Taking an oxpecker for a ride

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Searching the back of a buffalo for a nice, fat, blood filled tick...

Mild sharpening & tone adjustments in LR. About 50% crop.

All C & C's welcome.

Nikon D600
Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S + TC14E II
f/7.1 | 1/160s | 1000 ISO | Beanbag

[BenBotha]

I like the framing, sweet light, sharpness but the Oof branch, on the R in front of the bird, is distracting. Exif Data?
Ben

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

I like the framing, sweet light, sharpness but the Oof branch, on the R in front of the bird, is distracting. Exif Data?
Ben

Thanks for looking & your comment, Ben! I'll see what I can do about the branch to make it less of a distraction. I have included the exif data with the pic - is there anything else you're looking for?

[BenBotha]

Sorry, just curious-I am using a different laptop-can not see exif data. Was looking for Camera and lens used.

Ben

[Stu Bowie]

Hi Tobie, great close up of the Oxpecker, and with a good angled pose. Nice soft light, and I like that we can see some of the Buff's hide. I wish the OOF strand of foliage wasnt there, but you knew that.

[keith mitchell]

Little nit covered Toby,it's so different seeing these birds on live perches, lovely natural shot.

Keith.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Sorry, just curious-I am using a different laptop-can not see exif data. Was looking for Camera and lens used. Ben

Ben I'm not sure if it's related but since I've downloaded the latest version of LR (old laptop with LR stolen) my BPN pics come out larger and I need to use the scroll bar to get to the rightmost side om my pics. I'm still selecting 1200Px for horizontal file size so there might be some other setting doing something strange.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

The branch softened somewhat.

[Diane Miller]

Ben I'm not sure if it's related but since I've downloaded the latest version of LR (old laptop with LR stolen) my BPN pics come out larger and I need to use the scroll bar to get to the rightmost side om my pics. I'm still selecting 1200Px for horizontal file size so there might be some other setting doing something strange.

With the black BG of the Capt James Mk III skin, sometimes data that is apparently copied from Flickr or the like is also black and doesn't show. Just swipe your cursor over it (if you can see that there is a space where it might be) and it will show. (Thanks to Daniel Cadeaux for pointing that out to me a while back!)

Tobie, the size issue may be that your new laptop has a different screen resolution than the old one. I would expect that the newer one has a higher resolution than the old one, which would make the pictures appear smaller, so maybe the browser is just set to a different zoom. Browsers give you an option to zoom in or out. The most accurate view will be so that one pixel in the image is mapped to one pixel on the screen.

Great detail in the hair! I'd look at the saturation of the oranges -- seems a bit high.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

Tobie, the size issue may be that your new laptop has a different screen resolution than the old one. Great detail in the hair! I'd look at the saturation of the oranges -- seems a bit high.

Thanks for commenting Diane! I think you're right because I don't have the same problem on my work-laptop. I'll scratch my head on how to fix it.

The orange colours are actually as in real life (not that I have to tell you that! ) and so bright that they can easily look artificial. I might just tone them down a little.

[Diane Miller]

Firefox has a + and - in the UR that magnifies the screen. When it shows 100% you should be seeing the picture mapped s 1 pixel to 1 pixel on the screen -- the most accurate view. But with a high-res screen that may make text too small. With Safari, Cmd + or - on a Mac makes the text larger or smaller but not the pictures. Don't know about other browsers.

The Color Sampler shows the orange isn't blown out, but it's lack of detail gives that impression. Is it possible that it was blown out at some point in processing, which would flatten the detail, and then desaturated? To get the detail back (such as more shading on the bottom of the beak) it would be necessary to go back in the early processing and avoid the over-saturation. Once detail is gone, it's gone.

(If anyone opens the JPEG in PS, it's necessary to convert the sRGB color space to the working space to see the colors accurately, and some browsers may not show the colors accurately even though the image is in sRGB and tagged, as it should be.)