My First Snowy Owl

[Rachel Hollander]

This was my first snowy owl in the wild. Taken at Jones Beach the weekend before New Years in the last hour before sunset. I ran into Tom Pfeifer, a fellow BPN member, there.

Canon 7D
300II plus 2x III
1/1000
f5.6
ISO 800
Tripod, luminosity mask, levels, curves, selective color adjustments, cropped for comp, NR on bg, sharpened in CS6.

C&C welcome and appreciated. Thanks,

Rachel

[John Robinson]

Hi Rachel
Always great to get your "first" of a species isn't it. Still gives me a thrill- especially if its one I,ve been after.
You had some great but harsh light to deal with. Some may say softening (lightening) the dark shadows on the face/chest - I don,t know. I,m usually a leave alone man.
Good image anyway.
Cheers
John

[Henry Domke]

This is quite a contrast to the Snowy Owls that have been posted on BPN recently.
Instead of white-on-white this bird is surrounded by a rich gold and russet-colored vegetation.

Here the bird is integrated into the environment rather than filling the frame and dominating the whole story.

Lastly the bird has several twigs and blades of grass in front of it. Usually these kind of "flaws" would be reason to trash the image but here they work to your advantage. They help the bird fit into the space.

I could spend a lot of time looking at that image hanging on my wall and not get tired of it.

[Don Lacy]

Wonderful color and light here Rachel, I really like the spotlight effect on the face of the Owl, well done

[Bill Marquardt]

A great short in a beautiful setting, well done !!!!

[Sidharth Kodikal]

Hi Rachel,
Interesting warm light, nice setting, and a lot of depth to this image.
Lovely colors and I like your comp.
I'm seeing quite a bit of noise on the bird in the shadows.

[Arthur Morris]

Congrats on #1. I am flying to Long Island tomorrow morning to see my Mom and hopefully a few Snowy Owls :).

While the light is nice I must say that the image does not work for me. While you did a good job of choosing the best perspective, the environment is far to cluttered for me and the shadows on the bird are equally distracting.... Tom is a good friend.

[adrian dancy]

I'm OK with the twiggy habitat and I think it works OK in this image. I am prepared to suffer 'noise' in some images far more readily than in others provided there is a level of consistency...indeed I think it can add to an image (I have added noise in some of mine!). So whilst I'm OK which this image, with its 'flaws', the thing which lets it down a bit are the brighter stalks in front of the bird. Of course the image can be improved by selectively reducing the brightness of the stalks. The image is, for me still worthy of the wall:)

[arash_hazeghi]

you had nice light and a handsome snowy, for me the deal breaker is the half-closed eyes (I know they rarely open it wide in this light). I like the enviroment in general but I'm with Artie that is a bit cluttered. I see noise in the shadows which makes them more distracting to my eye.

TFS hopefully you will run into this beauty again

congrats on your first snowy! it must be cold there right now!

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Rachel, congratulations on getting your first Snowy, hopefully more to come.

[catalani giovanni]

Very nice

[keith mitchell]

Rachel nits covered by comments above ,I like the warm glow and the habitat ,just wish the glow was to the top of the image, still if it was mine I would be thrilled to bits, very nice indeed.
Keith.

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks everyone, unfortunately the snowy never moved from this position so it was impossible to get a less cluttered scene.

Thanks again,
Rachel

[Jim Crosswell]

I like the light, setting and composition. Nice image Rachel.

[douglas hayes]

DYNAMIC contrast with the golden light in background and good detail in the white feathers. Enjoyed

[Henry Domke]

I'm seeing quite a bit of noise on the bird in the shadows.

Please help me see the noise that you are seeing. Could you send a screen shot?

Since I could not see noise in my browser I downloaded the image and opened it in Photoshop. When I zoomed in 600% I could see what looks to me like natural JPG artifact that would not be visible without significant enlargement. See the attached scene shot of a 600% zoom.

I don't think I could say this image has noise unless I saw the original file at full size.

[John Robinson]

I cannot see any noise either and am beginning to wonder about my monitor.
JohnR

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Henry, I can easily see it on the white plumage in the shaded part and also on the snow. The pixels with different values in a uniform area represent grain.

BTW, when it is not your image, it is appropriate to ask Rachel first before downloading her file and blowing it up for analysis. It is OK if you re-post to show improvement but this is a bit different. I hope she doesn't mind.

