Gentoo & Chicks Feeding

[Jay Gould]

Hi, this is a follow-up to the Gentoo & Chicks post. Now you know why they were both fixated on their parent's beak. The parents take turns feeding themselves at sea on krill and then return to the nest and regurgitate their food into their chicks beaks.

I realize that as it became darker I should have increased the ISO to 800 so that I could have stopped down further.

Camera: 7D
Capture date/time: 16 Jan 10; 6:39PM
Light condition: overcast
Lens: 300 f/2.8
Focal length: 420mm
Distance: 18 m
Extender: 1.4
Tube: none
Flash/Comp: no;
ISO: 400
Exp Prog: Tv
Speed: 1/100 sec
Aperture: f/5.6
Exp Comp: +2/3
Metering: Partial
WB: Auto
AF Drive: AI Servo
Tripod: yes + Sidekick
Filter: None
Crop: Minimal
Processed in LR 3 (beta) and then CS4 - plus Topaz Suite and Pixel Genius Sharpening.
All C&Cs gratefully appreciated!

[John Chardine]

Hi Jay- I envy you seeing the chicks! I only ever get to see eggs. Can't complain though!

I like the layout here and you have caught the action nicely. The focus point seems to be on the tail of the bird rather than the heads. On my monitor the image looks over-contrasty and there are some square anomalies over the image, almost like very low jpeg quality.

[Jay Gould]

Hi Jay- I envy you seeing the chicks! I only ever get to see eggs. Can't complain though!

I like the layout here and you have caught the action nicely. The focus point seems to be on the tail of the bird rather than the heads. On my monitor the image looks over-contrasty and there are some square anomalies over the image, almost like very low jpeg quality.

John, low jpeg is an understatement!!

When I complete an image prior to sizing for posting or printing I save the Master file. Next, I make a Layer - Duplicate - Flatten layers copy of the Master for sizing to BPN requirements.

I then do a Ctrl-Alt-I twice: 1) resize to to the longest side (either 1024 or 800) and the other size is automatically set, change to bicubic sharper and save; 2) uncheck resample image and change resolution to 72 and then recheck and save.

Next I run Pixel Genius Output Sharpener and if there is a halo I reduce the opacity of the sharpening; when completed I flatten the image.

I now change from 16 bit to 8 bit, and I convert to sRGB.

Finally, I save as a jpeg and the box indicates the size depending upon the quality chosen.

For the very first time with this image, 0 quality resulted in an image larger than 200kb!

In order to reduce the size further, in the jpeg options menu I had choose progressive 5 scans just to get under 200kb. Normally, I use the Baseline ("standard").

In order to provide this information I did a sizing at the same time I was writing this. I have just posted the image of a feeding Humpy. When the jpeg option box opened, because it remembers the last setting, the progressive was checked, the quality was 0, and the size was 102kb. I rechecked the Baseline box, increased the quality to 5, and the size was 182.9.

Frankly, I do not understand why this image and the other Gentoo image are the first two images that required a quality less than 5!

Any ideas; I too agree that the quality sucks. I posted to share the behaviour in spite of the quality.

[Thanaboon Jearkjirm]

Love the interaction between the two, just wish for a better eye contact which I don't know if it possible or not for these type of shot.

When you save image to post here, did you choose the "save for web" option? Usually i don't have to go below 70 or so on quality slide to get the file size under 200k.

[Jay Gould]

Love the interaction between the two, just wish for a better eye contact which I don't know if it possible or not for these type of shot.

When you save image to post here, did you choose the "save for web" option? Usually i don't have to go below 70 or so on quality slide to get the file size under 200k.

Thanks Thanaboon, are you saving in LR or are you manually sizing in PS? I am manually resizing; I am not using the automated "save for web" option.

[Thanaboon Jearkjirm]

I use PS, I do all the usual PP then resize my image resolution to 1024 or 800 pixels, then sharpen again, then use the "save for web" option for resizing my file size within 200k.

Basically I follow this, http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php?t=839

[John Chardine]

I agree, Save for Web and Devices is a much simpler option and will cover the 16-8 bit conversion, conversion to sRGB, flattening, and will accurately fix the file size to fit the BPN guidelines of 200K max.

The concept of high and low frequency images is important here. High-frequency images are those with lots of detail and small-scale changes in tonality, whereas low-frequency images have gradual changes and are smoother. Noise adds to the frequency. The same level of JPEG compression will produce a much bigger file from a high-frequency vs. low-frequency image. In Save for Web and Devices in Ps, in a reasonably detailed bird image with a fairly plain BG at 1024 x 800, I rarely have to use a jpeg quality setting less that 80 out of 100 to get the file size under 200k. I do find in landscape images with lots of detail everywhere that I sometimes have to go below 80.

As an example Jay, here's a 1024 x 759 image with lots of detail in the subject but with a nice smooth BG and was saved at jpeg quality 87 in Save for Web and Devices and weighed in at 196k.

[Jay Gould]

John, this was done with the Save As option in PS. I had to go to quality 35 to be under 200K.

Perhaps it is the bkrnd that caused this to be 195.5 at quality 35.

PS: Like you profile; where do you make the image?

[John Chardine]

That one was made at Cuverville Island Jay. Yes, I think your high-frequency rock BG is partially causing you issue. Perhaps if you selectively sharpened just the subject, or even blurred the rock a bit, you would be able to obtain a better jpeg compression.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Jay,

Greetings. Nice moment... The second image (Save As in PS) is much better IMO than the first. Overall, I think a large part of the IQ problem is oversharpening of the bg ... you write:

Processed in LR 3 (beta) and then CS4 - plus Topaz Suite and Pixel Genius Sharpening.

Autofocus seems to have locked on the bg, any detailing in Topaz or sharpening in general will increase the contrasty appearance of the bg. From a quick edit of the jpeg, selective blurring of the bg will give the appearance of the head being in focus (and the chick in motion blur) also add some 3d depth. You might give a try at pp without any detailing/sharpening/added contrast, and some selective gaussian blur on the bg for grins.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Alfred Forns]

Like the second save also !!! Best to post !!

Jay would love to see you taking advantage of the good ISO from your camera, Would not hesitate to go to 1600 or more if needed !!! ... noise you can deal with !!!

[Gus Cobos]

I like the second one too Jay,
love the captured moment...:):cool: