-
-
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.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
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.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Macro and Flora Moderator
A slight vignette would help but I really like the owl, maybe if he was a little further to the right too.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Love those big eyes. The low angle is right on. Depth of filed was right on.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
-
Wildlife Moderator
-
Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
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.
-
Wildlife Moderator
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.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
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.
-
Wildlife Moderator
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.
-
Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
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.
-
Wildlife Moderator
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.