The young butcher birds are beginning to get accustomed to me hanging around the trees where they like to sun themselves. The parents are a bit harder to befriend.
I have tried hard not to over process.
This is FF.
In ACR - Exposure +.75 Highlights -43 Shadows -91 Whites -68 No Clarity or Vibrance, Saturation sliders - Orange, yellow green and blue all to the right a tad.
In PSCS6 - Curves adjustment on bird , Burned a little on beak and toenails, slight Topaz NR on BG - Smart sharpened for web posting.
Canon 5D2
Sigma 150-600 sport @ 600
1/800 sec @ f6.3
ISO 1600
Tripod
Self Critique - Tail a bit soft. A bit of separation between leg and branch would have been nice.
Glennie it certainly does not look over processed to me I fact I would be very happy with this, birds feather detail looks natural and detailed and all sitting on a nice BG,very well done.
Looks very nice Glennie! Great BG and very natural looking, not over processed at all. I guess @f/6.3 its hard to get the tail also. I'm guessing its a rather long bird?
Hey, Glennie. I like your bird. Why are they called Butcher? From your photograph, I'm picturing your setup, checking exposure and focus, and making the shots. And the expertise you've developed to do that. Having seen a growing number of your photographs, I know there will be sharp focus, a pleasing color palette, and an engaging pose. And it's true here, as well. Minor nit: I crop a bit off the left.
Nice bird, Glennie. I like the colors, on the bird and in the bokeh. You have a gorgeous image. Like Jim, I couldn't figure out why it's called a "butcher," so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Their expert says the name relates to the bird's "larder" habit of hanging prey (small lizards, insects, etc) on thorns and in crevices. Our Texas Butcher Bird (AKA Loggerhead Shrike) does the same. So does the Roadrunner.
Craig - Not an overly long tail. f6.3 appears to be my favourite setting at this stage of my learning. I'm too slow to change it in mid shoot! Jim - Butcher birds are lovely, but quite territorial and they are aggressive hunters. I have seen them hunt in pairs chasing lizards. I have been told they can hunt in small family groups. And yes, they hang their prey in branches to tear apart with their hooked beak. I wish you could see me take these shots, Jim. My husband laughs. I need a bird wrangler. The focus - I am focusing and exposing on a branch that I hope they will land on, so I don't have to move too much when they do eventually land. I thought about the crop for just a second. I thought I would see what others thought. So thank you. I would have taken a bit off the LHS as you said, but this would be my very first FF image of a bird! Jess - Thank you. Birds are interesting critters. Our butcher birds have a beautiful song that I will never tire of.
Hello, i`m really impressed,
the important partes of the picture are very sharp, the background and light are wonderfull for me.
The attitude of the bird is nice.
i like it, when you are near to such an object and it becomes a little bit blurred . of course only then, when th main part is sharp.
so for me: Well Done !
Hi Glennie, if you have it, move the whole crop up so you have less above and more below. To me the FP looks more nearer the throat, rather than the eye, you need to try to get that FP more on the head, better still, on the eye, that's what counts. The closer you are the more DoF you'll need, so watch that SS. Based on your techs and having to open the image up by almost a stop, I think you still need to look at your Histogram. I bet if you had a better Exposure, increasing the sliders will decrease and the image will be far better in terms of IQ.
Thank you Steve. This is my first, FF image. I was pretty excited. No more room on the bottom. I had thought about a bit of the LHS. I was pretty sure I nailed the FP on this one. I always try to aim for the eye. Just practice, I guess. I didn't know that the closer I got, the more DoF I would need. Still working on the histogram. It was certainly banked to the left. I rather liked the way this one was going until I smart-sharpened for posting.
Hi Glennie, if this is the actual Histogram PRIOR to any work then it's the Shadows, not the Blacks as they appear not clipped, but I think there was room to go more Right here. Your best time for shooting is early morning or late afternoon, aiming for that 'Golden light' period, otherwise light starts to get tough & harsh. If you have DPP you can see where the FP was just for interest, (Mac Command J), you just need to get used to moving that FP, the only issue in moving the FP away from the Centre is it may be less accurate, but don't let that hamper you.
Like all updated versions of any Software, the newer it is the more 'refined' elements are i.e. Smart Sharpen is better in CS6 than it was CS4-5, personally I prefer USM if I use it because I feel it's more refined, or I will use LR's own Output settings, subject to what the end result is for i.e. Print, Screen etc, but it's again, down to personal preference, providing it works for you and ultimately, it delivers what you want.
Good discussion above. If that's the histogram you see on the camera (it pays to have a peek once you get the first shot) it is about a stop underexposed, but the ideal will vary with subject and lighting. If the bird was in sun and had some white on it, you might have to settle for that exposure in order not to clip whites too much. Every subject and situation are different and sometimes you'll just have to bring up exposure in post. We can only hope to limit those times and amounts, but can never eliminate them completely.
When you say Shadows -91 and Whites -68, that doesn't sound right. Did you move those sliders left? I don't think I have ever gone left with Shadows, after getting the overall exposure correct, and going left with Whites will turn them gray.
