Pine Grosbeak

[Isaac Grant]

Thought I would post one more Pine Grosbeak before the winter has fully gone. It feels and looks like early spring here in New York City but a cold wind is blowing and temperature is just above freezing. I had to wait around for a while for the birds to reach the bottom of the trees to get them on better and less cluttered perches with more pleasing backgrounds. I took the vast majority of my shots of them with the 500PF but for this I had the 600 mounted on the tripod. Birds were feeding in a really dense crabapple that was right on a busy road. Had to walk into the road and quickly shoot when I saw this bird feeding on that exposed branch. The bottom of the tree where the bird was feeding had this really beautiful and diffused red light from the light coming through the dense tree and also reflecting off of the snow which was covered in the fruit.

Nikon D850 with Nikon 600 f4 E, ISO 1250, F7.1, SS 1/800. Fill flash used.

[annmpacheco]

A superb image isaac, and excellent use of fill flash. Love this soft, crisp, and isolated view of a very handsome male. The crabapple cluster is in complete focus and details on the grosbeak are amazing. Terrific that you captured the feeding behavior and not just a messy beak. Love the colors, excellent image.

[Chris van Rooyen]

An exquisite work of art....killer image Isaac

Brilliant use of fill flash. I would consider toning down the bright orange berry in the left hand bottom corner just a tad.

[William Dickson]

Pretty neat image...I love the colours throughout, lovely detail on the bird and on the berries below the bird. I like the pose and the berry in the beak adds. I must try flash some time....Looking real good.

Will

[Isaac Grant]

Thanks guys. William you really should use flash. This bird was in the shade at the bottom of a tree with diffuse light coming through. It is the kind of situation where I would have needed a high ISO and that would have made my image quality much worse, especially with the D850. Some gentle fill flash is all you need to spread some nice even light across the bird and the perch and it makes a huge difference on the photo. When I shot Canon I used the 600 ex-rt ii along with the battery pack so that I got a much faster refresh rate. I use the same type of set up now except with Nikon it is the SB-5000 and the Nikon battery pack. Can sometimes get 9 or so shot burst with flash on all of them with that set up. I use eneloop rechargeable batteries in the flash and the battery pack.

[dankearl]

A very nice photo...flash is noticeable but subtle.
This looks over sharpened to me. You mentioned in another thread that you sharpen your tiff or jpegs
before downsizing. I think that is a mistake for web posting.

[Isaac Grant]

Dan I think we have very different styles and have very different ideas of what a sharp photo looks like. The details on this grosbeak are insane on the full res file. As good as on any file that I have ever seen. When downsizing without sharpening some first you lose a ton and I mean a ton of details. You may wish to revisit your workflow and follow the steps that I laid out to David. Most of the top photographers follow the exact steps that I laid out when posting for the web. It is impossible after downsizing so much to retain the same level of detail of the full res but that workflow will get you the closest to it. I know it seems counter intuitive but it is a tried and true method.

[John Mack]

Nice view of the bird. Like the pose/perch. Details look great.

[dankearl]

Isaac,
I did not say the details were not terrific or insane, I think the details are oversharpened...
Bird feathers do not look like this.
I use TK actions for web sharpening. Tony Kuyper is a photoshop genius. About every top
landscape photographer uses his panels for all kinds of processing.
His web sharpening features are really excellent and are very well used.

[Isaac Grant]

Dan what you are thinking is oversharpened is in fact the result of the flash and how it looks on the feathers. I know what you said but you are wrong. As presented this bird looks almost exactly like what it looked like in the raw file and it is what bird feathers look like when shot with flash and when the bird is in shade. I had this same issue when I posted a House Finch shot with flash. It is not sharpened any more or less than other files but some thought it looked over sharpened. Don't know Tony Kuyper so can not speak for how his landscape method translates to birds. Notice the fruits and stems which were also sharpened the same do not have the same look to them.

[dankearl]

Isaac,
for some reason we got off on a bad foot here...
I like the back and forth of critiquing and I wish more people did.
I understand the flash gave the feather that look.
I think if you did not sharpen the file before downsizing, the flash sharpening would be less noticeable.

Tony Kuyper's panels are not just for landscape photographers, you are in a bubble I think
If you are not aware of him.
You should look into it, your methods are fine but there are new methods out there...

[Isaac Grant]

Dan, it looks fine to me on my imac and as stated I completely disagree. You are not seeing over sharpening, you are seeing ruffled and flashed feathers that are not over sharpened. I often think your files are soft and dull. Likely not from lack of technique and more likely processing. If the presentation is from your workflow then I would try my old method if I were you.

[dankearl]

Isaac,
I hope Arash weighs in here,
I don't think he sharpens his tiff files before downsizing..

[Isaac Grant]

I don’t sharpen the TIFF. I sharpen a full res jpeg. Same method as every other file I post that you don’t think are over sharpened. Last time I will say it, you are seeing the signs of flash, not over sharpening. Every duck I have posted, every single file posted for years now is sharpened the exact same way. Feel free to do whatever you prefer. I am perfectly fine with my workflow. Plenty of people do exactly what I am describing but most don’t detail what they do.

