Results 1 to 50 of 50

Thread: American Avocet dorsal view

  1. #1
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default American Avocet dorsal view

    Here is a top view of the Avocet, I usually trash the pics if the bird is flying away but I like this one because there is enough eye contact for me and the top plumage detail is very clear. This shot was made during Avocet mating period.



    5DMKII + 500 f/4 IS, f/5.6 1/3200sec ISO 400 sw DPP

    Hope you like it
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-18-2010 at 04:00 AM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  2. #2
    Dave Barnes
    Guest

    Default

    I like the detail and colours captured. This pose does show the feather colours and patterns very well.
    I like the comp.
    Let see what the HAP say.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Barnes View Post
    I like the detail and colours captured. This pose does show the feather colours and patterns very well.
    I like the comp.
    Let see what the HAP say.
    What is HAP?
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  4. #4
    Dave Barnes
    Guest

    Default

    Head angle police.
    Arthur is the chief inspector.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Barnes View Post
    Head angle police.
    Arthur is the chief inspector.
    Oh :D I hope I don't get a ticket then!
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  6. #6
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,065
    Threads
    1,300
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    lovely image like the whites

  7. #7
    Axel Hildebrandt
    Guest

    Default

    I like the light, sharpness and pose. Ideally, the head were parallel to the sensor. The whites on the back are partially overexposed, it shouldn't be a problem to tone them down.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axel Hildebrandt View Post
    I like the light, sharpness and pose. Ideally, the head were parallel to the sensor. The whites on the back are partially overexposed, it shouldn't be a problem to tone them down.
    Thanks Axel, if the head was parallel you wouldn't see the top view unless it is full bank position. Whites are bright but they are not overexposed, here is the 100% crop from RAW with RGB histogram, barely 230 on 8bit scale.

    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-18-2010 at 05:18 AM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  9. #9
    Axel Hildebrandt
    Guest

    Default

    It might be due to jpg conversion that some of the whites are clipped.

  10. #10
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    849
    Threads
    171
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    lovely image, I actually like the HA, and think it's a different view vs, the traditional, and quite pleasing!
    Don

  11. #11
    Lifetime Member Stu Bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Centurion, South Africa
    Posts
    21,360
    Threads
    1,435
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Arash, firstly, excellent IQ, and the angle certainly does show off the dorsal view nicely. In this case, I agree, the HA works fine, and just love the sharp detail. Well captured.

  12. #12
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, United States
    Posts
    3,522
    Threads
    475
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    You made the right decision to keep it. I wish I have that in my file :)

  13. #13
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    470
    Threads
    17
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Perfection! I see the what Axel was saying about the blacks, but it's great to see the detail in those darks, and overall there's a soft light quality to the shot. The head angle is no problem here because the main subject and focus is that dorsal view and all the detail. The eye only is a supporting player to that I feel so head angle a bit off does not ruin the shot at all. What really rocks on this shot is that horizontal tonal transition in the BG that ties the bird into the frame giving it a pleasing stability. This makes All the difference as opposed to a pure rather blank monotone bg say and the bird looks frozen in time and space. You might try a smidgen of contrast increase in the bg to make the transition a little more evident(try and see), but as is is fine too. Your avocets rock Arash--definitely some of, or maybe the best, out there. It's nice to see someone who finds something locally and works it to perfection!

    Paul
    Last edited by paul leverington; 05-18-2010 at 07:05 AM.

  14. #14
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Waukee, Iowa
    Posts
    433
    Threads
    155
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    What a gorgeous shot! I love the bird's colors against the soft blue background, the sharpness, and the detail, from the upswept bill to the trailing feet! The head angle doesn't bother me at all in this case. One of the best avocet images I've seen.

  15. #15
    Ricardo Rodriguez
    Guest

    Default

    Hi Arash, your image is lovely, just like all the ones you post. It is clear, even to a beginner like me, that the whites are perfectly in check; no need for me to see the empirical evidence in the histogram.

    BTW, I've learned a lot from studying your images. Thanks for sharing them.
    Best regards,

    Ricardo

  16. #16
    Ofer Levy
    Guest

    Default

    Fantastic shot!!! Head turn is great - who says the bird always has to look at you?! Exposure is spot on as well as sharpness and detail - awesome work my friend!
    Last edited by Ofer Levy; 05-18-2010 at 07:30 AM.

