Can this image be saved?

[Hal Everett]

This image had one of the most compelling subjects of my life, but was the MOST frustrating to shoot. It was taken on an overcast day, with some wind at a distance of 480 feet over a gorge just below a misty waterfall. In the 8 days since the shot was taken, conditions have worsened and the chicks have grown. Taken with 7D, 800mm +1.4, 1/400, f8, ISO 640, EC +1/3. Getting closer, higher, or lower is NOT an option. In the early AM, the sun is more at your back, but the mist is much worse, actually fog. It was processed in DPP and CS4. It is heavily cropped.

I would love a print of this subject. All suggestions appreciated.

Hal

[Kerry Perkins]

Hal, when you say the image is heavily cropped, how many pixels did you end up with? Bear in mind that a high-quality print will require at least 240dpi, and 300 would be even better. For an 8x10 this means a minimum of 1920x2400 pixels which means you need 4.6 megapixels minimum.

The area of interest (the birds) is over-exposed and most of the details in the chicks are lost. You didn't mention the metering mode, but if it was evaluative you would have wanted to go more like -2/3 or -1 EC to protect the whites. Any time there is peak white against darker average values in an image you need to back off of the exposure and not add more. It's always difficult with direct sun, but you must protect the whites and deal with the blacks, not the opposite. I assume that you are shooting RAW, but DPP doesn't have much in the way of saving over-exposed whites. You get a bit of help in LR with the "recovery" slider but it can only do so much.

I'm afraid I haven't helped much, but there isn't a lot you can do with this situation. Maybe others will have better ideas... For future shots like this you might consider bracketing some exposures.

[Desmond Chan]

If by "safed" you mean changing it into a clean background, clean foreground, the birds are in an empty space all by themselves with good bokeh, etc., etc., probably quite difficult, I think. And I assume if that was what you wanted, then you wouldn't have been there to photo that family to begin with. So, I played around a bit of your shot and came up with the attached. Essentially, I cropped a bit and darkened the surrounding in order to try to get the focus of the viewers more on the falcon family. IQ is not there but I suppose you have a better file to work with. Just an idea for your consideration.

To deal with the highlights that look blown, I take it to ACR (or Lightroom) and adjust the "Recovery" and "Exposure" to see if things can improve. If still blown, then you can try adjust adjusting the "output" levels in Levels to tune down the white. This does not recover any details though.

[Mark Young]

G'day Hal, it's definetly worth putting some time for this. Irregardless of the IQ, it's a great shot. How ofter are Peregrines seen at the nest feeding their young?

I've done a repost. I've cropped it slightly differently to remove the darker rock, and I've tried to center the birds.
I've lighten the shadows (25%), darken the hightlights (45%) and slightly increased the midtone contrast (10%). And in cuves I've decreased the Midtone Brightness. Then ran a few passes of USM at 70,0.2,0.
Hope this helps a little.

[Tom Graham]

Depends how fussy you are going to be about print quality.
Is the image quality as you/we see it here acceptable to you?
If so-
Just from the image file you have here you could get "nice" say 5x7 inch. (you want bigger, right)
Your original has 4 times the pixels - then 8x10 or 8x12 inch.
Obviously, more pixels, bigger jpg file - bigger print.
One trick is to make a larger file (jpg) for print by using Photoshop to make a larger image, jpg size, it will sample and smooth out the "growth". And then you "sharpen to taste". You really simply have to try printing it to know.

Easiest way to know - you have a Costco near by? They do nice color work fast and cheap, 8x10 for like $1 and a 12x18 for $3. Try them, if it looks promising, work and get your color dialed in to their printer, the prints are excellent. And long life, they don't fade like typical inkjet prints.
Tom

[arash_hazeghi]

If you email me the RAW file I might be able to help you.

[Lance Peters]

Genuine fractals can also up rez a image with little loss of quality - of course if the quality is not there to start with - nothing you can do.
I think its worth saving - how much time and effort you put into that is up to you. For this type of shot - IMHO there are always going to be some compromises - if there wasn't everyone would have stunning images of this scenario.
Reposts are a improvement :)

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Hal You bet and I think you did very well with the tech settings !!!

Cropping wise I would like just a little of the back side and some from the top !

PS wise I wold zero in on the eye and try getting some detail so its clearly visible. I think you have to quality to make a great print... seeing the original would help. To enlarge do try Genuine Fractals, last Feb I spend a week Co-Leading a workshop with Tim Gray and picked his brain big time !! He did recommend Fractals for the results.

If you go real big the main problem is sharpening, images need to look over sharpened if they are going to print properly. I don't do enough to be able to gauge the amount so rely on PhotoKit Sharpener, best available !!!

Big Congrats and your work paid dividends !!!

[Dave Mills]

Hi Hal, Most has been said above. You have seen a number of reposts and now can probably make the judgement if it can be saved. Yes, there are technical issues but the image tells a wonderful story which is not often observed in the way you have.

[Hal Everett]

Thank you all for your suggestions. I will try them all. The TIFF image of this shot is 2002x1547 pixels. There is plenty of room to crop in any direction in the original image.

Hal