Detail in Whites
While reading Don's post, Tom suggested that white birds are equal to a piece of white paper, no edges, no details.
I beg to disagree and here's another white bird with plenty of definition in the feathers. You just have to have the right light and expose it correctly.
I do not have the specs at hand right now.
Does this looks like a white paper to anyone? The lack of detail in the further wing comes from lack of DOF.
Hi Fabs - gorgeous whites with LOTS of detail ;)
NO details in your whites = Operator error - IMHO :)
That doesn't look like a white paper to me, Fabs :)Originally Posted by Fabs Forns
If I may, I shot the following "white-on-white" image sometime ago. Hopefully it also does not look like just another piece of white paper :D
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=45145
I (Tom) said a white bird is equal to a piece of white paper? Don't think so.
I said - to see detail you need to see an edge. And that sums it up in 25 words or less.
However to continue my self flogging, an edge requires a difference in luminance. A piece of white paper has no detail because there are no different luminance edges within it. A white bird can appear the same -if- the lighting does not give different luminance to the feather edges.
So, according to Fabs - ergo, all birds are pieces of white paper. Q.E.D.
Tom
Agree with your statement Fabs, I believe you are perfectly correct. There are tons of details here IMHO. I have a question about the swan's crown though. Why is there blurring there? Great shot BTW. :)
i agree, i took a photo of a Swan i posted here myself and i think that you can get alot of detail from whites but you have to get a correct exposure as it is quite unforgiving.
Totally agree with you fabs
Hi Fabs, Perfect exposure and most critical is the lighting which you emphasized. If folks learn anything it's how critical lighting is to render whites with detail.
Very well handled!
Hi Tom I'm sure you are correct in the explanation but It went over my head :)
With whites you can obtain detail as shown and your "good" light has a narrower range than for other birds, also use of flash will render them as the piece of paper Tom points out... fills in all the little shadows which are giving contrast/detail !!
.. btw way what I like the most about that image is the expression, always thought to be the Mona Lisa of birds :)
Agree with everyone, that is a splendid photo of a white bird. (I'm going to save it as a lesson). Wings, body, neck, head, all of it, show wonderful detail. The right light as you say. And what was the light like? By the wing feather shadows, I'd say sunlight coming from above-right, yes? Sunlight? So many do not prefer sunlight for birds!!!
Tom
Beautiful image Fabs....if you come across the specs could you post them for us beginners
Congrats, never seen this image before. You're so right as far as the details.
Very nice, Fabs! :D You should play with Topaz Detail (full-function trial download). It's quite handy for giving a subtle nudge to details like
these. Toggle between this and your posted image and you'll see what I mean:
David, that is very nice, I got to give it a try now that I have an Intel Mac. I couldn't use Topaz on my G5 before.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
I wondered what simple unsharp would do to same so here is before and after with unsharp at 300, 0.7, 0. I sort of like the wing feathers but not so much those on neck. Also note white line at interface between wing and neck. Different than Topaz, guess like most things, a matter of personal preference.
.
.
Tom
USM makes a noticeable difference. Topaz works on a different principle. It first analyzes the image and separates it into
three levels of details (by a fancy process called deconvolution). In the filter dialog, one set of sliders allows you to sharpen each
of those levels independent of the others. This is especially nice with birds, since they often have such fine details in the feathers.
I think in that same thread Tom clarified what he meant by the "white piece of paper". He said, "Fabs, I think we are agreeing. Yes -shadow- is required." And the shadows in Fabs' post and difference in luminance is a perfect example of exactly what he's talking about!
He certainly made an attempt to reconcile on the previous thread, and I'm not sure this thread and people lining up in disagreement of a misrepresented critique item was necessary- especially when the posted image contains exactly what Tom was referring to.
Tom might as well post an image of a severly overexposed white bird- a "white piece of paper" to prove his point, but I think we're all in agreement in the first place.
Colin, we are not disagreeing in a hostile way, and since this is an educational forum, anything that may help educate or clarity misunderstandings is IMO necessary.
I have not tried to put Tom down in any way, neither has he tried unless I missed something?
Fabs, I certainly agree this forum as a good spirit, that's why I was surprised to see this thread. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of yourself and some of the responses. Thanks for clarifying.
Great image great lesson
Ray Rozema
Posting Permissions
