-
-
Very sweet P.-A. I like the light and colour. The subject is sharp in the head, where it needs to be but the "bulge" of the bird projecting towards you is out of the depth of field. Feather detail in that area would have been nice. I think the bird is too tight to the left but not sure you have any image there in the uncropped version. Adding canvas is an option but with the water detail, it would be difficult to make it convincing. I would remove the two OOD light blobs upper right.
The yellowish legs and buffy-brown plumage indicate a Least Sandpiper.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Lifetime Member
Very nice low angle here. Good use of flash and nice catchlight. Agree a little tight on the left and would remove the specular highlights. Looks like a Least to me as well! Love this bird against the blue water.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Lifetime Member
P-A,
Greetings. I find the color particularly appealing in this image. The bg elements add a lot. I guess I would like to see this a bit less tight all around... perhaps it is because after all this is a small bird.
Cheers,
-Michael-
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Thanks all for the comments and for confirming the ID.
I indeed do not have any room on the left side in the uncropped version. The crop is just a few pixels wide because of a small rotation adjustment. As for the bird being a bit "tight", I have to admit that during this shooting, I did regret not bringing the 100-400. It's much harder making such adjustments with a prime lens when crawling in the sand than just having to zoom out! And the MFD is way shorter with the zoom. I never thought a few juveniles would come within 3m from my position!
I actually did try to remove the specular highlights in the background, but badly failed. I do manage to clone out very small objects, but when it gets this large, I never manage to get results that do not leave any processing artifacts. I guess I just don't have the right technique yet.
-
Hi P.-A., I just tried using the clone tool and removed the three highlights in about 10 seconds. I'm not bragging but just saying it's easy of you set up the tool correctly. In this case I made the brush size about the same size as the highlights. I set the flow to 50% and chose a reasonable target close by and along the same horizontal level as the highlight. Two or three clicks later the highlight was gone.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Not sure I understand the impact of the "flow" parameter, but indeed at 50% it gives much better results. That and using a brush about the same size as the highlight. I always used something much smaller, which is probably the main issue I had here.
Thanks for the tip!
-
Very good P.-A. I forgot to mention to set the "hardness" of the clone tool to 0 to get a nice soft, graduated effect to the edge of the brush. I am personally not sure of the difference between the opacity control and the flow control with this (and other) brushes. With the Flow set to 50% you get about half the effect compared to a full 100%. At 50% opacity, you appear to get the same effect as 50% flow. I will often flow less that 50% for subtle effects and more when I want a more detailed result, more similar to the target.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Wildlife Moderator
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Indeed, the color profile was not embedded in the image. An old bad habit coming back. 
About the flash, the sun was not perfectly behind me, more like at "4 o'clock", so I used the flash as fill light to avoid strong shadows on the bird. It was rather light (-2 EV) and in fact, on a few images, it misfired due to low battery and the impact on the image was barely noticeable. So I have to take the full blame for the bright whites. I have to admit however that I use the flash as fill light pretty much all the time without ever wondering if it could have a negative impact on the image, even at such a low strength. Will keep that in mind in the future.
"Luminosity layer", is it called differently in CS5? I don't have any layer named as such. Maybe exposure or curves? Same for the "mid tone" adjustment actually. I'd like to be sure what layers you are referring to so I can experiment and compare with your repost, which I love by the way.
Interesting points. Thanks for the feedback.
Last edited by P-A. Fortin; 08-27-2013 at 04:33 PM.
-
Wildlife Moderator
Hi P-A, Luminosity will be explained in a sticky which you will find at the top of the Landscape Forum. Mid tone is where you use Calculations & Subtractions within Alpha channels, difficult to try and explain, and time consuming, hence twisting the arm of someone who can write actions. Sorry not that helpful I guess, however I am sure it's out there, just a very useful tool.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Hi Steve- I'm a bit confused as well. First I understand what luminosity is- essentially just the brightness of each pixel, ignoring the colour information. So if you add, say, a Curves Adjustment layer to the image and set the blending mode of that image to Luminosity, is this what you mean by "Luminosity layer"?
BTW I looked through Roberts tutorial in Landscape and did not find specific ref. to "Luminosity layer", but I also can't find my car keys when they are staring me in the face so I probably missed it.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Wildlife Moderator
Hi John, the first part is what I am referring too, although having read it, I'm not sure if this covers it????
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...168#post161168
I have just dived back to download from this morning shoot & refuel, however it it does not explain I will write a brief para to explain tonight for you. 
Car keys, my pet hate in case I drop them on route to the Little owls, would need to buy a new car if that happened!!!
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Wildlife Moderator
OK folks here you go:
Firstly you must have a merged or one only layer to apply this to, as it has to work on that one layer, when you apply it is personal taste IMHO.
- You have your layer, now duplicate it.
- Click on the duplicated layer to activate it and then go to Channels. Here you will have an RGB layer, then three others, RGB.
- Now with you finger pressed on the CMD button, click on the RGB channel, 'marching ants' should then appear on the image.
- Click on the add mask icon in the bottom bar of the Layer palette. A B/W version will now appear next to the colour duplicated layer.
- Ensure the B/W icon is active, there should be white corner right angles visible, indicating this is ACTIVE.
Now here is the fun part, go to the Blend mode button in the Layer palette and scroll down to Multiply or Overlay, each blend will have it's own cause & effect, you choose! Then using the Opacity slider you can vary the amount required. You may now wish to add an adjustment mask and paint only the areas you wish this to be applied too.
Simple, job done.
Cheers
Steve 
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Post a Thank You. - 2 Thanks
-
Thanks Steve ,I just made this into an action (Both ways ) It does make a deference !
