Yellow warbler on territory

[D. Robert Franz]

My project this spring was to photograph songbirds in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming for an upcoming book. I made a pretty good dent in the list.

Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Copyright: D. Robert & Lorri Franz
Shutter speed: 1/640 sec
Aperture: 11
Exposure mode: Av
Exposure compensation: -1/3
Metering mode: Multi-segment
ISO: 640
Lens: EF800mm f/5.6L IS USM +1.4x

[MiroslavMaric]

For sure this one could be included in the book. Very nice pose and moment. I have no experience with yellow warbler but it looks that some feather details are missing on the head. Is it the issue with saturation of yellow? Thanks for sharing. Cheers! Miro

[Munish Kaushik]

Fantastic shot Robert. A very good one to be included in the book. I loved the Head angle ,singing/calling posture of the bird. Yellows are out of this world but seems overblown. you may wish to bring back some details in the yellows.

Regards,
Munish Kaushik

[gail bisson]

Nice classic singing pose of this ever popular warbler.
I like your comp.
The yellows are blown/oversaturated on the head and I would work to fix this.
I also see a dust spot just below the tail that needs to be evicted.
Gail

[D. Robert Franz]

I do see the dust spot Gail thanks for pointing that out, I missed it! As far as the colors go I see good detail in the yellow feathers on my monitor?? Light was very warm just after sunrise!

[Shawn Zierman]

Gorgeous male in brilliant light. I think yellow warblers look so good against clean warm green backgrounds like this. The singing pose and head angle are top notch. Yellows look bright but appropriately exposed imo.

[Diane Miller]

A very nice image! But it doesn't have an embedded profile, so depending on the browser and monitor, some of you could be seeing it over-saturated. It will be worst for those with a wide-gamut monitor.

It has been converted to sRGB (as I see no color change from my settings in Firefox when I assign that profile on opening it in PS) but a missing profile is inviting trouble. Firefox, with a switch set differently than the default, will assign sRGB to images with a missing profile. Safari will display an untagged image in the monitor's gamut. On my wide-gamut monitor, in FF it looks the same as when I open it in PS by assigning sRGB. In Safari it looks noticeably more saturated. I think that will be the same for most other browsers, too.

In PS the yellows aren't blown, but are a little more lacking in detail than might be ideal. I'm curious what raw converter was used? With ACR/LR, Canon's can show loss of detail in reds and yellows with the default Adobe Standard camera profile. Choosing a different profile (and color temp) can often give a little more detail.

[D. Robert Franz]

A very nice image! But it doesn't have an embedded profile, so depending on the browser and monitor, some of you could be seeing it over-saturated. It will be worst for those with a wide-gamut monitor.

It has been converted to sRGB (as I see no color change from my settings in Firefox when I assign that profile on opening it in PS) but a missing profile is inviting trouble. Firefox, with a switch set differently than the default, will assign sRGB to images with a missing profile. Safari will display an untagged image in the monitor's gamut. On my wide-gamut monitor, in FF it looks the same as when I open it in PS by assigning sRGB. In Safari it looks noticeably more saturated. I think that will be the same for most other browsers, too.

In PS the yellows aren't blown, but are a little more lacking in detail than might be ideal. I'm curious what raw converter was used? With ACR/LR, Canon's can show loss of detail in reds and yellows with the default Adobe Standard camera profile. Choosing a different profile (and color temp) can often give a little more detail.

Man you're getting way over my head... I'm sure this was just a quick and dirty raw conversion in Breezebrowser with some touch up in photoshop. I have BB assign sRGB for web stuff all my other conversions are in AdobeRGB wihich to my understanding is not good for web presentation?? Not sure about the embedded profile business and why there isn't one??

[Diane Miller]

This stuff is important for any serious digital shooter to understand, and doubly so for a pro. Without shooting in raw and doing a proper conversion, you're seriously limiting the potential of your images. I'm only slightly familiar with Breezebrowser but it's never mentioned as a serious raw converter. (Look into Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom.) And the last thing you want to do is assign a profile, unless you're shooting JPEGs with the camera set to sRGB. You want to convert to the desired profile.

Why a profile isn't there I can't say, but there needs to be.

There is some information in the stickies in ETL about presenting images correctly on the web. I'm currently working on simplifying it a little, but only a little.

[arash_hazeghi]

nice calling pose, sharp + a nice BG . the red channel is blown (saturated). it should be easily fixable

TFS

[Satish Ranadive]

Excellent singing pose of beautiful warbler you have captured here.
Very nice pose, beautiful yellows with orange streaking, nice perch,BG and composition.
Rest is mentioned by Gail.

Regards,
Satish.

[Diane Miller]

The red channel only shows as blown if the image is opened with incorrect color settings in PS. When I open it I get a message that there is no profile and have several choices of how to proceed. Only one will give the correct histogram: assign sRGB (because the image was in sRGB although not tagged) AND convert to the working space. That will give the correct histogram.

See the sticky at the top of ETL, "When the Histogram is Wrong"

The color issues here are because the camera made a poor choice of color temperature/tint (it can only guess, and the more monochromatic the frame, the poorer the guess). The initial color temp/tint needs to be explored in raw processing, along with the camera profile. (Adobe standard often oversaturates red-orange-yellow, at least with Canon cameras.) Saturation is the last thing to adjust even in raw processing, as many other sliders/settings affect it, and once a color is over-saturated, it can't be brought down successfully (i.e. with recovery of detail) by desaturating a rasterized PS file, where the color info is set in stone. Same analogy as not being able to recover blown highlights in a JPEG or PS file.

[arash_hazeghi]

sRGB color gamut is narrower than Adobe RGB, so when an image is edited in wide gamut space and then not tagged correctly, some channels may look blown when opened in a browser. If you open this image in PS with Adobe RGB, the red channel is not quite blown but it is hot with a few saturated pixels. going back to RAW and reducing exposure or sat. will help

also when saving for web, always convert to sRGB

[D. Robert Franz]

This stuff is important for any serious digital shooter to understand, and doubly so for a pro. Without shooting in raw and doing a proper conversion, you're seriously limiting the potential of your images. I'm only slightly familiar with Breezebrowser but it's never mentioned as a serious raw converter. (Look into Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom.) And the last thing you want to do is assign a profile, unless you're shooting JPEGs with the camera set to sRGB. You want to convert to the desired profile.

Why a profile isn't there I can't say, but there needs to be.

There is some information in the stickies in ETL about presenting images correctly on the web. I'm currently working on simplifying it a little, but only a little.

For the most part I only use breezebrower as my image browser (much faster and easier to edit than in LR5 which is much slower). I always shoot RAW and do my serious conversions in LR5. What I was getting at is why BB didn't assign a profile. That I didn't understand as well as how Firefox etc handle profiles. Not up on that.