Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: How about me...

  1. #1
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Sunrise, Fl
    Posts
    3,241
    Threads
    525
    Thank You Posts

    Default How about me...

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    EOS R RF 70-200 @200 f5.6 1/400 ISO 1600 HH manual exp

    As I was imaging family at burrow, the oldest flew down out of the tree, landed next to the oak and seemed to say "What about me!". So, I creeped over and obliged with a couple of frames. Right back up into the oak this beauty went. Since the BG was clean and the stance was sideways, I stopped down further to get more of those downy chest feathers.

    Thanks for all previous and very valued comments. Please, keep them coming.

  2. #2
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    San Mateo, CA
    Posts
    3,643
    Threads
    398
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nice close look at this guy. I really like the illuminated horizons in the eyes. Bird suffers a bit without direct lighting because of eye dilated to the lighter background, but the eye contact
    and detail make for a solid result.

  3. Thanks David Roach thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    292
    Threads
    38
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Great shot. I like the soft light, the use of the foreground to give some depth and the details look good too.
    I agree that the top of the frame is a bit bright and distracting, it might be possible to get a better result by toning it down. I would also take some of the right side to move the bird of center.

  5. Thanks David Roach thanked for this post
  6. #4
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,291
    Threads
    2,653
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    A slight vignette would help but I really like the owl, maybe if he was a little further to the right too.

  7. Thanks David Roach thanked for this post
  8. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    10,421
    Threads
    1,708
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Love those big eyes. The low angle is right on. Depth of filed was right on.

  9. Thanks David Roach thanked for this post
  10. #6
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Sunrise, Fl
    Posts
    3,241
    Threads
    525
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Quick edit from suggestions on the JPG. I had already toned down the top but did some more and re-cropped to put birds left eye right on the upper third mark which reduced some of the top and the right side mostly. You can tell the RF glass is designed for much denser sensors. I now have three Rf lenses (other two not really for birding) and they resolve leaps and bounds when compared to older glass. Of course I do realize I'm comparing to first generation glass. And Dorian, the big pupils is what makes this for me. At full resolution, not only do you have a very clear view of the western horizon, but in the birds left eye there is a complete clear view of the canopy of the oak in the top right quadrant. It's very hard (but possible with just the right light angle) in the adults of this species to get the glassy look in the eyes. Also, in the owlets, as with most species, the young ones have less fear. This is a very relaxed look (more just curious) I would not get from an adult at this distance. Thanks as always for all the much valued inputs.

  11. #7
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    I like the low POV David, but the yellow & greens are a bit bright, as if the vegetation was on steroids. The image looks or has the appearance of being over sharp, that is down to adding Contrast and or in Levels both of which are 'Contrast adjustments' in their own rights, likewise all other adjustments, but folk keep persisting. Seriously David the more mid tone retained and less contrast leaves the finer detail exposed and less sharpening is required. Backing off on contrast, balancing out the colour, here going more green on the tint slider and having a slight play with the FG (personal taste) I think David you haver a cracking little image.

    TFS
    Steve
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  12. #8
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Sunrise, Fl
    Posts
    3,241
    Threads
    525
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    I like the low POV David, but the yellow & greens are a bit bright, as if the vegetation was on steroids. The image looks or has the appearance of being over sharp, that is down to adding Contrast and or in Levels both of which are 'Contrast adjustments' in their own rights, likewise all other adjustments, but folk keep persisting. Seriously David the more mid tone retained and less contrast leaves the finer detail exposed and less sharpening is required. Backing off on contrast, balancing out the colour, here going more green on the tint slider and having a slight play with the FG (personal taste) I think David you haver a cracking little image.

    TFS
    Steve
    Thanks so much for your help. The 400 DO vers. I had a contrast deficit so my base WF included a contrast boost by subtracting 1 on shadows and adding 1 to highlight sliders in DPP. This new RF glass has very good contrast, so not needed at all. So, you are correct, too much contrast. I will be sure to be aware next time. I do not think I added any more contrast in PS but I get your point. Your edit looks great but just a little brighter than I would prefer and what I saw. The eyes especially look better. After a dry winter and then finally a week long "monsoon" the bright yellows and new greens look this way in south Florida. I even used desat on yellows and green. I will give attention to and learn to more precisely sharpen with this "newer glass" and the sharper and much better resolved raw file. Thanks from this PP deprived amateur for your masterful help. Also, I really enjoy the wildlife forum as they seem to have more nuanced and advanced PP discussions. Just wish I understood them all the time. Thanks again, my friend. Please keep the learnings coming.

  13. #9
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Your edit looks great but just a little brighter than I would prefer
    Was the image under exposed? Brighter or lighter David, I lifted the shadows a fraction, but also darkening the Greens slightly begins to add some more tonal range.