  17. #17
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    23,119
    Threads
    1,523
    Thank You Posts
    Blog Entries
    55

    Default

    Arash, Another beautiful image. Great suggestions above. The details and pose are fantastic.

  18. #18
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    1,376
    Threads
    213
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I echo Paul's assessment.

    For web presentation I don't split hairs over noise, whites or blacks unless it is evident that something was critically off at time time of capture.

    There is no right, wrong or ideal view regarding HA and point of reference. It is what works for a given image. This one is lovely with the soft light showcasing the birds plumage.

  19. #19
    BPN Viewer Bruce Enns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castlegar, British Columbia
    Posts
    531
    Threads
    92
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    A stunner in my opinion Arash! Excellent sharpness and details throughout...I love the dorsal view, head angle works fine for me because of eye contact. The comp works fine...for my personal taste, I would also try this with the bird a bit further to the right in the frame.

    Cheers!
    Bruce

  20. #20
    BPN Member Morkel Erasmus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    14,858
    Threads
    1,235
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    awesome detail, pose and colour here Arash - I don't mind the HA in this one, I find it a very pleasing image.
    Morkel Erasmus

    WEBSITE


  21. #21
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks a lot guys for the nice comments,

    Axel I checked the JPEG too, it's fine, might be a monitor issue.




    Thanks everybody for comments and suggestions :)
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  22. #22
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas.
    Posts
    6,260
    Threads
    426
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Arash, beautiful shot. Loved the details. high IQ as usual. just the right DOF. I agree with Bruce on placement-of-subject. A tad extra negative space there IMO. But having said that, the body and legs line intersecting the corner is a plus. So just a small crop perhaps from that side?

  23. #23
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eagle River Valley, Alaska
    Posts
    1,371
    Threads
    64
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Just outstanding in detail, quality of light, and I love the dorsal posture. HA just fine here for me. I also agree with Paul on the lovely tonal transition in the BG. Excellent work.

  24. #24
    Axel Hildebrandt
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Thanks a lot guys for the nice comments,

    Axel I checked the JPEG too, it's fine, might be a monitor issue.




    Thanks everybody for comments and suggestions :)
    Well, but this is not the picture you originally posted. ;)

  25. #25
    Fabs Forns
    Guest

    Default

    Very nice dorsal view, with enough head turn to make it nice.

  26. #26
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Axel,
    I originally linked to the file on my smug galley, then I uploaded the same file directly to my server to see if there was any compression, I saw no difference.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-18-2010 at 01:09 PM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  27. #27
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,911
    Threads
    459
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Great wing spread. Brilliant image and excellent details.

  28. #28
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Amherst, Ohio
    Posts
    161
    Threads
    14
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Stunning light, detail, HA, and pose of this species Arash. It must have been a thrill to nail such a nice image.

    Great job!!

  29. #29
    Co-Founder James Shadle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Valrico, Fl
    Posts
    5,108
    Threads
    1,419
    Thank You Posts
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Arash,
    Regardless of whether or not you saw a difference, is the image in this post, the same image with the exact post processing as the image you originally posted?
    Thanks James

  30. #30
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Shadle View Post
    Arash,
    Regardless of whether or not you saw a difference, is the image in this post, the same image with the exact post processing as the image you originally posted?
    Thanks James
    James,

    I originally uploaded the file to my smug and then linked directly, the files that I upload to my smug gallery are 1920 pixel HD resolution so when I embed a 1024 pixel version, they are resized by smug, I thought this might cause compression so I went back to Photoshop and saved a 1024 pixel JPEG directly and uploaded. The crop slightly changed between the two but I did not change anything else.

    Now that I look carefully there is a slight compression in the version that is auto-resized by smug (halo around the right wing) and the colors are also not exactly the same, anyways, I already showed what the whites look like in RAW. Next time I will upload directly to avoid this issue.

    Thanks

    here is the smug version




    BTW, I am happy with the DR of the files I can get with the 5D, from pitch black to full whites as shown in the RAW, any shortcoming is due to JPEG or monitor calibration issues.

