Semipalmated Sandpiper

[Daniel Cadieux]

Just a simple profile pose of the Semipalmated Sandpiper. At first it may not seem like much, but for me it is always a nice addition to have a bit of greenery in the frame as it adds interest and fresh colour and I always look for those situations in the field and when sorting through my images.

Canon 7D + 100-400L @400mm, manual exposure, evaluative metering, 1/1250s., f/7.1, ISO 400 (histogram checked), natural light, handheld, a few minor bits of debris in the water cloned out.

[Ofer Levy]

Sharp with nice detail, nice low shooting angle and exposure. The "doctored" eye looks un-natural to me. As far as I know It is almost impossible to see the iris even in very good light unlike the way it looks in your version.

[Jack Breakfast]

Sweet and simple wins the day, as you've already pointed out. This is a pleasing picture, yes, and there's a nice symmetry offered by the greenery on left and small water trail on right. I like the unclear reflection, too, it is vaguely ghostly. A nice image to be sure, but my favorites of yours belong to the series shot in overcast light. Such whizbang images, I felt: evocative and true.

[Randy Stout]

Daniel:

NIce techs, shooting angle, comp, and yes the bit of greenery does add, gives the bird a subject.

Cheers

Randy

[Michael Zajac]

Daniel, Nice composition, the inclusion of the greenery does add to the image. The eye looks slightly light to me.

[Karl Egressy]

Simple and beautiful, Daniel!!!!!

[Arthur Morris]

Sharp with nice detail, nice low shooting angle and exposure. The "doctored" eye looks un-natural to me. As far as I know It is almost impossible to see the iris even in very good light unlike the way it looks in your version.

I disagree 100%. The eye in Dan's image looks fine and natural to me. As I have tried to explain to you before (without much success), when we properly expose for the WHITEs in an image, the middle tones are rendered one stop too dark and the dark tones are rendered close to two stops too dark. In other words, dark eyes look unnaturally dark in images with WHITE in them.

[Stu Bowie]

Hi Dan, another low angle from you that has turned out exceptionally well. The little guy looks nice and sharp, colours pop nicely against the calm water BG, and I really like the greenery.

[Miguel Palaviccini]

Daniel, nice image! Very clean, nice details in the feathers as well. The green does add a bit to the image.

On a side note: you always mention "histogram checked". What exactly do you mean by that - checking for exposure to the right? Just curious

[Daniel Cadieux]

Thanks guys!

Miguel, I do not histogram-check every single image individually, but rather pre-adjust my settings by checking the histogram and then snapping away. In this case I did a few test images on a gull, checked the histogram and blinkies then knew I was good to go with these shorebirds. BTW, the blinkies setting turned to "on" is just as valuable as the histogram itself IMO...

[Miguel Palaviccini]

Thanks Daniel - now I know what you mean! yep, I have the blinkies set on by default and I have the center button of the dial (Nikon) set to show me the histogram. Thanks for the tip.

[Ofer Levy]

I disagree 100%. The eye in Dan's image looks fine and natural to me. As I have tried to explain to you before (without much success), when we properly expose for the WHITEs in an image, the middle tones are rendered one stop too dark and the dark tones are rendered close to two stops too dark. In other words, dark eyes look unnaturally dark in images with WHITE in them.

Artie, the bright iris in this image has nothing to do with exposing to the right. I have been exposing to the right ever since I got back to bird photography about 10 years ago and I am sure you will agree my images are well exposed.
Daniel has admitted in here that he lightens the iris because he likes it in 99% of his images as in this case. This is bad practice IMHO as it changes such an important identification element in a species look. It is especially an issue as young or inexperienced photographers follow Daniel's example because he is a good photographer and a "moderator".
I will start a thread about this practice with some eye opening examples after I get back from the shoot as the Banded Lapwings are witing for me...

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Daniel, I liked that vegetaion. You've been nailing these. stunning details. and beautiful. well done as usual.

[Robert Holguin]

Excellent shot. I love the simplicity of this image. The small vegetation also adds to this wonderful image.
Well done.

[Bill Dix]

I love the serenity and simplicity of this, and the green is a nice touch. The eye looks fine to my eye.

[Daniel Cadieux]

If we can keep it civil I don't mind a good discussion.

