A juvenile yellow-crowned night heron with morning catch. Canon R5, 500mm II, 1/640, f/4.0 at ISO 3200. Handheld. Image cropped to about 1/3 of original size. Edited with Photoshop and DeNoise AI.
Printable View
A juvenile yellow-crowned night heron with morning catch. Canon R5, 500mm II, 1/640, f/4.0 at ISO 3200. Handheld. Image cropped to about 1/3 of original size. Edited with Photoshop and DeNoise AI.
Hey Moe, This is lovely. IQ looks great for 33% of the original pixels. Gray head and crawfish angle. Had you been able to get six inches lower, you would likely have and 2/3 green/1/3 sand as a BKGR. That would have been better. Where and when?
with love, artie
ps: Crawfish, crayfish, and crawdads are the same animal. Which term you use may depend much on where you live. Louisianans most often say crawfish, whereas Northerners are more likely to say crayfish. People from the West Coast or Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas often use the term crawdad.
Hi, Artie. Thank you. I hadn't learned the ankle-pod technique yet but yes, if I had gotten lower, I would've gotten more green. The rest of the background is actually tarmac that was wet and reflected enough light to fool the camera into thinking it was "sand". This was a rare specimen at a state park near my hometown in July last year.
And glad to learn about variations on crayfish - thanks for sharing that info.
Beautiful image. I really like the close view to show the details on the neck, face, and prey item. Exposure and details look good. I agree with Artie that a slightly lower shooting angle would have been better as it would have brought more green into the frame. There is a lot of open/negative space behind the bird, so I'm curious what a 4x5 vertical would look like.
Hi Muhammad. I agree with all the positive comments here. I will say that the face looks over sharpened to me.
Hi, Paul. Thank you for the feedback. I used the Low Light option in DeNoise and used automatic settings. I think that was a mistake. The automatic settings over-sharpened the eye but made some of the feathers soft and lost some details. Now I know better - I will look more carefully from now on.
For comparison, I'm attaching a side-by-side close-up of the face. The top is the unprocessed image, the bottom is DeNoise only. No other adjustments were made. As you can see, the original image was quite sharp to begin with.
Appreciate the comment.
Thank you. I'm attaching a 4x5 vertical. Not sure which I like better.
@Paul Burdett, this image has much less aggressive sharpening. Does the face still look over sharpened? The settings were 12 and 28 for noise and sharpening in DeNoise in Standard mode.
Looks good to me:S3: