Keep or Delete?

[Arthur Morris]

Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens with the 1..4X II TC and the EOS-1D Mark IV. ISO 800. Evaluative metering +1/3 stop: 1/160 sec. at f/11. On a Hooptie Deux trip with James Shadle this past Sunday.

Simple question: keep or delete? And why?

(Note: I had originally noted +1 1/3 stops as the exposure compensation. Thanks to Arash for pointing out my brain typo.)

[Dan Brown]

I would delete because of all the stuff on the water's surface.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Looks like what a RAW file should out of the camera...therefore keep. It is perfectly exposed for the right (this will look awesome once the exposure slider is pulled to the left!!), has great comp potential and options, and whatever stuff is in the water is easily patched out.

[Arthur Morris]

Ah, a difference of opinion right off the bat.

[Richard Stern]

Hi,

The original Raw file might well be a keeper as suggested by Daniel, but to me the image as posted here looks washed-out, dull, and it looks like it was taken through a window, with horizontal linear reflections across the 2 birds. The oof bird detracts even more, and perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if the birds were at least symmetrical. I don't mind the stuff on the water, apart from the white lump that appears attached to the R. hand bird's wingtip. So as you may gather, my vote would be to delete.

I'm keen to learn, though, from others' comments.

Richard

[Jim Neely]

By reducing the exposure 2 stops in ACR and a little PS work this can be salvaged. Cropping the sharp one on the right works pretty well.

jn

[Don Lacy]

After adjusting in the exposure in ACR I would evaluate the image, I have a feeling the light was nice enough to warrant fixing the other issues.

[Ilija Dukovski]

The contrast, stuff on water etc. is something that can be worked on,
but the composition has a lots of tension and that's why I would keep it.
If the two birds were oriented in the same direction, it would be a good
image. This way, with the birds facing each other, it is something else,
I'm just waiting for them to get at each other's throat.
It is unusual, but it works for me.

[Floris van Breugel]

I like the juxtaposition of the in focus and OOF birds facing one another. A few adjustments, as noted, are in order, but hard drives are cheap.. so keep it ;)

[David Thomasson]

I would toss it, mainly because the bird on the left is neither here nor there: Not close enough to be interesting nor
far enough away to be interesting as a shadowy, blurred background figure. If the birds had been positioned more
like this, it might have been a keeper:

[Stu Bowie]

I would keep it, but I would create a vertical with only the bird on the right. Water easily cleaned up.

[arash_hazeghi]

Artie, I sure like the pose but the problem is detail is washed out, if detail is recoverable in RAW keep if not trash. If this was the FF the angle of light and reflection on water doesn't suggest you needed +1 1/3EV then why :confused:

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, I sure like the pose but the problem is detail is washed out, if detail is recoverable in RAW keep if not trash. If this was the FF the angle of light and reflection on water doesn't suggest you needed +1 1/3EV then why :confused:

Just because details may look "washed out" when looking at either the LCD or the JPEG that represents the RAW file (as we are doing here) it does not mean that the details are not there (as long as you are not using film :)).

What is the FF??? (Full frame?)

You are correct about the +1 1/3 EV; that was a brain typo. Sorry about that. The correct compensation was +1/3 stop which does make sense with the MIV (considering the rather dark green reflections). I have fixed the error in Pane 1 to avoid confusing additional folks :)

[arash_hazeghi]

Just because details may look "washed out" when looking at either the LCD or the JPEG that represents the RAW file (as we are doing here) it does not mean that the details are not there (as long as you are not using film :)).

What is the FF??? (Full frame?)

You are correct about the +1 1/3 EV; that was a brain typo. Sorry about that. The correct compensation was +1/3 stop which does make sense with the MIV (considering the rather dark green reflections). I have fixed the error in Pane 1 to avoid confusing additional folks :)

yup FF= full frame

I thought the RAW was toast too since you said + 1 1/3.

Would like to see how it looks like after recovery and all the tricks because I think the pose and comp are nice. The stuff on the water doesn't bother me.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Arash. I will post my answer tonight. If "Delete" was correct, then there will be no image with the answer...

[Marina Scarr]

This image is going to turn out to be quite stunning after PP and a little clean up. The light is gorgeous and the juxtaposition of the pair, as well as the perfect HA of both, is going to make it special.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Artie, my vote is keep it and crop vertical. There is enough room for virtual feet...and enough in front of that bird to crop that way. And you will be able to adjust the exposure in a snap I think. The plumage on that bird is waaaaay too good to trash.

[Markus Jais]

I would keep it. First, I don't mind the 2nd bird. I think it is a good balance for the larger heron.
The 2nd bird could also be removed (see the stuff on the APTATS cds)
I think with a good RAW file, this could easily be saved. Also, the stuff one the water can be cleaned up if necessary (also it will require some work).

Just my humble opinion.

Markus

[Roman Kurywczak]

I do believe the detail is there.....so only keep if it's a FF vert of the bird on right! ...if position was where David had 2nd bird....then I'd consider keeping FF......but only consider and crop it to have the one ......you know my love of the crop tool!

[Stephen Stephen]

Artie I think that you've got enough detail in the foreground bird. But I'm not really sure if I like the second OOF bird in the same frame as originally posted. I'd defintely want to celan up a few of the spots particualry the large once behind the bird on the right. A touch more head turn on that bird would have been nice too.

A portrait crop would work for me too.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks all for your comments. I created the image in this pane from the image in Pane 1 with simple Levels, Curves, and Selective Color adjustments and then spent some time cleaning up the water--it was a mess. Marina most hit my nail on the head. I did want to move a bit more to my left to put more space between the two birds but there was a spoonbill offstage right so that was not possible.

I am happy with the image in this box. And I do appreciate that everyone stopped by to play and offering their opinions. The main point of this post was to make sure that folks understand that when the image on the back of the camera looks washed out with no flashing highlights that they have a perfect exposure. :)

[Roger Clark]

Artie,
Here is what I would do (for a different perspective). If I only took the one frame, I would either not keep it, or file it for the future and probably never process it or show it. But what I would have done in the field is as follows:

After the frame above, I would quickly more to the second bird and focus on it and get an image of it in focus, then move to between the two birds and take a third image, then combine the 3 for overall higher depth-of-field. This would keep the background out of focus better than simply stopping down would. Then I would take additional frames to get the reflections in front of the birds in focus, combining all the images for an environmental portrait of very high resolution and great depth of field.

While the one bird in focus is nice, and might be ok if you have the resolution for a close up portrait crop, I think the image would be more interesting if both birds were in focus, and/or the reflections were in the picture too.

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

Good plan Roger in an ideal world but these were live birds not statues :)

[allanrube]

Artie,
Can you post an image of the histogram straight out of the camera?

[Michael Wolf]

So if a RAW file looks like a wash out & nothing like the beautiful saved image above, do you think it could still be entered into a contest where they require the original RAW ?
Would this amount of work be too much since the image is so drasticly different from the original?

Just wondering out loud. Excellent lesson. Thanks.

[John Chardine]

My take on your question Michael is that there is no image in the RAW file to begin with. You are just seeing a representation of it on the LCD screen. Essentially everything is up for grabs in the RAW development process- this includes white balance and exposure etc etc. The analogy in the time of film is that the "RAW" image was the negative, which was just that, a negative of the positive you would submit in a competition, and how different they were. Consider the "ugly" colour negative with its red and orange tones, compared to the beautiful colour positive it would produce in the printing process.

I would answer your question yes, this image could still be entered in a competition.

BTW Artie, there's a tremendously valuable lesson in this thread. Thanks.

[Arthur Morris]

So if a RAW file looks like a wash out & nothing like the beautiful saved image above, do you think it could still be entered into a contest where they require the original RAW ? Would this amount of work be too much since the image is so drasticly different from the original? Just wondering out loud. Excellent lesson. Thanks.

John is right on. All of the contests allow you to adjust color and contrast and that is all that was done here. What you see is an accurate representation of what I saw in the viewfinder. :)

[Daniel Cadieux]

As I expose to the right regularly, I recognized right off the bat the "look" of what you first posted. There was no way in heck that this was a "finished product", especially form such an experienced photographer, so I knew it was "keeper" 100%:). Thanks for posting this exercise Artie.

[Arthur Morris]

Well said Dan. That's the message: if your images look great on the back of your camera or when you first open them they are too dark and will produce inferior image files. :)

[John Chardine]

I would only modify this slightly to say this depends a lot on the dynamic range of the image. In great light like this one the range is relatively small and I bet the histogram is way to the right. However, in contrasty situations where you have a few highlights and lots of dark toned areas, the image will have to look less washed out on the LCD lest the highlights be blown.

[Roger Clark]

Good plan Roger in an ideal world but these were live birds not statues :)

Art,
While true, that does not preclude doing a mosaic. One just needs a little experience trying it. For example, here is a 2-frame mosaic of a male heron giving the female a stick at the Venice rookery (2003). It was a rapidly changing situation and I was already at my base focal length (500 f/4 no TCs). I wanted more than just the birds with their legs cut off, and I felt that if I went to portrait orientation it would be too tight. So I shot the birds first then moved the view down and shot the feet and nest; it took less than a second.
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ons.c-600.html

One more example: a 4-frame mosaic of a mother and baby zebra:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...4-91d-800.html
The mother and baby were constantly moving, the situation was changing too fast for changing lenses, and the lens on my second camera was too wide, so I simply did a mosaic (actually did several). The 4 frames took less than a couple of seconds. One simply needs to plan to get moving elements first and less moving/static elements second.

So in the case of your two birds in this thread, that I why I mentioned the order of the two birds first then the environment between and below the birds. Your birds are static enough for this to work, especially with the fast response time of better cameras. With a little experience, fast mosaics become easy, as do many things. It frees me from needing to change lenses sometimes, and results in a higher megapixel, finer detail image. Many of my landscapes these days are mosaics, but animals too. I use mosaicking to not just extend canvas, but also extend plus limit depth of field.

Roger