I do this for fun and for art. I simply want to portray birds as beautiful entities in a beautiful surroundings. Almost every file shows a faint iris (yes, sometimes VERY faint) once adjusted for proper exposure. I choose to lighten them a bit. You say what I do to the eyes is "bad practice". According to who? If some want to follow my example then that is no ones' business but their own. Most don't, some may. That's fine with me. Lots of elements in digital photography is not what we see in real life. I've never seen a smooth creamy background with my naked eyes no matter how far the forest may be. It's not natural. Is it bad practice to photograph with a wide open aperture to artificially created a uniform green background? Lots of examples...not sure why you are suddenly so stuck on the eye thing especially when I've already told you why I choose to do so.

Respectfully...

[Sanjeevprakash]

Lovely Shot, Daniel.Pretty sharp and well exposed Bird.The BG is nice too.The whole atmosphere in this shot looks so clam.Great work

[Ofer Levy]

Hi, Daniel, this is a bad practice according to my own personal views of course.
My critique is strictly professional and not personal. If your images were over-saturated for example I don't assume you would have had any complaints if I mentioned it in my critique. I wonder why it is surprising to you that I mention the fact that the eye looks un-naturally bright because you have SELECTIVELY manipulated it?
I will keep mentioning this fact whenever I see it in your images or the images of others the same way that I mention over-exposure, over-saturation etc. (as I have done in the past with Stuart's Pied Kingfishers.)
Mentioning the fact that you selectively manipulating the eye in the title would be quite appropriate IMHO.
Cheers,
Ofer

[Bill Jobes]

Beautiful photo, Daniel !

With regard to the eye (specifically the Iris), I find it to be completely natural in appearance as presented here in the thread.

Out of curiosity since the iris has generated so much interest, I took the image up 400 % in CS6, and the iris looks even more natural in the context of the enlarged image.

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Bill,
I guess I am losing the battle in here but one last example before I give up and everyone can do whatever they want - "doctor" eyes, paint lovely colours on birds feathers to make them look pretty etc.
Image # 1 is the way this bird was captured with my standard processing.
Image # 2 is the same image with a "pretty" doctored eye in which the iris was brightened in a very similar way to what Dan is doing in 99% of his images.
Image # 3 shows how much I had to brighten image #1 to get this nice iris in image # 2.

Cheers,
Ofer

[Ofer Levy]

Image # 1

[Ofer Levy]

Image # 2

[Ofer Levy]

Image # 3

[Josh Clark]

I like the low profile simplicity of this shot. Kinda torn on the blade of grass. Could go either way though. Great shot!

[Shawn Zierman]

Well I will try posting again on this fine image. I posted yesterday, but I (assume) that a moderator took the post down, perhaps I was too sarcastic in my suggesting that Ofer "give it a rest" about the doctoring of the eye....Still, it would be nice if someone takes the time to yank a post, if they would follow up and let someone know why they pulled it...but I digress....
Great looking image. Classic profile, clean and simplistic composition...I think you over-sold the impact of the vegetation in this particular image :) Though I completely agree that the vegetation in many of your other fine shorebird images really does add value to the image, and being aware of that is a good point to raise.
I'll throw another example out...artistic blurs...does anybody see those with their bare naked eye? I mean, without the use of hallucinogenic drugs? :) Don't artistic blurs change the "identification elements" in regards to how species look? I don't see artistic blurs being targeted in the same way that "eye doctoring" is being singled out....how come?

[Melvin Grey]

Yet another clean simple image Daniel, with a lovely 'soft' reflection and superb quality. As I have mentioned before I very much like your use of an unobtrusive green element within the composition. With regard to the 'Iris' debate - may I add a few personal comments. My 24inch monitor is regularly calibrated and colour corrected - I can see ALL seventeen graduations on the BPN graduation strip, a very useful tool. The degree of 'lightening' of the subject's eye that Daniel employs - in my opinion - produces a very 'natural looking' result. Certainly it is not to the extent of introducing a possible misidentification element into the birds image as Ofer seems to suggest - if it did I am sure Daniel would not do it. I respect the opinions of all the contributors to this debate but surely it comes down to personal choice, UNLESS it would lead to misidentification.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, the bright iris in this image has nothing to do with exposing to the right. I have been exposing to the right ever since I got back to bird photography about 10 years ago and I am sure you will agree my images are well exposed.
Daniel has admitted in here that he lightens the iris because he likes it in 99% of his images as in this case. This is bad practice IMHO as it changes such an important identification element in a species look. It is especially an issue as young or inexperienced photographers follow Daniel's example because he is a good photographer and a "moderator".
I will start a thread about this practice with some eye opening examples after I get back from the shoot as the Banded Lapwings are witing for me...