    I will give attention to and learn to more precisely sharpen with this "newer glass" and the sharper and much better resolved raw file.
    David, providing the raw is 'critically' sharp then sharpening an image is easy and you can be less aggressive with the figures (ie lower), but as I have said, at this stage its 'perceptual sharpening' what looks right. Folk often ramp up Levels, Contrast, Clarity, Blacks etc oh because it looks punchy on screen and then also sharpen with high figures. The midtowns then disappear and the dark & shadows block so you have no detail in the darker areas and so some more sharpening is applied...

    Also, I really enjoy the wildlife forum as they seem to have more nuanced and advanced PP discussions. Just wish I understood them all the time.
    Thanks David, but often we need to back off. However, I have said before, if in posting there is a specific question, then ask away, it's the only way to learn. Don't worry about jargon, it's easy to breakdown, the key is to build and have fun.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  14. Thanks David Roach thanked for this post
  15. #10
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Sunrise, Fl
    Posts
    3,241
    Threads
    525
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Was the image under exposed? Brighter or lighter David, I lifted the shadows a fraction, but also darkening the Greens slightly begins to add some more tonal range.



    David, providing the raw is 'critically' sharp then sharpening an image is easy and you can be less aggressive with the figures (ie lower), but as I have said, at this stage its 'perceptual sharpening' what looks right. Folk often ramp up Levels, Contrast, Clarity, Blacks etc oh because it looks punchy on screen and then also sharpen with high figures. The midtowns then disappear and the dark & shadows block so you have no detail in the darker areas and so some more sharpening is applied...



    Thanks David, but often we need to back off. However, I have said before, if in posting there is a specific question, then ask away, it's the only way to learn. Don't worry about jargon, it's easy to breakdown, the key is to build and have fun.
    Thanks again Steve. The owlet was in the shade of the oak on a lightly overcast late afternoon (within hour of sunset), so it was not overly bright out. It was not ETTR but actually spot on out of camera. That is the histogram had tails halfway into both left and right quintiles with a large peak in the middle. So, I didn't change the exp in PP but I did add that contrast in DPP (again, habit from my older lens). Also not an excuse just more info, I am normally working with glass that is generations back ( and the first DO) that gets critical focus but does not resolve anything like this new telephoto. So, again, my habit is to tweak sharpening to at least make my images somewhat comparable to the up to date generations. I noticed with RF glass right away how much better even large crops looked but I hadn't really changed my sharpening habits. So, your second pair of eagle eyes and advice really helps. I hate to interject when you all discuss PP in wildlife but I probably should. Thanks again, my friend.

  16. #11
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    It was not ETTR but actually spot on out of camera.
    Do you mean 'straight out of camera', or you changed the metering mode? You could try changing the metering mode to Partial from Evaluative just to see with something like this, but NOT SPOT!!!!

    The Histogram in your raw converter is not the same as your camera histogram, just because it looks OK no harm in adjusting the Exposure in PP, if ETTR correctly you will be just dropping it a fraction at times.

    RF is considerably better, but I doubt I will be changing, too much kit and the 'right' body needs to be launched.

    Interject please, Forums are to discuss thoughts, it's your choice in what to distill and retain, but we are all learning each time we go out and then process. The only thing i won't do is tell you you should be doing itv something is working for you, but if there is something glaring it would be wrong not to say something.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  17. #12
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Sunrise, Fl
    Posts
    3,241
    Threads
    525
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Do you mean 'straight out of camera', or you changed the metering mode? You could try changing the metering mode to Partial from Evaluative just to see with something like this, but NOT SPOT!!!!

    The Histogram in your raw converter is not the same as your camera histogram, just because it looks OK no harm in adjusting the Exposure in PP, if ETTR correctly you will be just dropping it a fraction at times.

    RF is considerably better, but I doubt I will be changing, too much kit and the 'right' body needs to be launched.



    Interject please, Forums are to discuss thoughts, it's your choice in what to distill and retain, but we are all learning each time we go out and then process. The only thing i won't do is tell you you should be doing itv something is working for you, but if there is something glaring it would be wrong not to say something.
    I am probably not remembering the PP correctly but I do remember it was not ETTR and the Owlet was darker (with that bright BG). I am going to take all your suggestions and post another owlet image today. Let me know what you think. On the RF glass, the kit lens which was 24-105 f4 was on par and a little better than my old and best glass (EF 24-70 2.8.) IMO. I am amazed by this new zoom but then I have a poor reference point. Well the mirrorless 5D (R5) replacement will be this year but the pro level wildlife and sports not till year after from what I've read.

  18. #13
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,688
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I am going to take all your suggestions and post another owlet image today
    Will lookout for it.

    Well the mirrorless 5D (R5) replacement will be this year but the pro level wildlife and sports not till year after from what I've read.
    I think CorVid has a role here, but reckon it should be around $3,500, pro has to be under the 1DX MK3 for sure.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics