Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Northern Parula.

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    8,509
    Threads
    827
    Thank You Posts

    Default Northern Parula.

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    One of the Parula shots I like to share with you. I took it last week on its breeding ground, Algonquin P.P.
    Thanks for looking.

    Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
    Mode Manual Exposure
    Tv 1/250
    Av 6.3
    ISO 400
    EF500mm f/4L IS USM +1.4x
    Flash Exposure Compensation -1 1/3

  2. #2
    BPN Member Alan Murphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,193
    Threads
    467
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nice comp. Higher ISO setting would allow for more needed DOF.

  3. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    8,509
    Threads
    827
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Murphy View Post
    Nice comp. Higher ISO setting would allow for more needed DOF.
    Thanks Alan. Good observation. I just simply forgot and had only one chance.
    Next day I remembered and switched to ISO 1250.
    That's the trouble with getting old; you now what to do, just don't remember.

  4. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Merida, Yucatan,Mexico
    Posts
    2,809
    Threads
    453
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Karl. I guess it was a set up. The birds pose would indeed require some more DOF that you could have had by going up on your ISO and maybe you would have gotten the feet sharp too. Maybe you have some different poses of this session too that would be nice to see. TFS.

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    8,509
    Threads
    827
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorant Voros View Post
    Hi Karl. I guess it was a set up. The birds pose would indeed require some more DOF that you could have had by going up on your ISO and maybe you would have gotten the feet sharp too. Maybe you have some different poses of this session too that would be nice to see. TFS.
    Thanks Lorant.
    Yes it was. It only landed once for about ten seconds.
    I fired about five shots and it was gone.
    Since I was waiting fairly long I never made a mental note that the light was dying on us, so the ISO stayed low.
    I had a few more shots next day at ISO 1250.

  6. #6
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,879
    Threads
    170
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Gorgeous bird, Karl. Nice bg, perch and light too.
    I see some artifacts in the bg probably from compression - don't know if it's just my monitor.

  7. #7
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    8,509
    Threads
    827
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sidharth Kodikal View Post
    Gorgeous bird, Karl. Nice bg, perch and light too.
    I see some artifacts in the bg probably from compression - don't know if it's just my monitor.
    Thanks, Sidharth.
    You are right. I checked it, it looks awful. Checked the full size picture, nice and smooth.
    Any idea as to how I can avoid these artifact when I change the image size.
    I usually change the resolution from whatever it was to 146.3 on a 7x5" image which will change the with
    to 1024.
    Maybe I should leave the resolution alone and change the with.
    What is your advice?

  8. #8
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,879
    Threads
    170
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Karl,

    When resizing in PS, I do not use the "Document Size" settings at all.
    AFAIK, if you have "Resample Image" checked and set the pixel dimensions (1024 width in this case), that ought to be enough.
    There are a few interpolation algorithms offered when resampling.
    Nearest Neighbor and Bilinear Interpolation are very simple/fast algorithms, probably from early days - I'd stay away from them.
    Bicubic Smoother is best for enlarging images (I haven't used it)
    I haven't liked the output from Bicubic Sharper but I haven't played with it too much.
    I've found "Bicubic (best for smooth gradients)" to work the best for me and I typically stick to that.
    I sharpen the tiff after resampling/down sizing as the last step before converting to jpg.

    Finally, when I create the output jpg, I ensure that it is not more than 245KB.
    I've heard that submitting a larger image may cause the forum software to resize it for you - no telling what interpolation method it uses (although I don't have first hand experience of this)

    Also, if you have darker/uneven bg with details, some compression artifacts are apparently hard to avoid (as I experienced with my last image posting), but that is not the case with your nice image here.
    I'm pretty sure the original is silky clean!

    Hope this help; if not, I'm sure the guys at the workflow forum will be able to sort it out.
    Last edited by Sidharth Kodikal; 07-10-2012 at 09:13 PM.

  9. #9
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    191
    Threads
    15
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Karl,

    Beautiful bird. Lovely details, BG and perch.

    - Maya

  10. #10
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    El Paso, TX USA
    Posts
    3,456
    Threads
    162
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Very nice shot. Beautiful bird, very nice perch, and great background.
    Well done.

  11. #11
    BPN Member Bill Dix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    12,487
    Threads
    1,892
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Karl. The Northern Parula is one of the beautiful warblers that has continued to elude me, so I'm envious that you captured him -- and in spectacular full breeding splendor to boot. Good advice about the DOF and ISO, which would have improved this immeasurably.

  12. #12
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    8,509
    Threads
    827
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidharth Kodikal View Post
    Hi Karl,

    When resizing in PS, I do not use the "Document Size" settings at all.
    AFAIK, if you have "Resample Image" checked and set the pixel dimensions (1024 width in this case), that ought to be enough.
    There are a few interpolation algorithms offered when resampling.
    Nearest Neighbor and Bilinear Interpolation are very simple/fast algorithms, probably from early days - I'd stay away from them.
    Bicubic Smoother is best for enlarging images (I haven't used it)
    I haven't liked the output from Bicubic Sharper but I haven't played with it too much.
    I've found "Bicubic (best for smooth gradients)" to work the best for me and I typically stick to that.
    I sharpen the tiff after resampling/down sizing as the last step before converting to jpg.

    Finally, when I create the output jpg, I ensure that it is not more than 245KB.
    I've heard that submitting a larger image may cause the forum software to resize it for you - no telling what interpolation method it uses (although I don't have first hand experience of this)

    Also, if you have darker/uneven bg with details, some compression artifacts are apparently hard to avoid (as I experienced with my last image posting), but that is not the case with your nice image here.
    I'm pretty sure the original is silky clean!

    Hope this help; if not, I'm sure the guys at the workflow forum will be able to sort it out.
    Thank you Sidharth taking your time and explaining downsizing.
    I used before and repeated downsizing with Bicubic (best for smooth gradient).
    However, I always convert it to jpeg firs and save the original as jpeg.
    I redone the downsizing exactly the same way I did before.
    Now I don't see artifacts which doesn't necessary mean that there are none but it looks better none the less.
    It's a mistery. I don't know what went so wrong before.
    Here is the new picture resized from 7x5" having 3088 pixels whith and 441.143 pixel per inch resolution.
    (After resizing, I res-harpened the bird only as I always do.)
    Thanks again,
    Karl.

  13. #13
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Geldern, Germany
    Posts
    3,557
    Threads
    216
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Beautiful and colorful image. Sharp and well composed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics