-
Mother and Teenager
Another dark image...from a very light image.
Over processed? Too soft? The PS PSD version doesn't show any light artifacts in the BG. They look quite ugly here. When bringing in to post here the maximum I could get for the jpeg was 254 kb. Is that because of the lack of colour?
.
In ACR - Exposure almost all the way to the left at -5. Shadows (darkened) -100. Clarity and Vibrance increased. Blue and magenta increased in HSL panel.
In PSCS6 - Curves layer on BG to darken. Curves on birds to darken again and add depth. HS Layer on birds and FG. Eye work on both birds. Dodge and burn. Cropped and smart sharpened for web posting.
Canon 5D2
Sigma 150-600mm @ 440
ISO 500
1/400 @ f6.3
Tripod
C&C Always welcomed and appreciated!
-
Dramatic and different -- I like the idea! Nice pose and the birds have a nice dimensionality. But it does look soft. Hard to tell if that's an artifact of extreme processing, but I doubt it. If it was dark the camera may not have done the best job of focus. Or depending on how steady your tripod is, 1/400 may have been on thin ice. Is the raw file soft at 100%?
If you shoot a burst in AI Servo, you'll often get one that is sharper than the others. Each time the camera focuses (or re-focuses in a burst) there is some error. And different copies of bodies and lenses of the same family have different tolerances.
I don't see BG artifacts. Can you explain what you see?
You made a huge change from the capture. I'm not sure I would have gone that far with ETTR but you got an interesting result. I think it would be worthwhile to set up exposure bracketing and do at least 3 images (better 5) about a stop apart around your base exposure reading. Comparing the results could give you some good information about where to aim the exposure.
In the original, there is good separation between the BG and the adult. I sort of wish there were a little more separation here, but I can see the treatment as a creative one.
I wouldn't worry about JPEG size -- you won't see any degradation until you get very low. The image size of a JPEG jumps in seemingly-strange increments as you change the quality setting.
-
-
Diane - I feel like I am letting the team down. I see so many wonderful things yet can't portray what's in my mind. I am trying my darndest to ETTR. And when I do, it's over done. I haven't tried bracketing, but I will. Good idea! But I was amazed at how much I could get out of this capture. It is a dark little waterhole. My tripod legs were in knee deep water, balancing on a couple of rocks. I've used 1/400 to let in more light. The RAW file shows the BG bird is sharp but the young bird is soft. I thought I could get away with it. I was in AI Servo. This was the best of about 3...until the younger bird swam off. The artifacts are just lighter reflections that haven't gone as dark as the rest. You can see the reflections is the crop image.
I can give the birds more separation from the BG. I have another version of this that is not so dark. I might post that. Yes. A "creative" treatment. I like that.
Isaac - Thank you...and sorry. f8 f8 f8. If I have a wider aperture doesn't that mean more light? I need all the light I can muster. The capture is badly overexposed, because I am trying to shoot ETTR. The "blinkies" show...but where I sit in the middle of the pond (on a rock) the sun is directly behind me and the screen, hard to see. I wear glasses; I don't wear glasses when I'm shooting. So by the time I find my glasses and look at blinkies and histograms, the bird has got bored and swims away. (I take test shots of the water when there's no birds to try and gauge what I could/should be shooting at. And wait patiently for a bird to swim by. Isaac, I shoot manual. How do you manage the speed and agility it takes to look at blinkies, histogram and subject?
When I downloaded these images from that day and saw the over exposure I almost cried. But I was amazed at the detail hiding there. On my previous post, you can see I have blown out the tail and reflection, beyond recovery.
Back to the Sigma. I dream of soft OOF BG's. If I shoot at f8, that will bring more of the BG into focus? But, next time I will give it go.
Thank you again for your interest, it is much appreciated.
-
Wider does mean more light. The constant battle that you are up against. Shooting this at f8 would have given you a much slower shutter speed. Would have needed to up the ISO and there is the loop that we all battle with.