[Arthur Morris]

My understanding is that images should not be sharpened until sized for final usage ...

with love, artie

[Isaac Grant]

Every file I have posted for years that everyone, including you said were sharp and detailed was sharpened the exact same way. Once prior to downsizing and once after. Must be multiple ways to do things I guess.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Pretty much a perfect image, but my first thought, even before reading the comments, is that I thought the details looked crunchy and oversharpened. Mind you I am on my work monitor (it's lunch break time!), but the other images do not have that look, even your other images. I'll see what it looks like when back at home later today. Maybe as you say it's the flash, but as posted, and from this monitor, there is a crunchy look. Not doubting your processing or anything, just saying what I see from here.

BTW, great work getting in position and handling the busy road!

[Isaac Grant]

The screen you view on makes a huge difference Dan. Crappy work monitors are just that. Being perfectly honest no version of this shot looks anywhere near as good as the full res shot does. The full res version of this photo is 31.5 MP or 6874 x 4583. When downsized to 1920 x 1280 it loses a ton of image quality and looks lousy compared to the original. It is a real problem with the D850 and files that are not cropped very much. The files are huge and highly detailed. They are unlike anything I ever saw with Canon 1dx, 1dx2 or 7d2, or any other camera. You can zoom into this bird and see every feather. When downsizing them to these tiny sizes you are majorly affecting the image quality. Here are 4 versions of this file just for fun.

The first is a downsized and completely unsharpened version. This is what happens when you take a highly detailed 31.5 MP file and downsize it to 1920 x 1280. This is from the unsharpened TIFF
The second is unsharpened when downsized and then Smart Sharpened at 100 and .5. To my eye and on the 5k imac that looks awful and very unlike the full res and sharpened file. It does not have crisp details and still has the same somewhat flashed look to it
The 3rd is a sharpened and then downsized file, and then resharpened at 80 and .3 (so less than the original post which was at 100 and .5) It is closer to the original but not quite there. It just does not have the same crispness and detail of the original
4th is the original post here again for context. Sharpened at 100 and .5, downsized and then resharpened at 100 and .5. On my screen this is the closest to the full res version but it is not nearly as nice as the full res version. Can't speak to how it looks on other screens.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Thanks for those Isaac. Good comparisons. The first is obviously the least sharpened, and "worst" of the bunch. My personal favorite is the third. For me the fourth (and original) are just too crisp IMO. I do not doubt the details of the file at all. If I go back to your other images, they do not have that "crunchy" look to them:

This Greater Scaup you posted here is absolutely perfect to my eye as far as fine detail sharpness goes, and it is not crunchy.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...-Greater-Scaup

Same goes for the Canvasback here (WOW!), probably even better than the scaup IMO:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...918-Canvasback

The House Finch here as well, although with Canon gear:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...38-House-Finch

All those above are perfectly sharp and sharpened, but do not have the over-sharpened look to them. Anyhow, this is the type of discussion that would be great to have over a beer or two (or water, or whatever lol). We gotta arrange for something this summer for sure man!

[Isaac Grant]

Depending on the screen you view it on 3 may be better than 4. I agree. 3 does not have the super crisp details that are in the full res that 4 has but the flash is more evident in 4. All are lousy compared to the full res. Also speaks to why you sharpen and then sharpen again for web. The files are much better...

notice on that House Finch the bird has that shiny appearance from the flash. That gets exaggerated from downsizing and sharpening. Remember the House Finch was shot with a 20 MP camera and this Grosbeak with a 46 MP camera. Looks crunchier but is sharpened the same. And that look comes from the flash. I would love to know if there was a better way to post these heavily downsized and flashed somgbird images for web. As you notice, it is not an issue on waterfowl or other non flashed images.

Dan by the way I sent you the full res jpeg to view.

[Dorian Anderson]

This is going to sound the dumbest question ever, particularly as I've used Lightroom for years without really understanding it.

What work flow is happening in Lightroom? I just know I import a RAW file, mess with the sliders, clone out spots, and finally export a web-sized jpeg (e.g 600K for BPN)!
When I'm moving the sliders round, I assume those are applied to something intermediary (like a TIFF) between the RAW and JPEG? At what level is LR applying the sharpening?
There are sharpening sliders but then an additional option for sharpening upon export - what is the difference?

I know most here use more sophisticated methods, but I appreciate any insight anyone can lend, cheers!

[dankearl]

Dorian,
Do you sharpen your files before downsizing and then sharpen them again?

[Dorian Anderson]

I don't know. I sharpen them in LR with the slider and then select "Output sharpening - High" when I export. So maybe I'm sharpening twice. I don't really understand.....

[dankearl]

Your stuff looks great, just curious.
Lots of ways to do things.

[Isaac Grant]

Dorian I am somewhat new to Lightroom and basically only use it as a RAW converter. I import my raw files into lightroom and do some minor adjustments to highlights, shadows, colors, etc. In LR I set the sharpening amount to 33, the radius to .5 and the detail to 25 and masking to 0 which I found to be about the same results as what I used to get with DPP where I kept the sharpness slider at 3 when I converted the file. Then I import into Photoshop and never go back to LR at all. I use smart sharpen in Photoshop for all sharpening. So I am not sure that I can answer your question as I do not do anything else in LR. I simply hit Command E on my mac and it converts the file to a TIFF and opens up in Photoshop where everything else is done. So you don't use PS at all Dorian?