Hand held Canon 1DX Canon 100-400 L IS II
Auto ISO 4000 (+1.3), 1/2000 sec f8
ACR + PSCC
I had been taking puffin portraits and out of the corner of my eye I saw this puffin, I swung the camera round, this was it's second hop.
Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica)
Hand held Canon 1DX Canon 100-400 L IS II
Auto ISO 4000 (+1.3), 1/2000 sec f8
ACR + PSCC
I had been taking puffin portraits and out of the corner of my eye I saw this puffin, I swung the camera round, this was it's second hop.
Fun image that shows the way they land nicely. All these puffin images are making me homesick for Iceland!
I feel this image needs some more punch. It looks a bit washed out.
I would play with either contrast and /or levels and/or adding blacks to the neutrals in selective coloring.
If might I would clone in some OOF greenery to hide the OOF rock on the right and maybe crop up very slightly.
I see a green cast on the near wing- not a big deal but an easy fix so worthwhile doing.
And finally...I would burn or clone out the white spots to the right of puffin.
All these suggestions make it seem like I do not like the image but I do!
Gail
Hi Jon, I'll take seconds to all of what Gail said! What is most noticeable to me is the flat colors throughout. Blacks can be brought to life and the this puffin can become better! I agree w losing the bottom oof rock and also clone out the white spots, looking forward to your repost if you choose.
Gail, Ann I can appreciate your saying the colours look washed out, they were, this is pretty much how they were. The light was cloudy and the blacks on the puffin were far from black. I agree it may look more visually attractive with more colour all round but I want to record as near to reality as I can.
Hi Jon, pretty bang on overall and the green cast in the body whites was as highlighted with Alex B's posting a few days later. Great to see you pushing the ISO to nail the frame, mess around with low ISO and you'll lose the moment. My only thought would be perhaps just to drop the exp say -0.10 and get some more depth/tone in the FG to give separation. Good spread across the Histogram.
TFS
Steve
Thanks Steve, I must confess I have just relooked at the greens and now I see some round the legs, it must be reflected light off the grass. I can now see it in the near wing as Gail mentioned.Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
Last edited by Jonathan Ashton; 06-25-2018 at 11:20 AM.
I agree 100% with Gail on this one. The colors are off. Low light does not mean that birds look this washed out and without dimension.
You have great detail throughout this one. Interesting pose on the puffin as well.
The interesting pose lifts this one for me Jon. I agree with a fair bit of what has been said already but a few points... I'm generally happy with a cast if it is due to reflected light from substrate and same is obvious to the viewer, eg slight green cast on the underside of the bird. As for the 'look' of the image reflecting the lighting conditions, that'a really about personal ethics and go with what you are comfortable with here. Having said that, I have a more nuanced view that cameras see and capture scenes in a different way to our vision systems. Our eyes scan a scene and adjust for highlights and shadows. A camera does a scene average. Cameras start to lose dynamic range and saturation at higher ISO but our eyes are better (unless the light is really poor) etc etc. So for me it comes down to taking what the camera has recorded and converting it into how my vision saw all the elements in the scene, not just the scene overall. I would definitely go a touch darker to start with.
Thanks for the feedback eveyone, it is much as I anticipated and well received. It is good to see people have their own views, a few years ago I would have probably increased saturation and contrast mainly due to influence of the people on this site - no bad thing there are lots of good photographers here.
I still stand by what I said, i.e. it may look more visually pleasing if more punchy and colourful but I can assure you 100% that I am looking on a fully calibrated Eizo monitor which is accurate - very accurate and the colours I presented are very close to the ones I saw on that day, although I have to confess I did not notice the green hue on the wing at the time of capture!
Another day would almost certainly be a different matter and the colours would look denser and more pleasing, you have only to see the puffins I posted last year for example.
The point Glen makes about how the camera captures the image is of course very relevant some people set their camera on Standard profile others on Natural some Neutral or Fine detail, this coupled with any manual overrides and additional over or underexposure will enable people to capture the image that pleases them, few if any will ever capture the image precisely as it was.
Last edited by Jonathan Ashton; 06-26-2018 at 10:26 AM.
Jonathan I know you and I have gone back and forth on this many times but for the sake of the rest on the site I am going to revisit the issue. There are a couple of issues going on. The first is, as Glenn so elegantly put it, the cameras do not capture what our eye sees. Our eyes don't see blown whites and choked blacks. Our eyes don't see noise or limited depth of field, but all of these appear on all of our files. As you mention, how the file looks on the screen can vary a great deal depending on settings, etc. Our eyes still see 3 dimensional birds in whatever the surroundings may be or lighting conditions may be. It is just a matter of how much or little light there is that we are seeing. It is not a matter of the photo looking more visually pleasing, it is a matter of the photo looking like a bird in environment, and not like something that is lacking in dimension and depth. Files out of the 1dx and the 1dx 2 (remember I have had both) in low light conditions especially are way too flat and dull. That is not what our eyes saw and this needs to be worked on it post to bring it back to reality. These files always look to me like I am viewing them through a dirty window and I need to process them to wash the film away and bring the depth and tone back into the shot. I have many shots lately taken in very poor lighting conditions where I faced the identical issue. So in post I need to make it look like a bird in environment with low light conditions which creates a visually pleasing image. My last 3 posts have been exactly this situation. The other thing that I would say is that Puffins are just not the color that is presented in your shot. They are deeper black, whiter white and more vibrant orange. Here is a 30 second redo that I think puts you in the ballpark of where this kind of shot should be.
Isaac you have your view point that's just fine with me I respect it but I don't have to agree with it.
I'm lost Jonathan. You don't agree that cameras record images differently than our eyes see them or you don't agree that Puffins are black and white and not grey?
Isaac cameras record scenes according to how they are set. We all have different perception of colour so that is why there are international standards for reference. Puffins colours vary with their their breeding status and their perceptual colouration does depend upon the lighting conditions, sometimes they appear darker than others sometimes the colours are more intense. This is why people will have differing opinions. Then on top of all this we have different screens used in different lighting conditions. My screen is pretty accurate used in very dull lit room, there is no direct light on the screen and the screen has a hood. A few years ago I provided a link for members to try just for fun, it was to determine colour acuity, I scored 100% I am not boasting - just a fact so I am confident in what I have posted. In all reality there is not much difference in your version compared to mine, in most cases there will be similarity. Lets put this to bed now.
Yes cameras record scenes according to how they are set but they do not have the same dynamic range and depth perception that our eyes do. That is why for many scenes you will expose for the whites and have to lift the shadows to get back to what they bird actually looks like in real life. There are many alternatives to this type of situation so there is a limit to what the camera records and to how accurate it was to real life. Our eyes don't see huge color casts, our eyes don't see grainy subjects or noise, our eyes don't see a film over things yet all of these things are recorded by all of our cameras. Also there is a difference between color accuracy and tone and depth. Trust me I am not trying to pick on your or start trouble. I think all of us struggle to process photos in low light situations and this discussion applies to many if not all of our low light photos.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote