Great Gray

[Dick Huberty]

Was on a Landscape workshop in the Tetons when I spotted this Great Gray Owl. i popped my Canon 500 mm Mark ll on to my Canon 5D Mark lll and shot this guy. SS 1/2000, F5.6, ISO 2500, hand held. I was so focused on getting this guy with an uncluttered BG and didn't pay enough attention to my settings. I could have reduced the ISO to at least 1250 and shutter speed to 1/1000. I am amazed at how well this camera does at higher iSO. There was little noise in the photo which I PP in NIK Define. Also removed a distracting branch in PS5 using Content Aware. Cropped and other minor adjustments in LR 4 and NIK. Your thoughts and criticisms are appreciated.

Dick Huberety

[Diane Miller]

Looks like those settings worked very well. High ISO is good on the 5D3 as long as you don't have to lighten underexposed areas too much -- you did very well here for 2500, and a great catch with a pleasing BG! I like the composition and the look he's giving you.

There is a magenta cast -- I made a Curves adjustment layer and used the gray eyedropper to click on the gray areas of the underside of the perch. It may not be the most accurate rendition of the color of the owl, but gets you close enough for some artistic license.

[LinzRiverBalmer]

Gorgeous creature and I'm not good enough to critique him or the settings.

But in both yours and Dianes one thing really bothers me and stands out more than anything, the really white top part on the wood perch. It's a little less distracting in Diane's repost but still stark, not sure if I can tell if they are blown, but bring that down some to match the perch a bit more..... then it would be awesome for me.

great shot

[Iain Barker]

Hi Dick. This is a nice image and I wouldn't change much. Diane's repost with the cast fixed is an improvement though.
If it were mine I think I would clone out the small branch below the right end of the perch.

Thanks for showing. Iain.

[Dick Huberty]

Thank you all for your input. Diane, your right that it doe have a magenta color cast to it and your repost is a much better rendition of the real coloring on the owl. The white on the top of the perch is snow...yes we were in the Tetons for a landscape workshop and we got more snow than mountains. your right Linz, it is a little distracting and i will tone it down.

[Marina Scarr]

This is truly a lovely portrait. Diane did a great job removing the color cast. I don't mind the small branch or the white on the perch at all.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dick, I did see that you mentioned this was cropped, was it a small or large amount, as this has a significant factor in IQ? For me the subject needs more DOF so the facial discs/eyes have greater detail/depth, based on the techs you had, you could have sacrificed a bit of SS, just a fraction, so your DOF was increased to around f/9 with the focus selection between the eyes. Just my take.

Meant to say Dick, if you are using LR4 and follow the logical Module work flow, correcting the WB initially should help avoid colour casts, unless you are adding selectively HSL, Vibrancy, Selective colour etc enhancements, keeping things simple with minimal PP ensures a cleaner image IMHO. Also if this is a crop I might pull out a bit more to give the subject a bit more room to breath, again not much but it may help I feel?

TFS
Steve

[Grady Weed]

I do not mind the snow or small branch on the right side below the main branch. I would however like to see a repost of the RAW file untouched. Then we could give a better critique in regards to color, cast, crop etc. Just a suggestion and my 2 cents.

[Dick Huberty]

Of Course I can't post a RAW image here, but here is the unprocessed jpg version of the owl. thanks for your interest.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dick, thanks for this, good call Grady.

Based on this I still think/feel that the cast has come from PP, just as a matter of interest what was the WB set at in camera, plus, it's a big crop, so detail/clarity (IQ) is sadly going to drop. Will have a ponder.

cheers
Steve

[Dick Huberty]

I went back and analyzed where the magenta cast came from. I believe I push up the vibrance in LR too much. The WB was set at Auto and was at 4700K...Have a lot to learn in PP. Thanks for the help.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dick, remember we all started out at the same point and so I can appreciate where you are, but the mountain isn't that big. You've passed base camp and progressing nicely, just take a few breathers every now and then to look around and occasionally look back to see how far you have come. As I said I will have a ponder.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dick, taking your last post of the RAW jpg into LR I got a mid neutral to act as my starting point for WB, where you then go from here ie Warmer/Cooler is purely personal choice and how you recall/perceive the image to be. Adjusted the Exposure so the highlights were sorted and add some tweaks in the Tonal Curve. Exported to PS, roughly extended the BKG to hide some of the tree/greenery, not ideal and something I very much try to avoid, IMHO makes for a sloppy photographer, LOL. Would have liked more green branches in view to add to the habitat, but... Made a Curves adjustment to the three tones, (quarter, mid & three quarter) but only to the subject & log. Applied some sharpening to the subject.

