Reddish Egret preening

[Bill Dix]

This is from Fort DeSoto in January. I liked the way his eye was focused on the work at hand.

D7000, 500f4 + 1.4X, ISO 640, 1/1250s @ f/7.1, +1.7 EV, tripod

[Looking at the preview, I may have oversharpened this a bit. What do you think?]

[Jack Breakfast]

Great portrait, Bill, very engaging. Yes indeed, there's some crispy oversharpening to this one...easily fixed!

[arash_hazeghi]

great light and pose on my screen it also appears a bit oversharpened

[Randy Stout]

Bill:

Fun pose, nice BG color, but yes, oversharpened.

I wonder about a different crop, if you have more room to the right, might try adding there and removing a bit from the left.

Cheers

Randy

[Ken Watkins]

Great pose her the eye angle makes it very interesting.

It does look over-sharpened (slightly)

I have no idea what this bird looks like, so can I ask does it need a bit more red?

[Ofer Levy]

Nice pose! How much of a crop is it as I can't see much fine detail.

[Bill Dix]

Thanks all. I'll go back and fix the oversharpened file.

Randy, I do have more room to the right, but didn't think I wanted the bird to be coming out of the bottom of the frame as it would if I moved it left.

Ken, I don't have a lot of experience with these birds, but I don't think they get a lot redder than this. My recollection was that he was even a little less red the day I took this; I boosted the red channel a tiny bit. The Florida sun at 2 hours before sunset washed things out a bit. He might have looked a little less washed-out if he had stuck around for another hour or so, but some fishermen chased him off.

Ofer, this is a pretty large crop; 47% of full frame as posted. Shot vertically. Here's the whole bird at about 90% of full height.

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks Bill, as far as I can see the final image is much less than 47% of the original frame - looks like 20% or so.

[Bill Dix]

Thanks Bill, as far as I can see the final image is much less than 47% of the original frame - looks like 20% or so.

I guess it depends on how one measures % of original. The image was shot vertically. The OP measured 2340 px in height; the full frame was 4928 px high, thus the OP was 47.48 % of full height. If one calculates by % of area (total # of pixels) it would obviously be a much smaller number.

[Frank Schauf]

Beautiful portrait, great details and sharpness, Bill.

[Ofer Levy]

I guess it depends on how one measures % of original. The image was shot vertically. The OP measured 2340 px in height; the full frame was 4928 px high, thus the OP was 47.48 % of full height. If one calculates by % of area (total # of pixels) it would obviously be a much smaller number.

Crop refers to area only otherwise it is meaningless.

[Bill Dix]

I'm sure you're correct, when one refers to, for example, a "50% crop", which properly should refer to area. That said, I've often seen folks on this forum refer to "50% of full width", which is a perfectly clear description. I usually try to avoid using "50% crop" because I think it can sometimes be misunderstood. My mistake in pane #7 was to say "47% of full frame", when I should have said "47% of full height". Thanks for keeping me honest; the OP was cropped to 22% of the original area.