[Rachel Hollander]

Hi all, I'm not seeing noise in the indicated areas on the full size image. I did have noise in the area just to the right and above the owl in the bg that I ran some NR on. I should also mention that some may be due to compression, I had to save at 50% to fit the image in within the 400kb.

Thanks again,
Rachel

[Henry Domke]

I can easily see it on the white plumage in the shaded part and also on the snow. The pixels with different values in a uniform area represent grain.

Is it noise or its it JPG artifact (i.e. compression artifact)?
How can you tell without seeing the original file?

BTW, when it is not your image, it is appropriate to ask Rachel first before downloading her file and blowing it up for analysis. It is OK if you re-post to show improvement but this is a bit different. I hope she doesn't mind.

I was not aware of that. Thanks for letting me know.
Rachel- I hope you were not offended that I used your file as I did. I was just trying to understand the concern that was raised about noise. Personally I don't see it, but that's probably because I don't know what to look for.

[arash_hazeghi]

Is it noise or its it JPG artifact (i.e. compression artifact)?
How can you tell without seeing the original file?


.

Based on experience. It doesn't look like JPEG artifact to me, JPEG artifact is usually along the edges or where you gradations not in a uniform area.

BTW, compression reduces both detail and noise, it does not increase it.

[Marina Scarr]

First and foremost, congratulations on your first snowy!!! That must have been a thrill. I love the environment and light here. Considering what you had to work with, I think you did a good job. I am confident you'll have more photo opps of this beauty this winter!

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks Henry, Arash and Marina. Henry - no objections on my end but your screenshot doesn't show for me.

Thanks again,
Rachel

[Floyd Davidson]

Is it noise or its it JPG artifact (i.e. compression artifact)?
How can you tell without seeing the original file?

Some of the "noise" seen when viewed at 600% is pixelization of gradients from downsizing. It can't be avoided, and is in the display not the image. There are also a lot of JPEG artifacts close to tone transitions. Virtually everything in the snow or on the bird is close enough to a tone transition.

But pixel peeping at 600% to find noise is worthless. It means virtually nothing when viewed at greater than 100%, and requires awareness of what is being viewed even then!

The only way to decide if the original is noisy, sharp, or whatever is to look at a 100% crop from the original.

In regard to downloading an image for analysis:

I was not aware of that. Thanks for letting me know.

You shouldn't be "aware of that", because you have explicit permission to download and view it (there is no other purpose for it to be posted). Feel free to do that, because by the time you can see it on your monitor... you've done it once already!

What isn't so obvious is whether it is or not appropriate to repost an image again, modified or not, in the same forum. It is true that some people object. Therefore many (other) forums specifically have a profile option to notify others if editing images is okay with each member or not. Lacking that, I personally won't post a modified image unless the owner authorizes it. But I think it a bit amusing to post an image to a photography forum asking for criticism and not allow editing...

[Floyd Davidson]

BTW, compression reduces both detail and noise, it does not increase it.

Lossy compression adds noise by definition.

[arash_hazeghi]

Lossy compression adds noise by definition.

Not quite.

what you mean by noise is error. compression by definition adds error, e.g rounding error such as posterization . What we are talking about is visible grain. Compression does not add grain. Making the image grainy makes it larger in size not smaller (grain is also spatial detail). You can do a simple experiment, in PhotoShop : use the bucket tool to fill an empty image then add grain, then compress it and see how the fine grain goes away as you compress more.

[Rachel Hollander]

Floyd - by posting an image on BPN you explicitly grant permission for the image to be downloaded and modified for instructional purposes only and reposting in the same thread. See Guideline 6 below:

a)By posting images to BPN you give the BPN staff, users and members permission to download and modify any image submitted for critiquing. The sole purpose for downloading an image is so that it can be modified for instructional purposes only and then be re-posted in the original thread. The photographer is the copyright owner and retains all rights. Modified images may not be used for any purpose other than for instructional use at BPN.
b)Other than images re-posted for instructional purposes, no one may post an image unless they are the copyright holder.



I think what Arash is suggesting might be objectionable is blowing up someone else's image without modification. I can't see what Henry did as it is not showing up for me but I have no objection.

Btw it is customary to post a critique and not just comment on the technical discussion.

