King Eider (Captive) Alaska Sea Life Center

Printable View

04-02-2009, 06:13 AM
Dave Taylor

King Eider (Captive) Alaska Sea Life Center

Hey everyone, hope you are all well & keeping busy shooting.

Shot this Tuesday afternoon at the Alaska Sea Life Center in Seward. They have a great walk-in aviary with a good variety of sea birds/ducks & allow very close approach. Think 100mm headshots. Lots of fun, I'm usually opposed to shooting in controlled environments with captive animals, but this is a lot of fun & a great way to flesh out a portfolio to support wilderness-based photos.
Specifics:
Canon 50D
100-400 IS (IS turned off - tripod mounted) @ 400mm
1/1000" @ f/6.3 & -2/3 ex. comp. to darken background
ISO 640
550EX Flash set to - 1&2/3 FEC

Every time he would duck (sorry, bad pun...) under water, he'd come back up with an arc of perfect water beads beneath each eye. Really cool

Also, posted a Journal Entry with more photos and a fun write up of this trip, hope you'll stop by and leave a comment.

http://www.sixtyonenorth.com/IMAGES/...9/_MG_2969.jpg

Thanks for viewing.
04-02-2009, 06:26 AM
Axel Hildebrandt

Beautiful bird and well-captured. I like the details and composition and would lighten the eye and shadow to get more details.

I fixed your post. You had a second image link which prevents the forum software from creating a thumbnail.
04-02-2009, 06:52 AM
Mike Tracy

I like the composition and your subject also. Nicely done on the exposure considering the variants of blacks to whites. Might see if you can lighten up the shadow behind his neck.

The sea life center is a cool place. Even though I don't usually take captive animal images either I couldn't resist when I was there.
04-02-2009, 12:41 PM
Brian Wong

Hi Dave!

I agree with Axel and try lightening the eye & shadow for more details. I love the overall texture and colors! Good head angle. It is a beautiful bird!
04-02-2009, 01:05 PM
Dave Taylor

Thanks everyone for the comments and constructive criticism. And thanks Axel for the thumbnail fix, I could not figure that one out. Then again, it was 2:13 am AK time when I posted it... so things were a bit fuzzy:) I will see what I can do about lightening the eye and the shadow behind the neck.
Question for you, as I am not as experienced in bird photography - if I may. The dark eye seems to be a recurring theme in the critiques of my bird photography. I struggle with this, but I don't think it's something that I could fix in camera/on location. Mainly because of exposure latitude. If I add more flash or exposure, I would blow the highlights. The problem is, once I get back and try to fix it in post, there's little detail there to pull out of the shadows. I do "expose to the right" for noise reduction, when the shutter speed doesn't get too long - but many times, the data is just simply not there.
Suggestions? And thanks!
04-02-2009, 02:34 PM
Arthur Morris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Taylor

I will see what I can do about lightening the eye and the shadow behind the neck.
Question for you, as I am not as experienced in bird photography - if I may. The dark eye seems to be a recurring theme in the critiques of my bird photography. I struggle with this, but I don't think it's something that I could fix in camera/on location. Mainly because of exposure latitude. If I add more flash or exposure, I would blow the highlights. The problem is, once I get back and try to fix it in post, there's little detail there to pull out of the shadows. I do "expose to the right" for noise reduction, when the shutter speed doesn't get too long - but many times, the data is just simply not there. Suggestions? And thanks!

First off, I love this image. One of my most wanted birds.... Would like to see a bit more room above. What was the cause of the black BKGR?

Here's why your eyes are coming out dark: you are properly exposing for the whites. Therefore, the middle tones are about one stop underexposed and darks are nearly two stops under. (See the softcover ABP for a complete explanation.) Learn to use Quick Masks (APTATS) to lighten the irises just a tad, just enough to give the eye some life. Eye Doctor techniques are covered in Digital Basics.
04-02-2009, 02:40 PM
Arthur Morris

1 Attachment(s)

This is what I am talking about. I might have over-done it a bit as I am not familiar with the iris of this species.

Wow, that was one high quality JPEG.
04-02-2009, 02:51 PM
Dave Taylor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

This is what I am talking about. I might have over-done it a bit as I am not familiar with the iris of this species.

Wow, that was one high quality JPEG.

Thanks Artie - much appreciated. I just checked out the RAW image in LR, the eye is nearly detail-less & black. Unfortunately, there's just nothing there to recover. It's a fine line, one that I still struggle with. I had to choose which detail to sacrifice, the iris detail or the highlights. My personal style is higher contrast, with rich blacks & "nearly" white whites. It's why I personally shy away from HDR images, always thought they looked flat.
I'm curious Artie, where did you get the iris from?:)
04-02-2009, 02:57 PM
Dave Taylor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

First off, I love this image. One of my most wanted birds.... Would like to see a bit more room above. What was the cause of the black BKGR?

Here's why your eyes are coming out dark: you are properly exposing for the whites. Therefore, the middle tones are about one stop underexposed and darks are nearly two stops under. (See the softcover ABP for a complete explanation.) Learn to use Quick Masks (APTATS) to lighten the irises just a tad, just enough to give the eye some life. Eye Doctor techniques are covered in Digital Basics.

