Northern Pintail from 2017

My vote for most elegant North American waterfowl? Northern Pintail!

I caught up with this male outside Vancouver.

A budget-oriented frame.....

Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II on EOS 7D2
1/1250 at f/5.6, ISO 400
Processed in LR CC. Cleaned up one distracting blob on the water

Attachment 185648

Pretty much perfect. No nits here. In your hands, it sure looks quite elegant. TFS

The most elegant duck in my opinion, they look like decoys....
I wish it had more cheery look, my only nit. Eye a bit closed...

I like everything but the mood of the duck. Dan's right, he looks a bit depressed with pupil partially closed (maybe appropriate for the situation). not the best pose.... on my screen the image shows a yellow cast and whites are border line hot

TFS stay safe

Lovely image....I like the colours and detail...Pleasing to the eye

Will

Hi Dorian ... this is a super and clean image !!
No nits from my side , looks good on all counts !!
Cannot see a cast , as I think the " yellow cast " does fit to the given light !!

Nice one TFS Andreas

Love this canvas - but do you have one where the eye is fully open?
POV, light, IQ are all topnotch.
I can't believe you don't use DPP or PS CC! Your pics are gorgeous as processed now. If you got a bit more computer savvy, your pics would be off the charts. Although, less is more most of the time when processing. But DPP is what I use to convert the RAW 50% of the time. Has truer colors and IQ. I bought Arash's e-book on DPP and use it a lot. But I need him to update the NR settings for the 1 DX3. Are you reading this Arash?!!:S3:
Once I convert the RAW to a TIFF, I will send it to LR but only for cataloguing and the crop tool. I like LR for images that are well exposed with no highlights blown or blocked shadows. DPP can save the day if you have some blown out whites.
DPP is a very slow program though. Drives me crazy at times,
Gail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gail bisson

Love this canvas - but do you have one where the eye is fully open?
POV, light, IQ are all topnotch.
I can't believe you don't use DPP or PS CC! Your pics are gorgeous as processed now. If you got a bit more computer savvy, your pics would be off the charts. Although, less is more most of the time when processing. But DPP is what I use to convert the RAW 50% of the time. Has truer colors and IQ. I bought Arash's e-book on DPP and use it a lot. But I need him to update the NR settings for the 1 DX3. Are you reading this Arash?!!:S3:
Once I convert the RAW to a TIFF, I will send it to LR but only for cataloguing and the crop tool. I like LR for images that are well exposed with no highlights blown or blocked shadows. DPP can save the day if you have some blown out whites.
DPP is a very slow program though. Drives me crazy at times,
Gail

---

Thanks for the kind words! I assume you can't clone stuff out in DPP. Does that mean you do that in LR?

I love pretty much everything about the image, including the eye. Pretty much a prime-time breeding plumage individual too. The subtle "brushstrokes" in the water are awesome. Long live the 7DII !!:t3

Nice view of this drake. Light was nice and i like the golden water. The framing is spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Cadieux

I love pretty much everything about the image, including the eye. Pretty much a prime-time breeding plumage individual too. The subtle "brushstrokes" in the water are awesome. Long live the 7DII !!:t3

---

Right on! Someone's finally with me on the eye! He looks like he's giving me a skeptical once-over!

I use photoshop for cloning. The spot healing brush is amazing. You brush the area to be cloned and voila! Perfectly done. It is so much easier and better than LR. DPP has no cloning ability.
Gail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gail bisson

. The spot healing brush is amazing. You brush the area to be cloned and voila!l

---

I do not agree blindly ... as this tool is not perfect as you mentioned , just my take . As it creates fancy artifacts at times , depending on the area you work on , many times resulting in blurry areas . It does work ok on structureless BG etc . Your better bet is the healing brush as it takes detail and color in the calculations ... ending mostly in way better results . Just my take .

BTW ... I hope you use the blending modes for better results .... when removing things :w3 and not the plain brush :t3

Cheers Andreas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gail bisson

Love this canvas - but do you have one where the eye is fully open?
POV, light, IQ are all topnotch.
I can't believe you don't use DPP or PS CC! Your pics are gorgeous as processed now. If you got a bit more computer savvy, your pics would be off the charts. Although, less is more most of the time when processing. But DPP is what I use to convert the RAW 50% of the time. Has truer colors and IQ. I bought Arash's e-book on DPP and use it a lot. But I need him to update the NR settings for the 1 DX3. Are you reading this Arash?!!:S3:
Once I convert the RAW to a TIFF, I will send it to LR but only for cataloguing and the crop tool. I like LR for images that are well exposed with no highlights blown or blocked shadows. DPP can save the day if you have some blown out whites.
DPP is a very slow program though. Drives me crazy at times,
Gail

---

You need to send me your 1DX III so I can use it and then update the guide ;)

JK, it's in the works Artie and I will send out the updates soon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorian Anderson

Thanks for the kind words! I assume you can't clone stuff out in DPP. Does that mean you do that in LR?

---

you can take out dust and spots but you cannot do major clone job and fixes, you need PS for that. man how do you live without photoshop ? I guess your pics are so perfect you never need to fix anything :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

you can take out dust and spots but you cannot do major clone job and fixes, you need PS for that. man how do you live without photoshop ? I guess your pics are so perfect you never need to fix anything :D

---

I've always found processing a bit laborious. I now understand why my battles are comparatively heightened using LR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andreas Liedmann

I do not agree blindly ... as this tool is not perfect as you mentioned , just my take . As it creates fancy artifacts at times , depending on the area you work on , many times resulting in blurry areas . It does work ok on structureless BG etc . Your better bet is the healing brush as it takes detail and color in the calculations ... ending mostly in way better results . Just my take .

BTW ... I hope you use the blending modes for better results .... when removing things :w3 and not the plain brush :t3

Cheers Andreas

---

I am and I do. it was a general comment to emphasize that PS is great for cloning- clone tool can be great, patch tool can be great, content-fill aware has its place as well.
Gail

Hey Dorian sorry for highjacking your thread ....:w3

Gail ... what have we done in the old analog days ??!! Accepting the things as they are in nature and tried to get the best out of it ...right ??!!! I personally think today is too much stuff around about removing things from an image .... just because it is possible to everyone !!! For some easier to get decent results :w3 ... for others more difficult . That is why I try to minimize these kind of adjustments or even do not make them at all .
Others folks here .... creating new wings or feathers , because they have cut off some parts during capture . But that's how it is today .... due to the digital age and it is ok with me .

Dorian .... and yes today this thing is very laborious , if you want get the most out of your high tech equipment !!! And I personally love it on the tonal/ color front .... not that much on the front of creating more or less composites at times !!! But we all are different and that is good ... as we see a lot of different things and can exchange thoughts about it .

Cheers Andreas