    Thanks everybody for nice comments again :)

    Thanks Axel for taking the time to critique.
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-18-2010 at 03:57 PM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  31. #31
    Axel Hildebrandt
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks for posting the original. Makes it easier for people who see it later to know what the discussion is about. Anyway, it's a great capture and I would love to get a chance to photograph this species sometime.

  32. #32
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axel Hildebrandt View Post
    Thanks for posting the original. Makes it easier for people who see it later to know what the discussion is about. Anyway, it's a great capture and I would love to get a chance to photograph this species sometime.
    Thanks Axel, Since I don't use the attach feature I always update the original, I will repost a 2nd file in future for side by side comparison. If the new server allows please increase the maximum file size to 300KB, this way there is no need to host elsewhere :)

    Thanks again
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-18-2010 at 04:12 PM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  33. #33
    Co-Founder James Shadle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Valrico, Fl
    Posts
    5,108
    Threads
    1,419
    Thank You Posts
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Thanks for the clarification.
    James

  34. #34
    Robert O'Toole
    Guest

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Quote Originally Posted by Axel Hildebrandt View Post
    I like the light, sharpness and pose. Ideally, the head were parallel to the sensor. The whites on the back are partially overexposed, it shouldn't be a problem to tone them down.
    Very good Arash, this view looks super! For a full frame camera and only 5.6 DOF looks perfect, almost like F8 or smaller.

    I agree with Axel on the whites, they are overexposed no doubt about it, open in PS, hit F8, I for eyedropped, press 5x5 avg, and hover I see 240s. I am not perfect and have posted images with whites that everyone things are too hot so I am only mentioning this for benefit of BPNers dont take it personally.

    Here is the image after less that 5 min in PS with whites brought down to the 230s. It may look a little too dark and flat now, but it looks good to illustrate the effect. I covered this exact tutorial in my current Photoshop CD.

    I placed a before example on the left to make it easier to compare.

    Robert

  35. #35
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert O'Toole View Post
    Very good Arash, this view looks super! For a full frame camera and only 5.6 DOF looks perfect, almost like F8 or smaller.

    I agree with Axel on the whites, they are overexposed no doubt about it, open in PS, hit F8, I for eyedropped, press 5x5 avg, and hover I see 240s. I am not perfect and have posted images with whites that everyone things are too hot so I am only mentioning this for benefit of BPNers dont take it personally.

    Here is the image after less that 5 min in PS with whites brought down to the 230s. It may look a little too dark and flat now, but it looks good to illustrate the effect. I covered this exact tutorial in my current Photoshop CD.

    I placed a before example on the left to make it easier to compare.

    Robert

    Thanks Robert,
    This is about 30% of the FF image so the bird was far enough to be covered in f/5.6 dof.

    Regarding overexposure I have to disagree, not that I am trying to defend my photo, I obviously post post here to learn and improve and certainly appreciate all comments and critique, but looking at the RAW histogram I see no evidence of over exposure.
    Also the white area of feathers that you pulled down has no texture even in the RAW, I can see texture in those areas in your repost. Did you clone texture from other areas?



    Best,
    Arash
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-19-2010 at 03:28 PM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  36. #36
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas.
    Posts
    6,260
    Threads
    426
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Arash, I think there is some texture there in the RAW also. To check that, I usually bend my laptop screen back( office laptop. it ain't something to be proud of :-). On doing so, I see some texture there. In DPP, if you move cursor over that area, you should see the RGB values changing in the lower left corner.

    I am also interested in knowing how Robert brought that out. very cool.

    Thx everyone for chiming in. This has been a very educational thread for me.

  37. #37
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande View Post
    Arash, I think there is some texture there in the RAW also. To check that, I usually bend my laptop screen back( office laptop. it ain't something to be proud of :-). On doing so, I see some texture there. In DPP, if you move cursor over that area, you should see the RGB values changing in the lower left corner.

    I am also interested in knowing how Robert brought that out. very cool.

    Thx everyone for chiming in. This has been a very educational thread for me.

    There might be an epsilon of extra texture in RAW when I pull down by 2EV! but I am not sure how the texture below was created starting with the compressed JPEG:confused:



    Thanks everybody for discussion
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-19-2010 at 05:48 PM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  38. #38
    Robert O'Toole
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Thanks Robert,
    This is about 30% of the FF image so the bird was far enough to be covered in f/5.6 dof.
    Ah okay that makes sense. DOF looks great.

