problem photo-reddish egret

[WIlliam Maroldo]

This is an image of a reddish egret hunting. Sony A-700, Tamron 200-500mm at 330mm, ISO 200, 1/1600 sec, F6.3, shutter speed priority, no exposure compensation, hand held, 5/26/2008, 4:30 PM, Surfside, Texas. The bird was very active, a high shutter speed essential, and the back-lighting a real problem. It seemed the bird was using his shadow to help locate the small creatures he was after, perhaps that is why these birds spread their wings in such a fashion. In any case, a fill flash (which I don't have as yet) probably would have been quite useful. I learned in my last post that a +exposure compensation could have been used, yet wouldn't that have brightened the already possibly too bright background?
There was little cropping done, and the bottom not cropped at all. I would have liked a little more space there. Perhaps is there too much space at the top? Overall, despite what I have mentioned and a few other things I consider wrong with the image, I like it. It is sharp and captures the moment. I like the position of the wings. Now I would like to hear other opinions and indeed criticism about it, what could be done to improve the image in post-processing if anything, and what I should have done while photographing this reddish egret,

[Desmond Chan]

[snip] I learned in my last post that a +exposure compensation could have been used, yet wouldn't that have brightened the already possibly too bright background?

The adjustment to the exposure you make that way will affect the exposure of everything in that photo. So, yes, if the background is already bright, it will become brighter.

what could be done to improve the image in post-processing if anything, and what I should have done while photographing this reddish egret,

If you use photoshop, you can make a duplicate of the original layer. Adjust the brightness/contrast of the duplicated layer based on what you want the egret looks like if everything was done correctly in camera, Then use layer mask and paint on it to bring back the original background from the original layer. Errr...I'm probably not doing a good job explaining it. Sorry. Hopefully other could do a better job on that or suggest some better methods.

As for what you could have done while photographing, I think you already knew the answer. If fill-flash is not possible, I'd based the exposure on the correct exposure of the egret and let the background go blown. After all, it's the egret that is the center of interest of your photo, not the background...at least in most of the cases :)

Right now, your photo look under-exposed by quite a bit, both the foreground and the background.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Bill !!!! Excellent points by Desmond I like the advice !!!

First thing is the crop selected. Need to give more room in frame and keep the toes, virtual feet are clipped !!!

While making the exposure should try positioning with a good sun angle. These birds will jump and make their moves in any direction. Just catch them at a good angle. if you do go for a back lit image, you need to dial in plus compensation which would blow the bg. If not you end up with a sever underexposed image.

Bringing this to like if PS is going to introduce sever noise. Anytime you open shadows it will occur. That is why we stress the exposure and checking histogram.

Downloaded and worked. Did obtain more shadow detail but still dark and starting to turning to mush. For the S/H in this instance I like the settings of 25-55-245 Gives you a nice effect. A different setting you might try is 12-12-25

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Desmond; yes, I know exactly what you mean about the layers. As a matter of fact, if I had been using a tripod, or could reproduce the position I was in when the image was taken, I could have photographed the scene without the egret, with proper exposure and even a respectable depth of field. Then using your technique (using the redone background as the lower layer), I would eliminate a possibly blown background. . The bird should then have been exposed correctly (by exposure compensation and/or perhaps ISO 400?) in the first place regardless of the blown background. Desmond:I appreciate the input.
Alfred: I appreciate your input as well. Virtual feet? I realized in the original image that there was a problem with bottom of the image (I didn't crop the bottom at all). Though the feet wouldn't have been seen anyway, I felt particularly unsettled about this aspect after viewing the image the first time. Reminds me of the old carpenter's joke "I cut this three times and its still too short". Now that ou mentioned "Virtual feet" iI know why. Whether they would be visible, or not, I suppose the mind expects there to be space for it. I like the rework, and I think that's about the best I can hope for.
About the sun's angle. I'm sure you are correct again Alfred. The location, a wetland, runs north and south and a dirt road is to the east. Usually I go there in the morning for sun angle considerations, since the area west of the location is inaccessable (deep mud, etc,). Later in the day I often will put on my trusty knee-high rubber boots and venture out a ways and shoot in a northern direction. As a matter of fact, I've have done this to photograph the exact same bird, getting close-up head shots. Although very cooperative in that endeavor, when he notices me he stops feeding. He just looks at me!
Again, I appreciate all the input. Many of the suggestions I've read, but not all by any means, I already knew, but they were at the back of my mind, not the forefront. You, and everyone who has commented, have placed theses consideration in the forefront, where they belong. Thank you!

[Gus Cobos]

I like the capture Desmond,
But its too tight by the tips of the wings. Great repost Mr. Al...:cool: