These guys are at the local pond, but are very wary of any movement by people around the bank. I got to the pond at 5:00 today, and settled down under a home-made camo "blanket" (similar to Kwik-Camo). It worked great, and as time passed they got more and more comfortable, getting a bit closer. The light wasn't harsh, but it wasn't perfect either. Above is one of very few keepers from the outing. If you have the time, I would love to get some answers to some questions:
- I exposed so that NONE of the whites from the head were blown out. This resulted in the blacks being too black, with almost no detail. I decided to add some exposure until I could see some of the hood blown out. That's what we have here. Is this the correct way to go about it?
- There was still some detail in the hood, but if I bring it back too much, then it looks grey or washed out. I think you can see some of this in the edges of the hood. Is it preferable to try to extract this detail, or just leave it detail-less white?
- I think there may be a little bit of an orange/warm cast, but am not sure how to check. Meaning, is there a quantifiable way to check an image and see if it has a cast? In LR, I used the eyedropper WB tool and moved it around the blacks. I noticed that there was a lot more R than there was B, but if I clicked on a black portion to neutralize it, I found that it was too blue/green.
Sorry for all of the questions, but I have learned a lot in this forum by just reading comments. I know the knowledge is out there, so any tips/suggestions are greatly appreciated! If you want to play around with the original, I have provided it for download here.
Wonderful shot.
Lovly light and water color.
Terrific pose, great IQ, and great comp.
Love the shooting angle too.
I would have exposed this duck just the way you did it. I personally think there is enough detail in the blacks.
We have a pair here and so far Im 0 for 3. They just wont come near me. Very frustrating.
Miguel,
Very tough subject, I don't think they get much harder to expose than Hoodies.
Having spent 3 days photographing a pair, I think you don't worry about the blacks,
They have not much detail anyway, the whites are more important.
I expose with no blinkies, none.
If you have good light and low iso, you can bring up the dark BG and have it look good.
If you have poor light, you need to expose carefully and hope for the best.
I like the BG you have, the whites are blown.
I think it would look better darker, no blown whites and the black is what it is.
They are hard to get right.
Can't seem to open this file in CS5 - 'Camera Raw does not support this file format' or something like that. I have not seen a NEF file format before is this a Nikon thing? I tried DPP as well with no luck.
Can't seem to open this file in CS5 - 'Camera Raw does not support this file format' or something like that. I have not seen a NEF file format before is this a Nikon thing? I tried DPP as well with no luck.
Tom, it is a Nikon format. I can try a DNG if that is more convenient. You can also update your camera raw to support D800 NEF files.
Your fieldcraft helped - you've captured a great pose, Miguel. The low angle works beautifully against that gorgeous bg.
The tail is a bit too close to the right edge. I'd move the bird to the left by a bit.
Your approach to exposure is correct imo. You have to protect your whites and let the blacks fall where they may and hope for the best in PP.
In this case, some of the whites seem blown.
Thank you for the comments guys. A quick repost with a different crop. I played around with the color balance tool (never had before) and moved the yellows toward blue and the reds toward cyan. All by trial and error.
Miguel, on the "exposure of whites" issue, I suggest you check out this tip from John Shaw: http://www.johnshawphoto.com/ettr-to-the-far-right/ It is a very useful tip that I intend to put into practice. The main point of the entry is that the blinkies you see on the LCD of the camera may be different than what you will see with the more accurate histogram in LR.
I opened the file in Camera RAW and the red highlight alert was present in much of the white areas. Much of the white in the head had a value of 255 and clipping can be seen in the histogram. I would have gone left to not risk the whites being blown like this.
As pointed out you can have no blinkies on the back of the camera but still have blown out whites when opened in the converter software of your choice. I have noticed a difference between DPP and Abobe RAW as well.
Last edited by Tom Rambaut; 02-03-2013 at 11:51 PM.
I looked at your RAW file, some whites are fully blown (i.e. pixels have reached saturation) in this case detail cannot be recovered. you should have increased your shutter speed or dropped the ISO at the time of capture.
Also the RAW file is a bit soft, but sharpening helped for small web presentation here.
Hi Miguel. I like the pose and the colors. I shoot allot of tricky birds also. Shovelers, Stilts, and YHBBs are a few that are challenging for me. Wish I could find Hoodeds! I do exactly what you mentioned. A little blinkies on the whites and the blacks will be much better and as long as it is only a little bit you can recover the whites to be acceptable IMO.
As pointed out you can have no blinkies on the back of the camera but still have blown out whites when opened in the converter software of your choice.
Tom, thanks for taking a look at the image. I'm not sure if this statement is true, although the opposite sure can be. Right?
Miguel, re: Tom's observation, I agree that there is more likely to be additional room after blinkies show up on the LCD, rather than the reverse. Camera manufacturers tend to be liberal on showing blinkies on the LCD because it's generated from an on-the-fly JPG, not the raw file. That means more often than not, that there might be a little additional room once loaded into the raw processor, whether it's DPP or Adobe Camera Raw or another processor. Shaw found that on his D4, he had an additional 1.3 stops of room before the highlights go too light. YMMV.
Yes, these guys are tough to expose...especially when the sun is out. Very early morning, very late afternoon, or cloudy days are best. I too would expose for the whites...worst comes to worst I'd rather have a some blocked blacks that some blown whites, but that's just me. If these guys can tolerate it and not get spooked a kiss of fill-flash can give you some detail in the blacks when exposing for the whites. BTW, as for the blinkies, with my Canon I'm OK having a few of them...quite recoverable in raw conversion. Since the LCD is projecting a jpeg of the image if you reduce the in-camera contrast you will have more "leeway" before the blinkies start showing up. As for WB, if this was in fact early in the morning then it is normal that the WB is much warmer than later in the day. I just go by what I remember seeing rather than by numbers (with a calibrated monitor of course)...
a kiss of fill-flash can give you some detail in the blacks when exposing for the whites.
Won't the whites also receive the same amount of fill and hence you may blow them out? I haven't done much flash photography, so input on this would be great!
Hey Miguel, the goal of fill-flash is not to raise the overall exposure of the scene or subject, but rather to fill in the shadows. You can test it out on a plush toy outdoors for practice to give you an idea. You could always play with your settings such as reducing your exposure by 1/3 stop if you want to play it safe. This is by personal experience and may vary a bit depending on the subject, subject distance, light, light angle, etc...but you'll get the hang of it quickly with practice.
Tom, thanks for taking a look at the image. I'm not sure if this statement is true, although the opposite sure can be. Right?
I was wrong generally - but I have had times when the back of the camera image said no blow highlights but when I have opened it in the RAW converter the histogram showed clipping. High contrast, strong light conditions.
Hoodie - Questions
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Tom Rambaut