Forgot to answer your background question. This is in an indoor, open air aviary. There is a rock face for nesting on the left side of the aviary and, if I remember correctly, the background was in the shadow of this rock face. The water had some dark colored feathers floating on it, so I purposefully underexposed the image and comped by pumping the flash a bit to darken the background.
04-02-2009, 03:28 PM
Arthur Morris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Taylor

Thanks Artie - much appreciated. I just checked out the RAW image in LR, the eye is nearly detail-less & black. Unfortunately, there's just nothing there to recover. It's a fine line, one that I still struggle with. I had to choose which detail to sacrifice, the iris detail or the highlights. My personal style is higher contrast, with rich blacks & "nearly" white whites. It's why I personally shy away from HDR images, always thought they looked flat.
I'm curious Artie, where did you get the iris from?:)

Hi Again Dave, The iris is your original iris. I made a QM of the iris, tried but pretty much fialed to lighten it with a curves adjustment, so I went to Plan B (also from Digital Basics). I used Hue/SAT, de-SATed the iris, and then used the Lighten slider. I intentionally overdid it and then reduced the opacity ot 85%

HDR is a waste for birds--they are never still enough. But, if we were smart enough in a situation like this, you could have--assuming that the bird was sitting in the same spot for a bit, or at least at the same distance, made and exposure or two at +2 or +3 stops and then grabbed the eye from that image with a QM....
04-02-2009, 04:01 PM
Dave Taylor

He's baaack... I tried reworking it per your instructions Artie - I'm still not getting nearly the same iris detail out of it - and this is off the RAW file, not a re-sampled jpg. I tried a bunch of tricks, curves, - saturation with a lightness adjustment then opacity drop. Just not working for me:) Which is frustrating, cause I'm not "new" at the photoshop thing - I've been using it extensively for over 11 years. Just got to learn new tricks I guess. Here's the most info I could get out of the eye, without making it look manhandled:)
http://sixtyonenorth.com/IMAGES/_MG_2969-Edit.jpg
04-02-2009, 04:58 PM
Axel Hildebrandt

Very interesting discussion and Artie's repost illustrates it really well. I'm not familiar with this species, either... unfortunately but I would think that iris and pupil look a bit different if you overexpose the RAW file by a stop or two.
04-02-2009, 08:22 PM
Arthur Morris

I should have asked this right off the bat Dave, what did you think of my repost? The eye does look better in your second edition.

Axel, it you over-exposed to grab the eye, it would probably be best to grab the eye on a layer and then erase the pupil...
04-02-2009, 08:42 PM
Dave Taylor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

I should have asked this right off the bat Dave, what did you think of my repost? The eye does look better in your second edition.

Axel, it you over-exposed to grab the eye, it would probably be best to grab the eye on a layer and then erase the pupil...

Sorry about that, I meant to respond - just got kind of hectic around here for a little while. I do like your repost, quite a bit actually. The extra detail in the eye is great - but I was unable to match that in my post work. Thanks for your comment on my repost, it was all I could do without making it look manipulated. Thanks again for your efforts.
Cheers,
dave
04-02-2009, 08:44 PM
Axel Hildebrandt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

I should have asked this right off the bat Dave, what did you think of my repost? The eye does look better in your second edition.

Axel, it you over-exposed to grab the eye, it would probably be best to grab the eye on a layer and then erase the pupil...

Good to know, I've never tried this.
04-03-2009, 04:43 AM
John Chardine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Hi Again Dave, The iris is your original iris. I made a QM of the iris, tried but pretty much fialed to lighten it with a curves adjustment, so I went to Plan B (also from Digital Basics). I used Hue/SAT, de-SATed the iris, and then used the Lighten slider. I intentionally overdid it and then reduced the opacity ot 85%

HDR is a waste for birds--they are never still enough. But, if we were smart enough in a situation like this, you could have--assuming that the bird was sitting in the same spot for a bit, or at least at the same distance, made and exposure or two at +2 or +3 stops and then grabbed the eye from that image with a QM....

Or if you shoot RAW, you may be able to get away with opening two versions of the image- one exposed for the highlights and another for the blacks (by adjusting the Exposure slider in ACR). Then take the eye from the over-exposed image. Not sure if this is any different to processing after RAW conversion but I suspect it is as the RAW image gives you more latitude at the beginning of the process.
04-03-2009, 04:57 AM
Arthur Morris

Hey John, I thought about that but this bird had the blackest eye that I have ever seen so I am not sure that it would work....
04-04-2009, 02:46 AM
Grady Weed

I've only heard of about half dozen King Eiders here in Maine since the 20 years I've lived here. And I have yet to see one. Most of the sightings are with a spotting scope! :eek: I love these guys. these and the Puffins we have up Downeast Maine, Machias and Jonesport area, are clownish birds and very colorful, elegant too. Thanks for the beautiful portrait. Now I have something to measure up to.