-
OK -- a question (not a challenge, please). The luminosity mask technique described works on the pixels that are more than 50% brightness, with a very broad masking. (Not a good explanation but those who can answer the question know what I mean.) This is a technique used after an image is rasterized in PS, with the tonalities burned in. And it is a very old technique, going back to the days of 8 bit scans from film.
With the newest adjustment algorithms in ACR / LR Process 2012, and probably other modern RW converters, wouldn't one obtain better results by going back to careful use of the Shadows and Highlights sliders, balanced with Exposure, and possibly other tweaks, in the RAW conversion process?
I do understand that luminosity masks can be narrowed down to successively lighter and darker tones, and even limited to one color channel, but I see common references here in BPN to what appears to be the simple "light tones" luminosity mask and the darkening technique described above -- I'm just curious how it compares to maximum detail extracted from the RAW sliders? And, for that matter, how it compares to a simple Curve, pulled down in the middle.
It is widely accepted to be better to do as many tonal corrections as possible on the 14-bit depth of a modern digital file in a RAW converter. Obviously with a high contrast subject there can be a limit to how much shadow and highlight detail you can recover, and the luminosity mask technique could be useful sometimes, but isn't it quite limited by today's standards? In comparison, Nik's Deiial Extractor can bring out a surprising amount of tonal detail in both darks and lights, after you are in PS. How does that or other tone mapping techniques compare to using a luminosity mask?
I see the idea tossed out for very slight tonal corrections that look like they might have been better dealt with in RAW conversion.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Wildlife Moderator
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Lifetime Member
Originally Posted by
Diane Miller
With the newest adjustment algorithms in ACR / LR Process 2012, and probably other modern RW converters, wouldn't one obtain better results by going back to careful use of the Shadows and Highlights sliders, balanced with Exposure, and possibly other tweaks, in the RAW conversion process?
Diane,
Greetings. There are many ways to get from one place to another in processing. Steve presented one. IMO, the question of "what is better" is one of taste, pp skill, time, awareness, workflow...
That said, the method presented would work (increase detail in highlights) when there pixel to pixel differences to indicate detail is present in the image but perhaps not enough difference to be visually distinguished. Multiply and Overlay blend modes essentially would increase such differences making them more visible. The selection process restricts the effect to brighter regions of the image.
So, there are two processes in play with call it highlight enhancement: selection and pixel value change to the selection. And two places to apply such processes: raw conversion and post-processing (pp).
Curves combines these two processes through the curves interface. Output = Input ( the diagonal line in the graph) means no selection, while Output > or < Input selects those Input valued pixels for change. Tight bounded selection in curves is tricky to implement requiring several control points. A simple curve such as pulling down in the middle essentially selects the whole image (decreases local contrast in the darks while increasing local contrast in the lights).
A curve of sorts is applied to the image during the raw conversion process. The highlights and shadows type adjustments in raw converters are essentially interfaces for altering this initial raw conversion curve. Nikon CaptureNX has a tool Picture Control editor in which you can edit this curve directly (difficult to find let alone use, for experts only kind of tool).
Standard contrast curves (in camera contrast settings) are S curves which increase contrast in the midtones while reducing contrast in highlights and shadows. Highlights sliders counteract the contrast reduction in highlights (by reducing the contrast in the midtones slightly). Tone mapping is a zero sum game.
Well... there is much to be said, but to summarize the procedure Steve presented is as good as one is happy with the results. If not happy, there are many other things to try. And at the end of the day one might have just blown highlights ;-).
Cheers,
-Michael-
Last edited by Michael Gerald-Yamasaki; 08-29-2013 at 11:20 AM.
Reason: deleted one sentence
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Wildlife Moderator
Cheers Michael, why not swing by to the Wildlife forum too, be nice to see some images. 
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Super Moderator
Good critiques and discussions guys! I've not much to add except for the ID department. Despite the legs not being fully black I do believe this is a juvenile Semipalmated Sandpiper. The juveniles do show more colour, and the legs can be variable. The Leasts appear darker in general than this fella, and their bills are more tapered at the tip and slightly drooping. To me this one just "feels" semipalmated.
Of course, I could be wrong, but boy this is one of the many reasons I love shorebirds...especially at this time of year!
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Daniel- Not a critique point but I've never seen a SEMI with anything but dark grey legs, even young ones. Also, FYI, their bills are extremely variable. In the west of the breeding range, bills are much shorter than in the east, and don't show the same "droopiness". I published a paper on this a while back.
Having said all this, you could be right! The legs here are not particularly yellowish and maybe the yellow that is there is an artifact in the image. If it is a SEMI the buff-red colour indicates an immature bird from 2014.
With permission from P.-A. I will copy this over to the About Birds forum for more discussion on ID.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Sure, go ahead. Meanwhile I'll try to dig up other images from this individual. Maybe I'll find something that might help.
It's been a while since a thread in ETL generated such an interesting discussion!
-
I found 3 images. Not sure I'm allowed to post that many in a single day so I'll start with 1 and wait for a mod to let me know if I can flood the thread :)
I picked this one first because we have a better look at the legs. I only cropped the image and applied a bit of sharpening. Not other processing and no white balance touch-ups (was shot in awb).
And yes, it was a tight crop just to have more pixels on the bird. It was not shot like this!
-
Hi P.-A. Could you start a thread in About Birds forum with the image above. That would be great! I'm pretty sure you can post more than one there, and it is entirely appropriate as far as I know.
-
P-A. Fortin thanked for this post
Posting Permissions
