California Quail (male)

[Mark Schmitt]

This is an older image. I am posting it because it never was a RAW image ( before I became enlightened and began shooting exclusively RAW) and I did a considerable amount of PP to resurect it. When I consider the amounts of artifacts this could have in the process of PP I think it is a testamonial to the wonder of Adobe Photoshop.

Self critique: the BG is a strong point of the image but it blends in too much with the rocks. ( quick mask used to isolate rocks and then curves were used to increase contrast to settle rocks in foreground more); detail in face could be better but as this is a JPG and already processed, any more sharpening and it will dissolve into pixels; some will suggest with cloning out the rock in left corner but I insist it stays; might want to crop in a little from right. Shutter was slow and camera was handheld, but camera shake seems to be minimal. ( 1/80 sec).

EXIF
Camera: Canon 20D
Lense: Canon EF 100-400 + 1.4 T/C (effective focal length 560mm)
Mode: Apeture priority
ISO: 200
White bal: custom 5800 K (wanted a warmer tone)
Exposure: 1/80 @ f 13; exp comp -.33; fill flash -.66 comp on gun: Better Beamer extender

Feel free;)

[Tony Whitehead]

Good self crit, Mark. Agree BG is good and a small crop from right would be good. The rock on the left doesn't add anything to the image IMO and I would happily lose it. A small head turn to the camera would improve the pose. Technically, I would have favoured a slightly wider aperture to gain some shutter speed.

[Dominic Cantin]

Good self critic Mark and Tony have good suggestion too ! The bird is very photogenic ! I'd like to see it one day !

Dom :)

[Juan Aragonés]

As always, excelent self critics, Mark. I see your point about the rock in the left because it helps to balance composition but it would be better if the rock were not croped. The BG is nice in my opinion and I agree that there is much blending with the rocks. By the way, pretty decent sharpness considering the shuter speed/focal lenght :-)

[Joe Senzatimore]

Nice save and you hit all the points yourself. IMO the rock on the left needs to go.

[Arthur Morris]

Ineteresting discussion as well as a good self critique (note the proper spelling ) I am confused by one thing Mark. You say that this is a JPEG but that you adjusted the White Balance; it is my understanding that that cannot be done...

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I like the perch, BG and eye contact. Another vote for removing the rock on the left and it has a slight yellow cast on my monitor.

[Mark Schmitt]

Thanks everyone for comments. Appreciated. ;-)

[Mark Schmitt]

Ineteresting discussion as well as a good self critique (note the proper spelling ) I am confused by one thing Mark. You say that this is a JPEG but that you adjusted the White Balance; it is my understanding that that cannot be done...

Thanks for the comments. Always welcome. What I meant in the EXIF, is that I set the white balance in camera before taking the JPEG image. I know, and you are correct, white bal. can't be adjusted in PP for JPEG.

Thanks again. Mark.

[Mark Schmitt]

Good self crit, Mark. Agree BG is good and a small crop from right would be good. The rock on the left doesn't add anything to the image IMO and I would happily lose it. A small head turn to the camera would improve the pose. Technically, I would have favoured a slightly wider aperture to gain some shutter speed.

Thanks, Tony.
The a wider aperture, as you noticed, would have been better, especialy as the distance to the bird would not have benefited from f 13 in the least. Besides, as this is a JPEG, f 13 would produce more lense diffraction and not improve resolution, in all probability would degrade it. It is the reason I did not try to sharpen the image any more than it is.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for the White Balance explanation Mark.