-
Female Bufflehead
First outing and keeper of the 2021!
Canon 600mm f/4 I II + 1.4x III on EOS 1DX2
1/3200 at f/5.6, ISO 500
Processed in LR CC without trickery. Bit of localized highlight recovery on the ear patch.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Macro and Flora Moderator
Good angle and well processed, I see a very faint halo around the bill. The water waves look really attractive being so clearly delineated.
-
Wildlife Moderator
The setting makes it for me here Dorian and even if the blue is pushed, it simply works here, cool hues & tones, the bow wave is gorgeous too. Agree with Jon that there are halos present around the subject, but a question, why use Partial metering?????
TFS
Steve
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
The setting makes it for me here Dorian and even if the blue is pushed, it simply works here, cool hues & tones, the bow wave is gorgeous too. Agree with Jon that there are halos present around the subject, but a question, why use Partial metering?????
TFS
Steve
White balance was set to sunlight and temp was at 5300 out of camera. I warmed to 5700. So, I went the other way than you suggest. I have little understanding of white balance though.
I'm having a hard time seeing a halo and don't understand why I have this problem according to other people's eye (it was more 'obvious' on my scaup from a week back than this image). It's like every image I post has them, no matter how much or how little sharpening I add. I wonder if it is something inherent to my workflow.
I thought I was in spot metering and will need to check that.
-
Wildlife Moderator
Hi Dorian, Partial meter is in camera, you have Evaluated, Partial, Spot & Centre, generally I have mine 98% set to Evaluated, but here you have it to Partial and it covers only a small percentage when metering. Now I think I know why you may have set it that way, but just curious if you did consciously set it, and if so why, just interested.
The only reason I would say is down to sharpening and the amounts used, but Jon too spotted it, I'm not the only one that sees it, others do too. I don't see it around the bill like Jon, I just see it at the rear.
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
Hi Dorian, Partial meter is in camera, you have Evaluated, Partial, Spot & Centre, generally I have mine 98% set to Evaluated, but here you have it to Partial and it covers only a small percentage when metering. Now I think I know why you may have set it that way, but just curious if you did consciously set it, and if so why, just interested.
The only reason I would say is down to sharpening and the amounts used, but Jon too spotted it, I'm not the only one that sees it, others do too. I don't see it around the bill like Jon, I just see it at the rear.
I understand that metering is in camera. I would use spot ahead of all else since it should give me the most precise reading on a subject which usually occupies some small % of the whole frame. Evaluative is going to weight the surroundings as well, right?
Yeah, I see the little bit at the top of the tail area now that I look at it. I just don't know why I suffer from this problem. I think it might be a by product of Lightroom. As Arash has nicely demonstrated, the same image open in DPP and LR has 10x more noise in the later. I think I am being forced to apply more sharpening in LR to recover that comparatively lost detail. Does that make any sense? Others on this board post shots taken at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 and there NO WAY I can get the level of detail they get using my current workflow.
Off for 60 mile / 100km bike ride, cheers....
-
Wildlife Moderator
If the subject is more backlit I find, if I shot say a Coot I might go for that, thanks.
I think it might be a by product of Lightroom. As Arash has nicely demonstrated, the same image open in DPP and LR has 10x more noise in the later.
I use LR & PS and would have the same issues, but don't, I think? If the file is well exposed, pin sharp and not hammered in cropping I can't see why you are forced to recover detail though Dorian, as you have great kit. You should have no issues in using ISO from 800-12,800 and more if you are careful. Pushing Blacks & Contrast will loose you detail and if you use more NR than need be, again I'm assuming, but it also then comes down to amounts of sharpening too possibly. Would love to sort this as you are posting some great images, like this!
If you want to fire off a Raw not a 'baked Tiff' that's pointless, happy to take a look if you want, just trying to help as ever. I'll just process it with 'no tricks' just a very quick edit and see what happens. If no halos, then I would say it's sharpening amounts. How are you applying sharpening, via PS or when exporting via LR and setting it for screen via Export????
Enjoy your 60 mile ride, I'm off to make a cup of tea and prep Sunday dinner.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
-
Beautiful Colors and Point of View.
I like the watercolors.
TFS
-
Super Moderator
I have to admit that I have a hard time seeing a halo here, and I see the detail as super sharp too so the IQ is not compromised. Wondering if it could be monitor and its resolution. I'm not very "techie" so I would not know where to begin to look for comparisons and such. In any case, very appealing image of this small duck. Off to a great start for 2021!
-
Lifetime Member
Beautiful frame again Dorian, love the soft light and the low POV. I'm not seeing any significant halos, but am on the laptop at the moment. Maybe if they are there they are down to going global adjustments in LR, whereas most of us will sharpen selectively in PS
Mike
-
Avian Moderator
Dorian, man nailed this one. As simple as the Buffie hen is, you represented her very nicely.
I suppose this classifies as "hella hella low"...!? When the water line begins to haze itself into the body, I'd say that's low.
Details look great in darks and lights and the krinkles in the wakes actually add nicely for me.
I too see the halos on the larger monitor FWIW. I doubt the average (or even above) onlooker could ever tell.
Last edited by Brian Sump; 01-10-2021 at 08:21 PM.
-
Lifetime Member
A beautiful dreamy frame.
Love the low POV, the awesome IQ and the bow wake.The blues look great with the browns of the hen.
FWIW, I am on a 27" iMac and I can barely see a halo on the back and I would never have seen it if I had not zoomed in to the image to try and see what others were seeing.
Gail
-
Dorian killer image I like the blues almost a foggy feel to it. I do see the halo on the bill and rear. TFS
-
A keeper for sure. Love the low angle and how the bird tucks into the water so to say. I wouldn't worry about the halo. It's barely noticeable you have to zoom way in to see it anyway. 60 mile bike ride? I think the farthest I've done is 24-25 miles. Just about died that day.
-
Super Moderator
I almost like the water more than the bufflehead, calm water is key to shots like this and this is as good as it gets. angle and details look good from here.
I can only speak of what I see on my monitor, the WB could be a bit warmer for CA light. When I had Canon I struggled to get the WB right in Adobe software I spent hours and hours and still the image didn't come out right, I recall in particular the bluish tint/cold look from the ACR. Then I switched to DPP and bingo, no adjustment needed! It took Artie 5 minutes to convert to DPP... I think today Capture One Pro also does a great job and will produce files pretty close to DPP in terms of visible noise and color plus it doesn't have the quirks and slow performance that plagues DPP. worth giving a try.
I also have a hard time seeing a halo, it doesn't show on high resolution screens and I think it's from the wet bill rather than sharpening. when the bill is wet the edge sill have a sublet sheen that could be mistaken for a halo. Either way not something I'd worry about here
TFS and happy new year