Have another look at the balancing act.
Colors are also pretty subdued here. Leave them alone except for setting the white balance (try the eyedropper on an area that should be gray, if there is one) and just try a bit of Vibrance rather than individual colors, to start with.
What is you profile in the Camera Calibration tab? Adobe Std (the default) is almost always good except for some images with reds and yellows.
Last edited by Diane Miller; 01-31-2016 at 01:26 PM.
Steve - Thank you. Yes. This is histogram prior to any ACR adjustment. The image was taken at 7.45 am, it was overcast, you can see a subdued shadow under his beak. Commitments restrain my desire to shoot earlier. I think I should have DPP somewhere; I'd like to know where the focus points are. I often change the focus points. And have wondered about the accuracy of the outer ones. This image was the FP was on one of the "outers", I think. How can you tell the shadows are clipped from that histogram? When I opened this image there was only a tiny amount of "blue" warning on the wing and a tiny bit on the stick. I used to always work with USM until I came to this forum. Something to work out.
Diane - The bird was in the open, under an overcast sky. I must admit I didn't underexpose intentionally to save the whites. My adjustments in ACR must seem funny to you. I have stupidly cleared all the adjustments I made to load up the histogram here. But maybe I'll have another look at not being so overboard with the shadows and whites. Diane, these are pretty dull little birds when they are young. I tried the eyedropper tool and went with that. I nearly always have a look see now, after you informed me of this great little tool. I also played with the temperature and tint and settled back to the default. I am using Adobe Standard in the calibration tab.
Glennie, you can download DPP free from Canon, although you may need to put your serial number of the camera body in, I think it's DPP 4.3.
Sorry, I wasn't clear, what I meant was that the 'dark' is mainly in the Shadows areas. This is why I try keep responses as brief as I can, lengthy ones are better as a discussion as a 121, but not always possible. Reading a histogram comes with time as you know where/how you can push things and knowing what you can do within PP and the effect it has on the image later.
Getting a mid grey 50/50/50 across all three channels is what I do, as it gives me a level playing field, then adjust the WB, but I shoot with no bias and colour correct before I do anything as I don't let Adobe tell me what things should look like, but that's a bigger discussion. You may find some of the presets help (Auto, daylight, Tungsten... to get close to how you envisage the image should look like and then hone, or use the long winded approach with layers to find the mid grey, or simply use the Eyedropper in WB, but then you have to adjust.
By all means explore, learn, have fun and enjoy, but don't get to 'hung up' things will fall into place.
It's like driving a manual car, seems like nothing goes right and the one day, bingo, things just fall into place.
No need to clear the adjustments -- just go to the History panel and click the first step, when it was first opened. Do a screenshot of the histogram then click back to the top History step. ("NOW she tells me this...")
If the colors look good to you they certainly do to me! And tonalities also.
The focus point shown may not be that accurate. It will show which point was active when you focused, but it you did a focus and recompose, you'll see the point that focused, but after you recompose and the shutter opened, it is no longer where it was when you focused. That's not always the case, of course (to focus and recompose) but you can inadvertently do some minor recomposing without really meaning to.
Last edited by Diane Miller; 01-31-2016 at 04:43 PM.
Repost -In ACR Eye dropper used, Exposure increased +.75 Clarity +3 Vibrance +15. In PS Burnt toenails, brightened eyes - curves layer on the branch that was bright and USM on the bird, NR on the BG. A bit quick and dirty. The possibilities are endless, but I feel the re-post is a bit better.
Steve - Thank you. I will download the DPP. I know the penny will drop eventually. Diane - Well that's good to know about clearing and reinstating history! I'm not sure I understand the focus and recompose? Is this in camera on in DPP?
Back to the drawing board!
Last edited by Glennie Passier; 01-31-2016 at 05:08 PM.
Much better! Better color and tonalities here! You removed the blue cast.
Focus and recompose in in the camera. Say you have a certain focus point set and no time to change it. It is close but not exactly where you want it. You move the camera to put it on the eye (or whatever you want to focus on) and then hold the shutter button down halfway and move the camera a little (recompose) to get the composition you want. Then push the shutter button halfway down. The focus point shown on the back of the camera and in DPP (or any other program that can read it) won't show where focus was when you shot the picture.
I think it's a lot more meaningful to just look at the picture at 100% to see if the important part is sharp.
I managed to download DPP4 and found the FP. I was happy that I got somewhere close. Yes Diane, I am learning the difference between a shot that's sharp (or not) when you look at it at 100%. "The focus point shown on the back of the camera and in DPP (or any other program that can read it) won't show where focus was when you shot the picture." I understand. Thank you.
Thanks Glennie and although I'm away, the image does look better and agree with Diane.
Recomposition is not something I personally ever do, but if it works for you great. Just remember, after all the changes made within PP, does the image look natural and the eye as it should, irrespective of any work applied, if you adjust things too much, it will just standout and draw the viewers eye to it.
Butcher II
Still working on the histogram. It was certainly banked to the left. I rather liked the way this one was going until I smart-sharpened for posting. 