I feel based on what you posted, the WB & overall look & feel was good and as you say, perhaps you overdid the Vib. Best to push the sliders along way, then you can see the result and the pull back to a more 'modest' adjustment, a good way to learn what does what.

I have had to mask it this way as there was not sufficient IQ to allow a crop, but hopefully you can see the direction. Obviously this is just one persons take, however I hope it helps, food for thought. Also the crop is in keeping with how you shot the subject, but with more space around to help the subject/comp.

Might have gone off at a tangent, if so apologies.

Cheers
Steve

[Sandy Witvoet]

Good going, Steve! How about something in between yours and Diane's? (vertical, but a bit looser than the OP?)

[Steve Kaluski]

Sandy, I'm trying to avoid loosing IQ & pixel bashing, based on what I have to play with. It's always best to shoot the way you intend the image to be portrayed, albeit with some final refinements in cropping.

Dick, I get the feeling that the subject was quite comfortable, so providing your movements are kept to a minimum and quiet, perhaps you could have moved to get a better position, but only guessing? Spending a few minutes choosing the best place can save time in PP, IF the subject allows you. Adding a convertor would have certainly helped and based on the tech would not have made too much IQ loss. Always worth have one in the pocket, close at hand.

[Loi Nguyen]

Hi Dick, I just started out here too, but then I learned quickly from folks here that a big crop would compromise the IQ so much that there is no PP can bring it back. For a gorgeous bird like this, it is Ok to have it small in the frame, but in this case the OOF branch on the RHS is just too much. Did you try to approach closer? Take the time and practice and you might be lucky next time! Loi

[Steve Kaluski]

How about something in between yours and Diane's? (vertical, but a bit looser than the OP?)

Sandy, sadly you still have the issue with addressing the BKG/IQ, but hopefully this is more along the lines of your thinking?

[Dick Huberty]

Thanks Steve and all for helping me learn here. Some more questions. You talk about IQ problems with this image. Is that determination made by the photo I posted or your knowledge of what happens when I crop the original as much as I did? When I bring this image up and double the size I am amazed at the quality. I am quite sure I can get a very acceptable 13x19 print with my original crop. I run the image through NIK Difine and it shows a small amount of noise which it corrects. When I took this picture I did have both a 1.4 and a 2 extender available, but made the judgement that I didn't need it because of the distance from me and the size of the owl. (I don't have much experience with this camera and lens to have good judgement) Would using an extender with its trade offs be to my benefit in this photo?

I did like your horizontal crop partly because the log that is the perch goes of the bottom of the frame instead of the corner. I have read somewhere that a good composition does not have things going off the corner of your frame.

What does the acronym IMHO mean? I see it used a lot here but do not know what it stands for. Did you use the cloning tool in PS to extend the background?

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Dick,

Greetings. WB is IMHO (in my humble opinion) somewhat subjective. While I'm frequently happy with what AWB does, there are often times when I try something else. I'm inclined to more yellow than previously posted versions, perhaps a warmer light than what was present in the scene.



It's a matter of taste. I used the middle dropper in curves to pick a gray tone and poked around in the snow until I found something I liked.

Regarding IQ, I think the issue is focus is a bit off. It looks to me like the focus is on the branch behind the subject such that some of the fine feather detail is lost on the breast. Hard to tell in the small jpeg but you can check this on your larger original. In terms of crop and such. I think you have a reasonable number of pixels on subject to crop as in the OP, depending on intended output, but certainly for BPN sized output.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Loi Nguyen]

"[QUOTE=Dick Huberty;942519]Thanks Steve and all for helping me learn here. Some more questions. You talk about IQ problems with this image. Is that determination made by the photo I posted or your knowledge of what happens when I crop the original as much as I did? "

Hi Dick, sorry for jumping in. I'm a beginner here and the folks on BPN especially Steve have helped me a great deal, so it is like pay back time. Image IQ is kind of subjective in that everyone has his/her own standard how good it would be. The standard of many folks here on the BPN is at the highest level. An image judged to be of good IQ here could be blown up to a poster size 20X30" and still look totally amazing. I was in Washington DC visiting the Nature Best Wildlife Photography Exhibit at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum last month and some of the folks here have photos at that caliber.