We will need to agree to disagree on this one. As I said, I have tried to explain it to you without any success.

[Arthur Morris]

Ofer, perhaps you might look in the mirror on this one as you are pretty much the only one who has a problem here :). You are not losing the battle. If it is actually a battle, it is lost.

[denise ippolito]

Well I will try posting again on this fine image. I posted yesterday, but I (assume) that a moderator took the post down, perhaps I was too sarcastic in my suggesting that Ofer "give it a rest" about the doctoring of the eye....Still, it would be nice if someone takes the time to yank a post, if they would follow up and let someone know why they pulled it...but I digress....
Great looking image. Classic profile, clean and simplistic composition...I think you over-sold the impact of the vegetation in this particular image :) Though I completely agree that the vegetation in many of your other fine shorebird images really does add value to the image, and being aware of that is a good point to raise.
I'll throw another example out...artistic blurs...does anybody see those with their bare naked eye? I mean, without the use of hallucinogenic drugs? :) Don't artistic blurs change the "identification elements" in regards to how species look? I don't see artistic blurs being targeted in the same way that "eye doctoring" is being singled out....how come?

I don't think you need a follow-up letter to be sent when you already know the reason your post was pulled- just my thoughts... You make some valid points regarding what we see with the naked eye- each time we push the shutter button we are controlling the way an image is viewed. It then becomes your "version" of the scene which makes it art. Art is subjective and beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. If Daniel chooses to "doctor" his eyes it is his photograph and he should be allowed to do so. If one clones something from an image than it is the same thing in my opinion, it is a change to the natural scene. However depending on the way the light hits the eye they can be very light at times. Why not just disclose what has been done to an image and allow everyone their thoughts good or bad. After all different strokes for different folks. I think that folks are objecting to Ofer's repeated noting of the eye as it borders on antagonistic.

[Arthur Morris]

Well I will try posting again on this fine image. I posted yesterday, but I (assume) that a moderator took the post down, perhaps I was too sarcastic in my suggesting that Ofer "give it a rest" about the doctoring of the eye....Still, it would be nice if someone takes the time to yank a post, if they would follow up and let someone know why they pulled it...but I digress....
Great looking image. Classic profile, clean and simplistic composition...I think you over-sold the impact of the vegetation in this particular image :) Though I completely agree that the vegetation in many of your other fine shorebird images really does add value to the image, and being aware of that is a good point to raise.
I'll throw another example out...artistic blurs...does anybody see those with their bare naked eye? I mean, without the use of hallucinogenic drugs? :) Don't artistic blurs change the "identification elements" in regards to how species look? I don't see artistic blurs being targeted in the same way that "eye doctoring" is being singled out....how come?

Hey Shawn,

The funny thing is that I did send you an e-mail via the e-mail address at BPN . Not sure why you did not get it but I can assure you that it was sent. If you e-mail me I can send you a copy.

[Shawn Zierman]

Weeeeeelll Denise, thanks for the that, but...I'm new to this site, still feeling it out.
I've posted 80 odd some times and received a number of "thank yous" for some of
the feedback I've given (cool feature). Also, I received a "thank you" for my original
post to this thread. Shortly after that, my post was yanked. So yaaaw, when a
super-moderator says "thank you", then someone yanks the post, it's a little confusing.....
And, I did not ask for a "follow up letter", just a heads up more or less as to why
what I originally posted was pulled.
Regards,
Shawn Zierman.

[Shawn Zierman]

Thanks for that Artie. I will go back and look for it. See above post regarding my confused state....

[Arthur Morris]

This I might object too:

[Craig Brelsford]

Daniel, you've executed well yet again here. I never had a problem with the eye of the sandpiper, and the leaf influences me but little.

[Ofer Levy]

For everone's information - this is how the eye of this species looks like without selective manipulation.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php/102530

[Arthur Morris]

For everone's information - this is how the eye of this species looks like without selective manipulation. http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php/102530

Ofer, Didn't you ever learn that sometimes in life it is a good plan to drop the rope?