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Regarding overexposure I have to disagree, not that I am trying to defend my photo, I obviously post post here to learn and improve and certainly appreciate all comments and critique, but looking at the RAW histogram I see no evidence of over exposure.
    I agree if you use the screen capture image in your reply the highlights are in the 230s. If you measure your image as posted the highlights measure in the 240s. Dont use the Histogram, use a more precise method, press I for eyedropper, press 5x5 avg sample size and hover over the whites. Try it out, the area is in the 240s.

    To see a more accurate histogram press C for the crop tool and crop only the highlight areas. Now you can see the histogram extend all the way to the right edge. BTW the right edge is 255 so numbers in the 240s will not hit and go up the right edge.

    Its not a big deal the image looks great anyway but I do think it would look better with slightly toned down highlights.

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Also the white area of feathers that you pulled down has no texture even in the RAW, I can see texture in those areas in your repost. Did you clone texture from other areas?
    No cloning, just a technique from my CD using a basic multiply blend mode technique.

    Its not the perfect solution as I mentioned in my post, I just wanted to give you an idea of what highlight areas in the 230s look like and the information about the highlights as presented in the thread was not correct.

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________
    The highlights in your original image post has some areas with no detail and measure in the 240s in PS. This is overexposed technically, no way around that. Your reply screen capture highlights are not overexposed and only measure in the 230s so my comments don't apply to that image.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________


    Robert

  39. #39
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    124
    Threads
    50
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Rules be damned - I love this image. Sometimes I think we tend to over-analzye things.

  40. #40
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks Robert,

    I think the small difference between RAW and JPEG is just compression, this image has high dynamic range with wide tonal range in both blacks and whites which is a nightmare for compression. Since the texture does not exist in RAW in this case, I am inclined to keep it as is because it looks closer to the real world Avocet that I observed in the field and I also intend to send this series to a regional contest, the judges are well familiar with this specie and this level of alteration is not allowed.

    Thank you again for taking the time to repost, great discussion.


    Best

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert O'Toole View Post
    Ah okay that makes sense. DOF looks great.



    I agree if you use the screen capture image in your reply the highlights are in the 230s. If you measure your image as posted the highlights measure in the 240s. Dont use the Histogram, use a more precise method, press I for eyedropper, press 5x5 avg sample size and hover over the whites. Try it out, the area is in the 240s.

    To see a more accurate histogram press C for the crop tool and crop only the highlight areas. Now you can see the histogram extend all the way to the right edge. BTW the right edge is 255 so numbers in the 240s will not hit and go up the right edge.

    Its not a big deal the image looks great anyway but I do think it would look better with slightly toned down highlights.



    No cloning, just a technique from my CD using a basic multiply blend mode technique.

    Its not the perfect solution as I mentioned in my post, I just wanted to give you an idea of what highlight areas in the 230s look like and the information about the highlights as presented in the thread was not correct.

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________
    The highlights in your original image post has some areas with no detail and measure in the 240s in PS. This is overexposed technically, no way around that. Your reply screen capture highlights are not overexposed and only measure in the 230s so my comments don't apply to that image.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________


    Robert
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  41. #41
    Robert O'Toole
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Thanks Robert,

    I think the small difference between RAW and JPEG is just compression, this image has high dynamic range with wide tonal range in both blacks and whites which is a nightmare for compression. Since the texture does not exist in RAW in this case, I am inclined to keep it as is because it looks closer to the real world Avocet that I observed in the field and I also intend to send this series to a regional contest, the judges are well familiar with this specie and this level of alteration is not allowed.

    I think we have a major misunderstanding here. The only reason I added to the thread is that I did not think some of the facts were correct. I was and still am just trying to make things more clear for everyone on BPN. No tricks here, just trying to help you and everyone else to understand what overexposed highlights are and how to measure them.

    You say that you can not enter your image with toned down highlights? Print or save the screen capture image in your reply and you will be fine. The highlights there are only in the 230s and are not so bright. The only problem is with your original Jpeg that Axel correctly noticed was overexposed.

