Prothonotary Warbler

Printable View

06-08-2013, 09:30 AM
Lyle Gruby

1 Attachment(s)

Prothonotary Warbler

I was out trying to find a kingfisher at a local pond when I had a couple totally unexpected guests show up. I had stumbled into the hunting grounds of a couple prothonotary warblers. I was in full camo including a facemask already, so they didn't mind me all that much and landed pretty close a couple times. This was my first time ever really even seeing prothonotaries--great experience for me personally. Shot was cropped for composition. The branch was very bright, so I exposed for it which caused me to have to really bring up the shadows in post which then required a couple rounds of NR on the BG. DE extractor run on just the bird, I don't remember how strong. All C&C always appreciated.

Techs:
D3S
200-400 with 1.4 @560mm tripod
ISO 800
f/5.6
1/1250
06-08-2013, 02:09 PM
Miguel Palaviccini

Lyle,

Only seen one of these guys and it sure didn't pose for me like that! I like the alert pose (at least that is what I think the outstretched neck is).

The image looks a bit soft all around. I think the NR may have spilled onto the bird? Or maybe the focus was just a tad off?

Miguel
06-08-2013, 03:18 PM
Lyle Gruby

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel Palaviccini

Lyle,

Only seen one of these guys and it sure didn't pose for me like that! I like the alert pose (at least that is what I think the outstretched neck is).

The image looks a bit soft all around. I think the NR may have spilled onto the bird? Or maybe the focus was just a tad off?

Miguel

I believe you're right. It could have also been because this was a pretty healthy crop. (we don't all shoot D800's! :w3)
I reprocessed with a slightly looser crop and manually ran the NR with DFINE.
06-08-2013, 04:59 PM
Bill Dix

Congrats on stumbling across these beauties. I agree with Miguel. The repost helps, but it still feels to me as if you might pull a little more detail out of it.
06-08-2013, 08:10 PM
Arthur Morris

Agree that something is rotten in Denmark here. Lyle, can you post a 1024 version of the extracted JPEG with zero processing? It might give us a clue as to what's going on here.... Or not :).
06-09-2013, 02:34 AM
PhilCook

1 Attachment(s)

Re post is better but agree with Bill and Arthur as I think more could be done from the original with this one to bring out detail, it does look a bit overly bright and colorful. However, nice clean comp, nicely proportion perch, but I'd remove the spider web. Like the alert posture and clear eye...you may also consider a vertical comp as well such as below........

{ also reduced the brights a little and a tad more sharpening}
06-09-2013, 04:44 PM
Lyle Gruby

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Agree that something is rotten in Denmark here. Lyle, can you post a 1024 version of the extracted JPEG with zero processing? It might give us a clue as to what's going on here.... Or not :).

Attachment 129368

Here is thre original. I'd assume it's because of the crop, and/or could be from global exposure manipulations due to bringing up the shadows so much. Any advice would be appreciated.
06-09-2013, 04:49 PM
Lyle Gruby

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilCook

Re post is better but agree with Bill and Arthur as I think more could be done from the original with this one to bring out detail, it does look a bit overly bright and colorful. However, nice clean comp, nicely proportion perch, but I'd remove the spider web. Like the alert posture and clear eye...you may also consider a vertical comp as well such as below........

{ also reduced the brights a little and a tad more sharpening}

Thanks for taking the time to reprocess. I like your crop, however, it looks a little oversharpened to me there. I'm sure a middle ground could be found. I sort of like the spider web because I saw it eat a couple bugs out of one a few minutes before that. (he was blocked by limbs--couldn't get a shot). I think my biggest improvement would be made by getting closer to the bird to begin with.
06-09-2013, 05:07 PM
Arthur Morris

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle Gruby

Here is thre original. I'd assume it's because of the crop, and/or could be from global exposure manipulations due to bringing up the shadows so much. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks Lyle. First off, the huge crop is at least partially responsible for what the image quality problems with the posted JPEGs. Second, after seeing the ORIG is is obvious that the YELLOWs are toasted. I checked the original post looking for exposure compensation or metering info but did not see any. How did you meter?

IAC, I brought the image into Photoshop to confirm that the YELLOWs were blown, opened a Levels Adjustment Layer, and held down the ALT key. The red in the image in this pane indicates over-exposure of the red channel in the YELLOWs in the ORIG.

