LIGHT would have to have been 1 1/3 stops brighter than Sunny f/16 conditions. As you say, it's that last 1 1/3 that is the confusing part. Part of it might be explained by the fact that Aransas is quite far south where the sun may indeed be a bit brighter than Sunny f/16 but I would think that would only explain about 1/3 stop at most. It's hard to tell from the image as posted but it may also be that there were specular highlights on the bird from the light being reflected by the water. Trying to eliminate all blinkies in that situation could easily explain the additional 1 1/3 stops but then the rest of the bird should have been underexposed.

Edit : Antonio posted the original as I was typing. Looks like it may have been the specular highlights that led to underexposure.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Mike, Not to be a pain but you did not word it badly, you worded it incorrectly. I can only go by what you say :)

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, I forgot to answer your question regarding exposure. Yes it was under-exposed but not so bad I couldn't work with it. Here is the original file in jpg.

Thank you again for your comments, I appreciate your and everyone's comments.

As I figured correctly the image was way underexposed.... You stated "I do recall that my highlights kept blowing out according to the camera."

What are you basing that statement on? Were there flashing pixels? If yes, a lot or a very few? If the latter than Mike would like by correct this time :) in that specular highlights might have fooled you. Always let them be and expose for the image.

In any case the bright whites on the neck are surely due to operator Photoshop error :)

Do study those threads that I suggested....