For me, one of the best ways to learn is to try to participate in different forums. The Avian and Wildlife forums have many fantastic posting and a good way to judge your IQ standard against others.

Here is an example of what I think is a great IQ for an owl - I have no idea whether the image is cropped or not and if so by how much.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...676#post942676

It's Ok to say this is good enough for me, but part of the fun is to learn and challenge oneself to be better!

Good luck and all the best.

Loi

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dick

You talk about IQ problems with this image. Is that determination made by the photo I posted or your knowledge of what happens when I crop the original as much as I did?

Cropping to this degree will loose IQ, IMHO you want to shoot as close to your 'perceived' final crop where possible, obviously allowing for some room all round for that final framing. Based on your FF image and your OP it looks to be about 30% of the original, so think about all that information in your file capture you re throwing away with that large crop. Adding a converter would have certainly helped as I mention earlier, but a 2x might require you using a tripod for stability, unless you are rock steady or using a branch of another tree for support. Also I tend to advise that when you get the shot you want and time allows, flip the format or angle as this could be he winning frame. If you crop you are expanding everything, including noise, so based at 100% uncropped it will look OK.

Would using an extender with its trade offs be to my benefit in this photo?

I would have no hesitation if it gave me the image I wanted, remember these have NO moving parts all they do is project the image, this is why the new 200-400 with built-in extender is far, far better.

I am quite sure I can get a very acceptable 13x19 print with my original crop.

Not getting into semantics here Dick, but 'acceptable' is rather variable, but if you feel that the image is perfectly good printed at that size that is all that matters at the end of the day.

I have read somewhere that a good composition does not have things going off the corner of your frame.

Dick, composition is oh so personal, yes there are times when you can see an image just doesn't work and is badly composed, however when you see the FF image offering an alternative suddenly brings the whole image alive and in certain cases looks striking, likewise dramatic cropping also can play apart, but it needs to be planned, not an after thought. Experiment or just browse the various Forum gallery. Likewise look at Rule of thirds in the resources gallery.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ional-Examples

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ional-Examples

Dick, if the image is badly composed, OOF parts over the image or the image is just soft through bad SS (shutter speed) ditch, no matter how good you are PP it will not resolve them and keeping them only fills your HD with crap! Keep the good ones, this is where Editing comes into play, bad images are not keepers, the best place is the trash can.

Did you use the cloning tool in PS to extend the background?

Dick I did a mixture of combinations to apply the additional BKG and would take half an hour to write, juxtapose to 5 mins talk. Like the majority of things in PP (Post Production) knowing what key tools are required to do the job and how to tackle it saves times. In my previous life, not understanding the problem meant I could not solve it.


IMHO - In my humble/honest opinion.

Hope this helps for the future, good luck.

Steve

PS Cheers Loi, thanks for the support and adding your thoughts to bolster the thread.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Dick,

Greetings. Regarding the crop. I measured the crop against the full frame and come up with subject 45% of the height of the full frame. The OP crop of a 5DIII full frame puts you at about 2140x1425. At a 120 pixels/inch print (pretty marginal for printing) you get about 18x12. A looser crop along the lines of what Steve has in panel 17 gives you about 3571x2380 or 180 pixels/inch for a 19x13 print (not optimal but a much better deal).

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Steve Kaluski]

Cheers Michael, I just guest at the OP crop, so thanks for the the more detailed % clarification. Just for the record, I work on 300ppi on all images.

Thanks
Steve

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Cheers Michael, I just guest at the OP crop, so thanks for the the more detailed % clarification. Just for the record, I work on 300ppi on all images.

Thanks
Steve

Gosh, Steve by that standard (300ppi) neither the 1DMkIV nor the D4 can print 19x13. They both max out FF at a little over 16x11 at 300 ppi.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Steve Kaluski]

Yep, I tend to work at A3 & A4 formats (11.7 x 16.5 ins & 8.2 x 11.6).