    To say this my "level of alteration" is not allowed implies I am somehow "cheating" with my work on your image that I re-posted. That's is not accurate and not fair to me, I was only trying to help. For the record as I said I didn't clone anything as I said.

    If what you are saying is correct, where did the data in my re-post come from? The fact is that it is from your JPEG, from the exact same pixels as a matter of fact. Your -2 EV example does not show more detail because I think you are just changing white tones to gray and making the image darker. Detail and tonality are 2 different things.

    Hope this helps.

    No need to be so defensive about your original image, I like it a lot, overexposed highlights and all.

    Robert

  42. #42
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Robert,
    I never said you were cheating, thanks for your help, I appreciate it. I just mentioned that the texture that has appeared in your repost does not exist in my RAW and I think it is clear that it doesn't. FYI image sensor is linear, the tone curve that is applied is to RAW is not, it is linear in the midtones but flattens out at highlights where pixels are close to saturation. When you apply negative EC you shift these pixels to the steeper part of the curve enhancing the tonality and any subtle tonal detail that is there will show up. It is a very well known fact that you recover highlight details when you pull down the RAW, if it is just making the image darker why would anyone use it at all? When I asked what you had done, so I could follow it step by step to see if I can get the texture or not, you referred me to your CD.

    Any ways, I think there are things we disagree let's leave it here. If you think the image is overexposed I apologize that I could not do better than this. Let's leave it to the judges to decide, it will get disqualified if they think it is overexposed in the first round :D




    Thanks for your comments, again I appriciate all feedback.


    Arash
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert O'Toole View Post
    I think we have a major misunderstanding here. The only reason I added to the thread is that I did not think some of the facts were correct. I was and still am just trying to make things more clear for everyone on BPN. No tricks here, just trying to help you and everyone else to understand what overexposed highlights are and how to measure them.

    You say that you can not enter your image with toned down highlights? Print or save the screen capture image in your reply and you will be fine. The highlights there are only in the 230s and are not so bright. The only problem is with your original Jpeg that Axel correctly noticed was overexposed.

    To say this my "level of alteration" is not allowed implies I am somehow "cheating" with my work on your image that I re-posted. That's is not accurate and not fair to me, I was only trying to help. For the record as I said I didn't clone anything as I said.

    If what you are saying is correct, where did the data in my re-post come from? The fact is that it is from your JPEG, from the exact same pixels as a matter of fact. Your -2 EV example does not show more detail because I think you are just changing white tones to gray and making the image darker. Detail and tonality are 2 different things.

    Hope this helps.

    No need to be so defensive about your original image, I like it a lot, overexposed highlights and all.

    Robert
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-20-2010 at 02:10 AM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  43. #43
    Robert O'Toole
    Guest

    Default

    Hi Arash,

    Okay lets agree to disagree:D

    For all the BPNers lets clarify a couple of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Robert,
    .....I just mentioned that the texture that has appeared in your repost does not exist in my RAW and I think it is clear that it doesn't.
    Its clear your "RAW" is darker, my repost of your jpeg has more detail and is darker. Where is the mystery?

    Can you tell everyone where you think my data came from, after all they are your pixels and only yours and I did not move a single one? (Okay I admit this one is just for me)

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    FYI ....When you apply negative EC .....
    Are you referring to PS ACR Exposure control?

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    It is a very well known fact that you recover highlight details when you pull down the RAW, if it is just making the image darker why would anyone use it at all?
    Sorry I was referring to your -2 EV image, it looks darker not more detailed. I am not sure what control you used.

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    When I asked what you had done, so I could follow it step by step to see if I can get the texture or not, you referred me to your CD.
    I mentioned the general technique, it is just a layer copy blend mode changed to Multiply. I used a layer mask to limit the effect to the highlight area. It is simple but it can help recover a lot more detail than the Recovery slider can in many cases.

    Posting my entire tutorial would not be possible here.

    Here are the simple basic steps without any masking for fine tuning as in the tutorial:

    1. Open.
    2. Ctrl+J for a copy.
    3. Change the Blending mode to Multiply.
    4. Press and hold Alt and press the add Layer Mask button at the bottom of the Layers window.
    5. Press B.
    6. Use a small soft white brush and paint only in the areas you want more detail.
    7. finally press Ctrl+J again to copy that layer for even more detail.

