-
-
Enrique,
Excellent image. Very nice pose, Beautiful color pallet and nice composition.
It looks little dark on my monitor.I have edited your image,where I have increased the brightness etc. If you wish I could post it.
Wish You Happy New Year and Happy Birding....2015.
Regards,
Satish.
-
Please do post Satish. I sort of expected that comment. :) I'd be interested in seeing.
And all the best in 2015 for you also
enrique
Last edited by Enrique Patino; 01-01-2015 at 08:23 AM.
-
Thanks a lot, Enrique.
Here is the re post. Sorry your signature has vanished.
Regards,
Satish.
-
yes, much better. BTW, I printed it and it as per the OP and it came out way too dark... confirmation that your comment was right on. and seeing your repost, I see how I can try to improve my PP
The original raw file was under exposed by almost 1 stop, I'd say. It was the best I could do at ISO 800 and HH to capture a sharp frame (1/400).
I'll try again later from scratch and repost if I have time... thanks again Satish!
enrique
-
Enrique I prefer the OP think it captures the mood of the drizzly morning title, all a matter of individual taste and choice, it's an image that I do like a lot.
Keith.
-
Very cool! Either version works for different reasons, and I like what keith had to say in pane #6. Great perch and subject isolation, and it's rare to see nice images of the male of this species perched up like this....well done sir.
-
BPN Member
Excellent perch shot of the Gray Ghost.
Lucky find and nice perch.
-
This is a superb bird to image but I'm afraid the under exposure has probably damaged the image. It could be that the light was too dark and flat to begin with in which case any camera or exposure would not have produced a good result.
-
I think the image was under exposed too. Satish's RP is better IMO,. You should be able to crank up the ISO to 1600 I think with the 7D2. See Doug Brown's image on the 7D2 at ISO 1600 or higher. Loi
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
-
Gorgeous bird, pose and light. I think Satish nailed it, with great contrast as well as an increase in exposure.
That's a question I'd like answered, too -- underexpose at 800 (for example) and bring it up in PP or expose properly at 1600 -- if you can get a good result with the lower SS or wider aperture. Considerations seem to be noise, dynamic range and resolution. I'd think the underexposure would win out except in noise, but in my limited experience it's too close to call.
-
Super Moderator
It is not easy to get such a nice frame of the grey ghost, great details, HA and eye contact. the original is about a 1.5 stops undexposed to my eye, I would take your repost in #11 and pull the exposure by another 1/2 stops or so. The best way of judging brightness on the screen is via histogram. With exposure adjusted correctly, the "dim" mood of the image will still remain given the relative low saturation and the grey tones in the BG.
-
Originally Posted by
arash_hazeghi
It is not easy to get such a nice frame of the grey ghost, great details, HA and eye contact. the original is about a 1.5 stops undexposed to my eye, I would take your repost in #11 and pull the exposure by another 1/2 stops or so. The best way of judging brightness on the screen is via histogram. With exposure adjusted correctly, the "dim" mood of the image will still remain given the relative low saturation and the grey tones in the BG.
Thanks ... it is a learning process for me for sure... I'll try 1.5 stops and a bit more contrast at the end, although that may be pushing it to retain IQ... we will see
................
thanks for your suggestions!
-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
Enrique Patino
compensated with 1 full stop in LR, plus some regular stuff
so the question here... Full-Open (f/5.6), under-expose at ISO 800 or try to expose correctly at ISO 1600???... given that at that point is all signal processing and the same amount of light..?!?! I went for ISO 800 just to experiment. I like the result... here is another attempt to render this images from scratch.
Thanks for your comments
That's a good question. The answer is a bit lengthy and depends on the details of the image sensor. With Canon cameras it is best to get the exposure right at the time of capture. The simplified explanation is that there is some noise that will be added to the dark areas after the signal is amplified because of the way Canon sensors read out the data. So it's best to have the signal at the right amplitude before it reaches the readout circuit. This is of course more critical with small sensor cameras such as the 7D2 as the signal is weak to begin with.
The other important factor is the RAW conversion process, exposure compensation is usually applied after data is demosaiced, this will aggravate demosaic noise and artifacts and will always produce worse results compared to the case where the RAW was exposed properly to begin with.
Having said that, if this image was close to full frame and RAW was sharp it should handle pushing by ~1.5 stops when the output size is less than 2000 pixels since there are now shadows here. This is assuming you use DPP 4, if you use Adobe software the IQ will likely suffer too much.
best
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 01-02-2015 at 12:31 AM.
-
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Super Moderator
This would be my version, a tad brighter and I'd also opt for 3:2 crop
congratulations on a great image
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
-
Super Moderator
Excellent final result...and excellent thread with great information.
All the best for 2015 Enrique!
WillieHall thanked for this post
Reply With Quote