Immature Cooper's Hawk

[Warren Spreng]

I was going out to rake leaves when I caught sight of this immature Cooper's Hawk. It and an adult have been hanging out near my bird feeders again now that the birds are seeking more food. Grabbed this quick shot before it got nervous and flew off. It was just in the middle of a stretch when I caught this one. Canon T3i, Tamron 150 - 600mm, 600mm, ISO1600, f/6.3, 1/500, HH, AF About 9:30 AM, low clouds and a some fog in the area. Some canvas added at the top, copied and pasted the end of the tail and more canvas from another shot just after this one. Mild NR of the background

[Glennie Passier]

Hello Warren, Lucky you to have this beauty hanging around in your yard. I love the relaxed foot pose. You've done well in adding the canvas and adding a tail! My only nit pick would be a personal one. I'm not a big fan of front of poses. But for a chance encounter I would be thrilled to have this. I'm stuck on magenta casts. Is there one on the branches here...maybe it's dampish because of the fog.

[Warren Spreng]

Hello Warren, Lucky you to have this beauty hanging around in your yard. I love the relaxed foot pose. You've done well in adding the canvas and adding a tail! My only nit pick would be a personal one. I'm not a big fan of front of poses. But for a chance encounter I would be thrilled to have this. I'm stuck on magenta casts. Is there one on the branches here...maybe it's dampish because of the fog.

Thanks Glennie, yes it was extremely damp from rain the previous night, that and the low sun angle coming through the atmosphere added to the colors on the branches. As to the front pose there were large branches on either side that blocked the view so I went for the puffed up chest!😀

[Gianluca Molina]

Beautiful details and photos
Personally would have left more space up: If possible of course!

[Diane Miller]

Gorgeous bird in a great pose and environment! I won't think about why it's hanging out by your feeders. Hawks have to eat too, I guess. Looks very sharp with well-handled tonalities.

Excellent job on the tail. I could also go with a squeak more on the top. Looks easy to fake it!

I like the colors but am wondering about how it would compare with the magenta reduced. Have a look at Selective Color in PS (as an adjustment layer) and try reducing magenta. Or Hue-Sat or even Color Balance could work as well. They are just different interfaces using Curves under the hood.

[Warren Spreng]

Gorgeous bird in a great pose and environment! I won't think about why it's hanging out by your feeders. Hawks have to eat too, I guess. Looks very sharp with well-handled tonalities.

Excellent job on the tail. I could also go with a squeak more on the top. Looks easy to fake it!

I like the colors but am wondering about how it would compare with the magenta reduced. Have a look at Selective Color in PS (as an adjustment layer) and try reducing magenta. Or Hue-Sat or even Color Balance could work as well. They are just different interfaces using Curves under the hood.

Thanks Gianluca and Diane, I took your suggestions and added a bit more at the top and reduced the Magenta. Diane, Magenta is the Astrophotographers bane so I am very familiar with Selective Colors and not sure why I didn't notice it before in this image!! It comes out a lot when doing Narrowband imaging of nebula and we work to keep it out! Let me know your thoughts on the RP. I like it better without the magenta tint on the branch.

[Diane Miller]

I actually like the magenta, artistically, but it's more accurate without it. Excellent job of removing it! And I like the added room on top.

I shudder to think what narrowband imaging would do to my exposure times. Why a magenta issue? Color from the filter?

[Warren Spreng]

I actually like the magenta, artistically, but it's more accurate without it. Excellent job of removing it! And I like the added room on top.

I shudder to think what narrowband imaging would do to my exposure times. Why a magenta issue? Color from the filter?

Thanks! Yes, your exposure times jump to at least 10 minutes and better at 20 minutes for those filters. And yes, when blending HA, SII and OIII you normally get magenta stars. The Hubble images mostly have that so often we will take RGB of the stars and use those colors for the stars by desaturating them in the Narrowband image and then layering the RGB stars for color.

[Diane Miller]

Piece of cake — all except the 10-20 minute part!

I'll have to settle for drooling at the images.

[Glennie Passier]

Warren, I certainly like your repost better. Great job of adding the sliver at the top.

[Gianluca Molina]

Thanks! Yes, your exposure times jump to at least 10 minutes and better at 20 minutes for those filters. And yes, when blending HA, SII and OIII you normally get magenta stars. The Hubble images mostly have that so often we will take RGB of the stars and use those colors for the stars by desaturating them in the Narrowband image and then layering the RGB stars for color.

Lol but birds or astrophotografy theard?

[Warren Spreng]

Lol but birds or astrophotografy theard?

Maybe I could post an image of Cygnus, the Swan constellation!

[Warren Spreng]

Warren, I certainly like your repost better. Great job of adding the sliver at the top.

Thanks, it was a good suggestion!