Thanks,
Rachel

[arash_hazeghi]

What isn't so obvious is whether it is or not appropriate to repost an image again, modified or not, in the same forum. It is true that some people object. Therefore many (other) forums specifically have a profile option to notify others if editing images is okay with each member or not. Lacking that, I personally won't post a modified image unless the owner authorizes it. But I think it a bit amusing to post an image to a photography forum asking for criticism and not allow editing...

This is the policy as I read it:


we do allow re-post if the re-post is an improvement to the original in the view of the re-poster for the purpose of critique only.

For any other purpose, analysis, etc. please ask first. The image remains the property of the poster and their rights should be honored at all times.

Thanks

[Floyd Davidson]

Not quite.

what you mean by noise is error. compression by definition adds error, e.g rounding error such as posterization . What we are talking about is visible grain. Compression does not add grain. Making the image grainy makes it larger in size not smaller (grain is also spatial detail). You can do a simple experiment, in PhotoShop : use the bucket tool to fill an empty image then add grain, then compress it and see how the fine grain goes away as you compress more.

Visible grain is only one kind of noise. Lots of noise does not appear a s grain.

Adding grain absolutely adds "detail" that will increase the size of a JPEG image file.

None of that is the point though, that lossy compression adds noise by definition. It changes the image, and any change is noise.

[Floyd Davidson]

Floyd - by posting an image on BPN you explicitly grant permission for the image to be downloaded and modified for instructional purposes only and reposting in the same thread. See Guideline 6 below:

a)By posting images to BPN you give the BPN staff, users and members permission to download and modify any image submitted for critiquing. The sole purpose for downloading an image is so that it can be modified for instructional purposes only and then be re-posted in the original thread. The photographer is the copyright owner and retains all rights. Modified images may not be used for any purpose other than for instructional use at BPN.
b)Other than images re-posted for instructional purposes, no one may post an image unless they are the copyright holder.



I think what Arash is suggesting might be objectionable is blowing up someone else's image without modification. I can't see what Henry did as it is not showing up for me but I have no objection.

Btw it is customary to post a critique and not just comment on the technical discussion.

Thanks,
Rachel

I didn't comment directly on forum rules, just on what is or not appropriate regardless of forum rules. Absent authorization of the owner reposting is open to question as far as I am concerned. That was my point. Others can do it if they wish, but I won't.

But these statements that you cannot download an image and blow it up for analysis are simply untrue. You can as long as you do not redistribute it. It's not a matter for forum rules, it's a matter of copyright law. Posting it is of course a different issue, and then it is true that forum rules apply.

Comments on the technical parts of a critique are additional critique. It isn't as if there can be a valid critique absent technical issues!

[arash_hazeghi]

and any change is noise.

I disagree, I think you still do not distinguish the difference between error and visible grain. In photography we care about grain when we talk about noise in an image, not other differences.

Anyways, this discussion is better suited for another forum and in a separate topic.

[Sidharth Kodikal]

When I first saw the image, I thought the original must have been quite noisy. The grain on the bird in the shadows is pretty easily visible to me (no I did not zoom in).
The BG looked quite blurred/NRed except for areas very close to the grass blades that was probably masked/selected out.

Hi all, I'm not seeing noise in the indicated areas on the full size image. I did have noise in the area just to the right and above the owl in the bg that I ran some NR on. I should also mention that some may be due to compression, I had to save at 50% to fit the image in within the 400kb.
l

Are you saying you don't see any noise in the full size image in the indicated areas, or that the noise you see is acceptable to you?
If it's the former, then I will admit to being very surprised. At iso 800, in a 7D file, in an area with shadows, I would expect to see noise.
A 100% crop of just the owl would be helpful.

That said, I simply posted a critique and didn't intend to stir the pot here.
If you're not seeing noise and are happy with the final image, that's all that matters.
Thanks.

[Cheryl Arena Molennor]

Love the light as well. I too wish for two open eyes. I have no snowies just yet so I'd take this one and keep hoping for more :)

[Ashleigh Scully]

Hi Ms. Hollander,

I think it's awesome that for your first Snowy Owl photograph you got to see it in such a beautiful light. I saw my first in Sandy Hook this fall and I was shaking I was so excited. I think you did a great job on your composition. It is too bad about the shadows but I still think its really pretty. Congratulations and I hope you see another one soon.