While I am certainly no expert, the basic idea of exposing to the right is to have some information in the last box on the right. Would be the 5th box on a Canon and the 4th on a Nikon. You do not want too much information in there or you will have a very blown out image as you have found out here. Typically I am to have just a little bit of information in the last box. That gives me the best exposure. I like my whites to be at about 240-245. Can sometimes get away with more depending on the exposure of the rest of the shot. Some people like their whites at 230. So you will have to experiment with what works best for you. I was out on a rock jetty yesterday and was waiting for some Harlequins to swim by. When they were a long way out I took a few shots to try and get the exposure right. Made the necessary adjustments so that when they got close I was ready and did not need to go and look at the back of the camera. Clearly we do not always have the luxury of time. In those cases you have to count on experience to read the situation and set you camera accordingly. As I mentioned earlier, I do most of my shooting in AV. Works most of the time for me as I generally shoot in early morning or late evening light. I set my f stop and ISO and the camera sets the shutter speed. Shoot most of the time in evaluative metering as well and use the exposure compensation to fine tune exposure. There are times and birds that I do not want the camera to do the thinking for me and I go to manual. For instance when shooting birds like coots in direct sun you have major issues. Getting the blacks right without blowing out the whites is extremely difficult and I have found manual to work best.
Here are a few situation that are quite common and can be confusing to get proper exposure.
When shooting a bird against a bright sky I shoot in evaluative metering with positive exposure compensation. It will blow out the sky a bit but will ensure that the bird is properly exposed.
When shooting a very light bird such as an egret or gull against a dark background (like water) shoot with spot metering. Aim the center to where you want the camera to expose the whites of the bird and not take into account the full scene.
Many will say that you can use manual all the time and it may work for many but I do not find it necessary.
Soft backgrounds are easily manipulated in post. You can use layers in PS and follow some of Diane's wonderful instructions. Or you can use Lightroom and set the adjustment brush as follows. Set your sharpness to 0, your noise reduction to 100 and you clarity to 0. Paint that to the background and you will have a noise free and soft and muted background. If those settings are too much then back off a bit and keep trying until you get the results that you prefer. It is much easier to do this in Photoshop but not necessary to do it there.
Last edited by Isaac Grant; 02-29-2016 at 10:48 PM.
-
Thank you Isaac. You have made some very interesting comments above and it's much appreciated. I think I generally lack the experience at "reading a scene". Next time at the duck pond, f8 f8 f8...and I may even try AV. I will also check the metering. Not so long ago, I was shooting with "spot" just about all the time and only recently changed to Evaluative. But a good idea to check the subject first. And you are right. I've turned into a PS fiend. I love to play, so an OOF BG shouldn't be too hard.
Thank you!
-
I'm on my iPhone about to run out to try for Osprey carrying nesting material. Will get back to this later but a quick thought about seeing the histogram. I have a Hoodman loupe for the LCD screen. I mostly use it for video but it would solve your problem of not being able to see the screen well. You can adjust focus on it but I'm not sure how it would work without your glasses. It's a bit clumsy to hold up to the screen but better than nothing.
You can attack it with a stretch strap but then you can't see through the viewfinder so that's only good for video where you're in live view, and that limits AF.
You could also throw a dark cloth over your head like the view camera folks do, to be able to see the back screen in daylight. That is worth a try and could maybe serve as a little camouflage.
-
Make that attach it with a strap. How do kids text with two thumbs??
-
Here's the loupe:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...Y&Q=&A=details
I don't see the stretch band thing but you can make one with 2 or 3 rubber bands. A camera strap will be a nuisance for it, though.
-
Diane, thank you! I like attacking straps. 
Surely, I wouldn't be the only photographer who wears glasses? I had a look at the loupe. Is this something I will fumble around with. I did like your idea of a camo head cover. I could make it so it sits over my hat, like an apiarist's veil. I wouldn't drop it in the drink if it fitted over my hat.
-
Give the cloth thing it a try and report back! How about those glasses straps that hook on the earpieces and let you hang them from your neck -- easier to find there....
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Hi, Glennie ... I'm still catching up: Yes, it is a bit soft, although the hen's eye looks sharp to me. I suppose the technical comments are correct and contributory, but the effect on the viewer (me, and I'm guessing others of the laity) is tremendous -- this image has drama! My take -- if you print this image as it appears here and hang it in a gallery, it will sell fast. I would hang it in my home, and pay the >200 USD for matting and framing. You have a great eye!
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
but if you asked my wife she would say that I always sound that way 
and it is even more remarkable how much detail is hidden under the overexposed parts.
