Barred Owl

[Shawn Marques]

I know the lighting conditions could have been better. But I was very happy to have gotten this image, as this was my very first encounter with a barred owl. But I may have a dilemma in which I would appreciate some input from the BPN experts.

A fellow photographer pointed out to me that "the eyes have some lost detail, and can be recovered with a little dodging of the sclera (the whites, or in birds the lighter outer part of the eye)". I don't know if this would be the correct thing to do, if it is needed at all.

What do you think? Do they need work, or are they fine the way they are? I look forward to all comments. Thanks a bunch!

Canon EF600mm f/4L IS USM + 1.4x on Canon 40D
ISO 400, 1/500@ f/5.6
Canon Speedlite, Better Beamer
Gitzo tripod, Wimberley head
Taken early afternoon in overcast skies

[Lance Peters]

Hi Shawn - agree with your comments regarding the eyes. Love the pose and the HA and eye contact.

If you are not adverse to it - I would consider Quick masking out the small branches at the top and the branch coimng out the side of the owls neck.

WELL DONE :)

[Gus Hallgren]

Hi:

What do you think of along this idea?

To my old peepers it looks like a faint blue cast which would be easy
to remove if objectionable. If processing RAW, I find WB of 4150 & Tint -15
usually gives white whites

Uncle Gus

[Adams Serra]

Hi Shawn, Hi Amy
Personally i would not do any work in the eyes, i agree with lance as far as removing the small branches above the Owl's head. Overall this is a beautiful image.

Adams

[denise ippolito]

Shawn, I like it as presented- I think Gus did a great job as usual w/ all the works but I think your original is more true

[Gus Hallgren]

Very subtle difference . . . ?

[denise ippolito]

Very Good !

[Gus Cobos]

Hi Shawn,
I'm going against the current here...Gus' repost in cleaning up the branches is excellent; no dispute there; but for some reason, I like the original better, it looks natural in its habitat...and it feels better...the eyes are fine...:cool:

[Phil Ertel]

Hi Shawn, Another vote for the original presentation. nicely done.

Phil

[Shawn Marques]

I like all the other variations presented-thanks for taking the time to play with my image. But I think if the upper branches are removed, the lower left, oof branch will also have to go, as it seems to end too abruptly for that thick of a branch. Anyway, I did not mention that a whole load of oof branches were already moved from the original.

It's good to know that you all seem to like the eyes as is. Thank you all so much for your insight!

[Lance Peters]

Excellent work Gus - do like all versions.

[Alfred Forns]

Shawn eyes wise its going to be tough to bring much out !! Downloaded and played with it, got lot of noise and a funny looking appearance Wold leave as is for this one !!!

[Desmond Chan]

A fellow photographer pointed out to me that "the eyes have some lost details...

Do you know what details he was referring to?

[Shawn Marques]

Do you know what details he was referring to?

His words- "the eyes have some lost detail, and can be recovered with a little dodging of the sclera (the whites, or in birds the lighter outer part of the eye)".

But these owls have large, dark eyes and I don't think any dodging should be done. In fact, I rarely touch the eyes unless they need repair work from getting "flashed". This person seems to have a habit of dodging his subjects' eyes by hand, giving many an unnatural, creepy look to them.

I was just getting other opinions here in case I was wrong. Thanks.

[Desmond Chan]

His words- "the eyes have some lost detail, and can be recovered with a little dodging of the sclera (the whites, or in birds the lighter outer part of the eye)".

But these owls have large, dark eyes and I don't think any dodging should be done. In fact, I rarely touch the eyes unless they need repair work from getting "flashed". This person seems to have a habit of dodging his subjects' eyes by hand, giving many an unnatural, creepy look to them.

I was just getting other opinions here in case I was wrong. Thanks.

I played with it using blend mode "screen" to try to see what details are there. Certainly it will help to see the black iris and the brown around it better. My problem is with the reflections on the eyes. They're so big - of course with eyes that big - that I think they're blocking us from seeing some of the details in the owl's eyes. So I was thinking if you do want to work those eyes more to see the black iris and the brown around it better, should something have to be done to the reflections, perhaps totally removing them or reduce their sizes a bit? I don't know. Just my thought.

Then there's the noise problem, as Al has pointed out, once you go too far with the tweaking.

By the way, I think your version of the eyes are better as I think Gus' seem to be darker. I think yours already show details. The question is just how detailed of those details you want to see, I think :)

I did "screen" those eyes a bit in my re-post. As you can see, I didn't go too far away from yours at all.

[Shawn Marques]

I played with it using blend mode "screen" to try to see what details are there. Certainly it will help to see the black iris and the brown around it better. My problem is with the reflections on the eyes. They're so big - of course with eyes that big - that I think they're blocking us from seeing some of the details in the owl's eyes. So I was thinking if you do want to work those eyes more to see the black iris and the brown around it better, should something have to be done to the reflections, perhaps totally removing them or reduce their sizes a bit? I don't know. Just my thought.

Then there's the noise problem, as Al has pointed out, once you go too far with the tweaking.

By the way, I think your version of the eyes are better as I think Gus' seem to be darker. I think yours already show details. The question is just how detailed of those details you want to see, I think :)

I did "screen" those eyes a bit in my re-post. As you can see, I didn't go too far away from yours at all.

Using the "screen" made the black in the eyes look unnaturally flat. Perhaps that is not the answer either.

[Desmond Chan]

Using the "screen" made the black in the eyes look unnaturally flat. Perhaps that is not the answer either.

All you need to do after that is to use a mask to mask our the area that you don't want to "screen". Easy ;)