    Try it. Its crude but its simple and it works. Its that simple.

    No cloning or magic or cheating involved :D


    Robert

  44. #44
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    As my final post I multiplied two layers as suggested above, I did not mask and brush so that they affect the entire area instead of just the brush spots, I still do not see the texture in the white area that came with the repost, maybe just my eyes... I can be a bit more creative and use a small size brush to paint little spots and make it look like texture but IMO it does not add much to this image.




    OK, I am done straining my eyes, pixel peeping and hair splitting at 200%, need to go back to work :)


    Thank you all for commenting and critique, please take the time to look and comment on the rest of these series.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-20-2010 at 05:48 AM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  45. #45
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Did you clone texture from other areas?
    Hi Arash,

    #1: I am betting that Robert did no cloning to get the detail in the whites....

    #2: I see from your histogram that you are using DPP. IMHO ACR is far superior to DPP for lots of reasons and especially when it comes to recovering whites....
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  46. #46
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Hi Arash,

    #1: I am betting that Robert did no cloning to get the detail in the whites....

    #2: I see from your histogram that you are using DPP. IMHO ACR is far superior to DPP for lots of reasons and especially when it comes to recovering whites....
    Thanks Artie,

    ACR vs DPP aside, do you think the image in pane #1 (same as pane # 21) is overexposed ?
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-20-2010 at 06:23 AM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  47. #47
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Thanks Artie, ACR vs DPP aside, do you think the image in pane #1 is overexposed?
    To avoid the question, with my calibration strip adjusted perfectly there is no detail in the rump in the image in Pane #1. (JPEGs will often show hot pixels when the optimized tiffs do not.)
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  48. #48
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    To avoid the question, with my calibration strip adjusted perfectly there is no detail in the rump in the image in Pane #1. (JPEGs will often show hot pixels when the optimized tiffs do not.)
    You are absolutely right and that's what I am saying too, neither the RAW nor the JPEG have any meaningful texture in the rump and therefore I don't think texture should be forcefully created in those areas. Pane #8 shows the 14Bit RAW with histogram with highest value of 230 on a 8Bit scale, so it is not overexposed either. The plumage of adult Avocet is just a smooth white surface in that area, like the belly of a gull will not show texture at 40 yard distance with overhead light

    However I am being told that my photo is overexposed because there is no texture despite the healthy histogram and that I should create texture in those areas!

    Here is another view of the Avocet, this is in soft afternoon light if there were imminent texture in that area it would be visible here too

    http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=64076


    Thanks for your input
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 05-20-2010 at 06:39 AM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  49. #49
    Robert O'Toole
    Guest

    Default

    The image in my first reply disappeared

    Hi Arash,



    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    You are absolutely right and that's what I am saying too, neither the RAW nor the JPEG have any meaningful texture in the rump and therefore I don't think texture should be forcefully created in those areas.

    Properly process
    Pane #8 shows the 14Bit RAW with histogram with highest value of 230 on a 8Bit scale, so it is not overexposed either. The plumage of adult Avocet is just a smooth white surface in that area, like the belly of a gull will not show texture at 40 yard distance with overhead light
    However I am being told that my photo is overexposed because there is no texture despite the healthy histogram and that I should create texture in those areas!
    Arash,

    As my final post I just wanted everyone reading this thread to know that the images you show in post #1 and the image in post #8 are different for whatever reason.

    The image in your post #1 has highlights in the 244+ range as measure in PS. The image in your post #8 measures in the 230s with a high of 237 with PS. These are just plain simple facts and not really subjective opinion or personal preference.

    As I mentioned in previous posts, I have posted images with small white areas overexposed also, so its not really a big deal anyway.

    Thanks for taking time to discuss the issues.

    Robert

  50. #50
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    ...and therefore I don't think texture should be forcefully created in those areas. The plumage of adult Avocet is just a smooth white surface in that area, like the belly of a gull will not show texture at 40 yard distance with overhead light.
    #1: I do not understand what you mean by "forcefully." And whatever you do mean, Robert did not do anything forcefully....

    #2: White feathers in any light are still feathers. And all feathers have texture.

    #3: I think that you might be taking this personally and viewing it as some sort of war to be won or lost.... That is something that I used to do quite a bit. :)
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics