Connecticut Warbler

[Paul Kammen]

Went "up north" last week to photograph some warblers, and was fortunate to get this guy to come to the side of the road without having to go into the marshy bog and get wet. Connecticut Warbler from near Floodwood, MN. 1/500 sec, f 5.6, ISO 400, 7DII, 800mm.

[kevin Hice]

Neat bird Paul and details look good where it counts. Intersecting bright branch behind the head really distracts. Could clone out the upper left corner .Bird looks a little too bright.Eye ring is hot. Did you use some flash? I just about gave up shooting warblers. Hard to get a clean shot.Busy backgrounds really hurt. TFS

[John Mack]

The light looks nice. The bird needs more room all around to breath. Background is what it is.

[Dorian Anderson]

Nice look at this skulker! One of the hardest warbler to get in the open. The bird does need much more room in the frame; he look like he's about to get crushed as it. It also looks like you were right on top of this bird given the ver thin focal plane. The head and chest look great but it falls off from there. You'll also want to done the eye-ring down as it is blown out as is. The second catchlight in the eye (flash?) also need to go. This is still a great look at this bird. I've only seen them in their duller fall garb.

[Arthur Morris]

Ohh, what a hard to photograph bird. Congrats on that. All excellent comments above: too bright and too huge in the frame. Please post a JPG that represents the RAW file :)

with love, artie

[Paul Kammen]

Hi Artie,

Thanks, I'll try to tone it down a bit, unfortunately a busy background, quite a bit of twigs, and would require a bit of photoshop work...

Here is an attempt, along with the "original" - thanks! - Paul

[Arthur Morris]

Wider is much, much better. I'd still like some more room above and behind if you have it. You missed a section of the branch that intersected the breast -- it remains right below the bird's breast. I am gonna take a crack at reducing the contrast ...

with love, artie

ps: I am not seeing the 3X2 original ...

[Arthur Morris]

My repost addresses only the contrast. The curves adjustment that I made, a rather huge one, will be in the next pane. From where I sit it is a huge improvement as it toned down the bright look; the image now has a softer look.

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

I see a bit of posterization in the breast. This would not have occurred when working with the RAW file. The Curves adjustment was done on a separate layer.

with love, artie

[Paul Kammen]

Wider is much, much better. I'd still like some more room above and behind if you have it. You missed a section of the branch that intersected the breast -- it remains right below the bird's breast. I am gonna take a crack at reducing the contrast ...

with love, artie

ps: I am not seeing the 3X2 original ...

Hello Artie,

Thanks, I had issues here - I think the breast issue was due to the fact that I had to remove a hint of branch that was touching it. I'll continue to try to touch up the bird.

Many thanks for the suggestions on curves.

Be well,
Paul

[Arthur Morris]

YAW. I'd still like to see a jpeg that represents the full frame RAW file, un-cropped at 3X2 :)

a

[Paul Kammen]

YAW. I'd still like to see a jpeg that represents the full frame RAW file, un-cropped at 3X2 :)

a

Hi Artie, here it is, though I'm not sure what you mean by "at 3 x 2" - this was the original, I ended up doctoring up one shot taken right after the original post.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie, here it is, though I'm not sure what you mean by "at 3 x 2" - this was the original, I ended up doctoring up one shot taken right after the original post.

Thanks, Paul, That is what I was looking for :) 3X2 is the proportion of horizontal images as they come out of the camera. Verticals are 2X3 :)

I can now see that you introduced the excess contrast and brightness during the RAW conversion ... In addition, the crop was too, too huge. Do you convert in DPP 4, ACR, or Capture One?

with love, artie

[Paul Kammen]

Thanks, Paul, That is what I was looking for :) 3X2 is the proportion of horizontal images as they come out of the camera. Verticals are 2X3 :)

I can now see that you introduced the excess contrast and brightness during the RAW conversion ... In addition, the crop was too, too huge. Do you convert in DPP 4, ACR, or Capture One?

with love, artie

Hi Artie, thanks, I typically converted in Adobe RAW and then open the file and do some layering from there with the Nik filters. Thanks for the clarification on 3 x 2 as well.