More in a bit.
06-09-2013, 05:16 PM
Arthur Morris

I tried working with the original in Photoshop but the YELLOWs are way too far gone. If you want, send me the RAW file via YouSendIt; it might be salvageable as aside from the over-exposure of the super-saturated YELLOWs the IQ is a lot better than it looked in the posted JPEGs.....
06-09-2013, 07:01 PM
Lyle Gruby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

I tried working with the original in Photoshop but the YELLOWs are way too far gone. If you want, send me the RAW file via YouSendIt; it might be salvageable as aside from the over-exposure of the super-saturated YELLOWs the IQ is a lot better than it looked in the posted JPEGs.....

Just sent it to the Verizon address. Really appreciate you fixing my postprocessing (and in-capture) foibles. I set an exposure to contain the highlights in the branch because it looked like it was brighter than the bird. However, I set the exposure right on the edge of blowing highlights because I wanted to pick up some of the green in the BG rather than just allow it to go black. The BG is foliage that is in shadow. What would have been a better way to meter for this scenario? I'd love any advice because I often find when shooting right at sunrise and sunset that I blow the red or multiple channels while creating an exposure that appears correct. However, when I expose so as not to blow the red channel, the image is very underexposed which causes other issues due to shooting at higher ISO's and pulling up shadows.
06-09-2013, 07:03 PM
Lyle Gruby

Just noticed I sent a different file than the one I posted originally. Shouldn't really matter, exposure and lighting conditions were the same. Shots were seconds apart.
06-09-2013, 07:04 PM
Arthur Morris

Thanks and YAW. I will see it tomorrow afternoon. I fly home tomorrow. In this case you might have done everything right with the original capture..... But you screwed up big time in the post processing and I am hoping, in the RAW conversion. BTW, what do you convert with?
06-09-2013, 08:49 PM
Lyle Gruby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Thanks and YAW. I will see it tomorrow afternoon. I fly home tomorrow. In this case you might have done everything right with the original capture..... But you screwed up big time in the post processing and I am hoping, in the RAW conversion. BTW, what do you convert with?

Converted with Lightroom. One of my biggest specialties is screwing up in post so I won't be surprised if the image looks much better. I promise I'm going to buy your post-processing book as soon as I have a little time to read it.
06-10-2013, 05:21 AM
Arthur Morris

That would be Digital Basics and yes, it will help you tremendously. Even though this e-Guide does not deal with Lightroom, RAW conversion is the same as with Photoshop/ACR.
06-11-2013, 05:57 AM
Arthur Morris

Lyle, I downloaded and opened the file that you sent. Please send the exact file as the one you sent did not look as sharp as the one in Pane #7. Thanks. Please send to this address: samandmayasgrandpa@att.net
06-11-2013, 08:51 PM
Lyle Gruby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Lyle, I downloaded and opened the file that you sent. Please send the exact file as the one you sent did not look as sharp as the one in Pane #7. Thanks. Please send to this address: samandmayasgrandpa@att.net

You've got mail. Thanks
06-12-2013, 09:23 AM
Arthur Morris

1 Attachment(s)

Got it. As I said originally this needed at least -2 stops with Nikon, maybe more. Even though the RED channel shows burned it was the YELLOWs that were toasted. Reduced the YELLOW Luminosity during ACR conversion and the SAT a bit but could not eliminate all of the blown highlights. All as described in detail in Digital Basics. Covered some of the hot YELLOW with a Quick Mask and did some branch removal and sharpening.

In addition your crop and processing were both way too aggressive.
06-12-2013, 09:24 AM
Arthur Morris

ps: Digital Basics was made for folks who take a halfway decent image and turn it into junk. That applies to all the posts and reposts above Pane #18. I hope that nobody takes that personally but to fail to state the truth does not help anyone here :).
06-12-2013, 11:51 AM
Lyle Gruby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Got it. As I said originally this needed at least -2 stops with Nikon, maybe more. Even though the RED channel shows burned it was the YELLOWs that were toasted. Reduced the YELLOW Luminosity during ACR conversion and the SAT a bit but could not eliminate all of the blown highlights. All as described in detail in Digital Basics. Covered some of the hot YELLOW with a Quick Mask and did some branch removal and sharpening.

In addition your crop and processing were both way too aggressive.

Not surprisingly, yours looks much better. Just ordered digital basics. Agree on all points, that's the first image I've cropped that much since I got the D3S. I usually get feedback encouraging more cropping. I'll just try and get closer from here on :w3.