Killdeer x2

[Brian Sump]

D850
600mm + 1.4
HH
ISO 800
1/3200
f5.6

Post in C1 and PS. Touch of bkg and water clean up, curves and level adj. DNAI.

[dankearl]

I would back off the contrast a lot...nice setting.
Details are very good, but just too sharpened and contrasty.
I bet the RAW file looks great.

[Arthur Morris]

Dan is correct. This one is too contrasty and a bit crunchy. I am not sure what you are doing wrong but at least the two Killdeer images were done consistently ...

Are you sharpening your master file???

with love, artie

[arash_hazeghi]

nice colors and reflections, love the low angle the BG is a bit distracting

re processing the image is contrasty from the direct strong light, I'd lower the contrast but I disagree it is crunchy or oversharpened. it looks just right on my 4K screen for those viewing on a laptops or older low res screen it may look different but I it doesn't look oversharpened. to me it looks it is a sizable crop so some of the details are not visible. how much of a crop was this?

i took out the excess contrast and it looks good to me now

Attachment 187027

[Brian Sump]

I didn't touch contrast. Adjusted levels for R, G and B moving sliders to where they touch the curves on each. Was an experiment. I liked the contrast personally, totally made the bird pop but I'm fine backing off some.

Not a big crop, 6375 pixels left on full size at this crop.

Sharpened 180/.8 in C1p and only 25/.3 on final. No three step sharpen here with exception of customary 15/15 on topaz on all.

Please keep in mind that this guy was walking along the shoreline dunking its head and so the whole front is wet and is probably why you think it's crunchy? Raw is about the same. If you stare at the chest and below the beak, yeah you're gonna see wet feathers and if you don't look at the rest of the bird you could make a quick assumption that it's "crunchy".

Transparently and with love, when I see a Killdeer I see bright whites, blacks and some nice earthy tones but not a bunch of gray. I refuse to drop highlights so much that whites turn gray. Quite a few photos here look that way, frankly. Still learning but I already dropped highlights to -55 in C1 and there's a good bit more gray here already than in the raw. Tell me what I'm missing?????????

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Brian

as I mentioned it does not look crunchy to me. I think the AM light was very strong and really gave it a strong punch. looking pretty good buddy. did you get any flight shots?

[Brian Sump]

Better? No more crunchy... no more contrast

[arash_hazeghi]

haha upside down?

[Daniel Cadieux]

I don't have a fancy 4K screen, and it does not look too contrasty to me. A bit more than many images? Sure. bit not too much. I do see a "bit" of crunchiness though, but I can tell that the frame is more than likely perfect in that regard. Nice reflection and colours. Low angle is very good too.

P.S. What is that white streak near the wingtip?

[Brian Sump]

I don't have a fancy 4K screen, and it does not look too contrasty to me. A bit more than many images? Sure. bit not too much. I do see a "bit" of crunchiness though, but I can tell that the frame is more than likely perfect in that regard. Nice reflection and colours. Low angle is very good too.

P.S. What is that white streak near the wingtip?

Thank you for a very thoughtful critique Daniel. I value it very much.

Excellent catch... no idea. I bet I grazed the frame with my pen with a dodge tool or something. Shouldn't be there, thank you!

[Volkan Akgul]

hi Daniel :) congratulations

[gail bisson]

This is a great frame.
I am viewing from my small laptop so cannot really comment on the crunchiness.
Reflection, POV, exposure are perfect.
I might clean up the catchlight in the reflection but otherwise a really good image,
Gail

[Dorian Anderson]

Strong view of this skittish species. If the image is 'crunchy' it's only mildly so and addressed in the repost. The usually-gleaming whites on the breast look a bit grayed, but we all must walk the line of
showing more detail versus showing the subject how it appears in the field. It's mostly a matter of personal preference at the end of the day.

The reflection is nice, and I think the earthy BG is blurred enough that the subject still pops against it. If there's earth in my shorebird images, I generally prefer it in the foreground with water behind, but
then I lose the possibility of reflection.

[Brian Sump]

Thank you Gail and Dorian very much for your comments.

I had the gray conversation with Artie via phone as I'm clearly very sensitive about my whites. These gray patches were similarly evident in the RAW file and only mildly more pronounced in the final PS file.

[John Mack]

Looks good to me. Love that reflection.