[Diane Miller]

Some great astrophotography is sometimes sneaked into the Landscapes forum! It's overdue for some now...

[Warren Spreng]

I had noticed that.

[Diane Miller]

OK -- back to you! Pony up! I'm not far enough along with PixInsight to show anything for a while.

[Warren Spreng]

OK -- back to you! Pony up! I'm not far enough along with PixInsight to show anything for a while.

Challenge accepted!

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Gianluca and Diane, I took your suggestions and added a bit more at the top and reduced the Magenta. Diane, Magenta is the Astrophotographers bane so I am very familiar with Selective Colors and not sure why I didn't notice it before in this image!! It comes out a lot when doing Narrowband imaging of nebula and we work to keep it out! Let me know your thoughts on the RP. I like it better without the magenta tint on the branch.

Hi Warren, Howdy and thanks for your membership support. The original post was pretty good and the repost really rocks. What focal length were you at for the original capture?

Try selecting the face and applying a Contrast Mask to the master file: Unsharp Mask at 15/65/0 to sharpen up the face a bit more. a

[Diane Miller]

When doing any sharpening on the master file, I strongly suggest working on a duplicate layer. Sharpening changes the pixels in an image and if you decide later you have overdone it, sharpening is not reversible without some damage to the file. (Sharpening is just the creation of artifacts that increase contrast at edges.) And when you resize to export a JPEG you may find you have magnified the artifacts more than you want.

At least with a separate layer you can reduce the opacity or delete it and try again. It's a small price to pay for the insurance.

[Arthur Morris]

When doing any sharpening on the master file, I strongly suggest working on a duplicate layer. Sharpening changes the pixels in an image and if you decide later you have overdone it, sharpening is not reversible without some damage to the file. (Sharpening is just the creation of artifacts that increase contrast at edges.) And when you resize to export a JPEG you may find you have magnified the artifacts more than you want.

At least with a separate layer you can reduce the opacity or delete it and try again. It's a small price to pay for the insurance.

Hi Diane, What I suggested in Pane 18 is not true sharpening; I suggested that Warren use a Contrast Mask, a.k.a., local enhanced contrast. What you say is 100% true if someone is suggesting that folks sharpen their master files with traditional sharpening methods. The fact that I told him to tray a Contrast Mask at 15/65/0 makes everything you say incorrect when referring to my comment :) I apply some sort of Contrast Mask to more than 50% of my master files and have never once had an over-sharpening problem, that includes when an image is sized and sharpened for final use. a

ps: folks can learn all the details about using a Contrast Mask plus my complete digital workflow, dozens of additional Photoshop tips, and tons more in my Digital Basics File.

[Diane Miller]

Then it would be better if the technique "contrast mask" would be briefly defined, as it could be easily confused with "simple" sharpening, which, as you agree, is to be treated carefully. It sounds like it is closely related to Clarity in ACR/LR, or some of the filters in Nik CEP, which is midtone contrast, not sharpening. It isn't a standard term to many people.

[Arthur Morris]

Then it would be better if the technique "contrast mask" would be briefly defined, as it could be easily confused with "simple" sharpening, which, as you agree, is to be treated carefully. It sounds like it is closely related to Clarity in ACR/LR, or some of the filters in Nik CEP, which is midtone contrast, not sharpening. It isn't a standard term to many people.

I cannot define it any better than I did in my original comment which was quite specific :): "Try selecting the face and applying a Contrast Mask to the master file: Unsharp Mask at 15/65/0 to sharpen up the face a bit more."

[Warren Spreng]

Hi Arthur, from your original question the focal length was 600mm. Thanks for the comments, I'll check out using a contrast mask on the face. Again, something we use in AP to sharpen up areas of a galaxy or nebula when you don't want to mess up other areas.

[Arthur Morris]

I cannot define it any better than I did in my original comment which was quite specific :): "Try selecting the face and applying a Contrast Mask to the master file: Unsharp Mask at 15/65/0 to sharpen up the face a bit more."

Ah, a very simple suggestion then: zoom out. It is way too easy when creating verticals to clip toes and crowd the top. Especially when you are excited. a

[Diane Miller]

My point simply was that using Unsharp Mask with any parameters does change pixels in a way that isn't reversible. Using 15, 65, 0 is a relatively mild change, but for some images it might cause issues that aren't noticed until later (such as resizing for a JPEG export or printing). So I would suggest doing it on a separate and masked layer for two reasons: so the numbers can be changed later if necessary, and to allow modifying the mask (= selection) after the sharpening is done.

The less experienced a person is with this sort of work, the more important it is to be able to go back and tweak things.

[Arthur Morris]

I am sure that your way would work just fine. Me way works fine for me and it is simpler. And my images have been doing OK last time I looked. a

ps: and as you already know, I do not save layered files :)