Harlequin Duck

**Jon Saperia** · 12-20-2010, 06:14 AM

Attached Images

**Richard Stern** · 12-20-2010, 02:48 PM

Very nice! The Harlequins around here never seem to let you get that close. The whites seem a little bright, but it would be hard to get them any darker without significantly under-exposing the rest. I would also prefer a less tight crop. Good head angle!

Richard

**Rob Miner** · 12-20-2010, 06:41 PM

Hi Jon, The picture in my monitor seems to need Noise removal Softwear, also removal of one of the high lights in the ducks pupil. Head sharpness and position seems ok, body looks like a noise removal was used and soften the sharpening of the birds flanks.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Rob...............

**Sid Garige** · 12-20-2010, 07:49 PM

John,

I guess you photographed this duck in bright light conditions.
1. Blue water seems to be little over powering but I guess it happens with light quality and open blue sky. I would tone down the blues a little bit.
2. I checked values on bright spots on the duck and they are not reading anywhere close to 255 and histogram looks fine too. I see no details in that part. Did you over expose this image and recovered it it raw?
Tricky bird to expose in hard light conditions. Composition is fine and I dont see any issues with sharpness.

**Jon Saperia** · 12-20-2010, 08:02 PM

Thank you everyone for the comments. Yes the light was a bit tough but I took the picture anyway because it was an unusual opportunity for me. If I had used more negative EV, the darks would have been a bit too dark. I did indeed darken some of the whites while processing.

In terms of the bird flanks that seems how they were -- fluffy - not like regular feathers, I did use some noise reduction on the water and I also see that perhaps desaturating the blue would help.

A good lesson - do not fight the light :-) I did not follow it.

**Sid Garige** · 12-20-2010, 08:08 PM

Jon,

Generally it is more easy to recover details in the dark than in white parts. They say shoot for the highlights has little bit of truth in that. In similar situations I would under exposure the subject and bright the details in the dark park during the post processing.

Nice quote - do not fight the light... :)

**Jon Saperia** · 12-20-2010, 08:22 PM

Thanks... Actually the quotation is not mine ... I heard it first from Robert O'Toole in a different context but it applies here. I am still learning when "not" to take a picture. That said, I agree that you want to preserve the details in the highlights...

**John Chardine** · 12-20-2010, 08:36 PM

Interesting discussion. You have a perfect posture and head angle here Jon. The apparent clipped whites- in the face for example- is due to the lack of detail. Although the whites are technically not clipped, they look clipped because the pixels are virtually all the same shade. I would lose the reflection below as it is not strong enough, and add some room at the top.

I really look forward to an opportunity to make an image like this!

**Jon Saperia** · 12-20-2010, 10:33 PM

Attached Images

**Doug Brown** · 12-21-2010, 01:30 AM

Hi Jon. I really like the alert pose and sharpness of this duck. This is a photographic situation where I expose to protect the whites. I would have expected -2/3 or more negative EC. But I'm curious to see what can be done with RAW processing. Check for a PM from me.

**Jon Saperia** · 12-21-2010, 07:02 AM

Thank you Doug, I will send the file. I just looked at some of my other images with -1/3 ev and I did not see any improvement. You are correct, perhaps -2/3 would be better. This is one of the challenges as I think the amount of compensation to use and changing it on time. There were also Purple Sandpiper and Dunlin at the same time and the amount of ec for these was different (also they were in different light). I just have to practice. Stay tuned for the files.

/jon

**denise ippolito** · 12-21-2010, 08:02 AM

Jon, I am shooting Canon and I expect to be at -1/3 depending on the light. From what I understand Nikon needs a lot more underexposure than Canon and you might expect to start at -1. Again depending on the light. :)

**Jon Saperia** · 12-21-2010, 08:29 AM

Hi Denise - thanks. Actually from what I have seen it is the other way around. Usually I am surrounded by Canon shooters and they are often 1/3 or more stops more minus compensation that I am. Of course different bodies are different. I did have some at -1/3 and they were not any better. I really should have stayed at -2/3 or tried -1. I did an experiment in NX2 and added 2 full stops of - and still no detail in the whites.

Obviously I still have to work at it since your great Harlequin shots show it can be done. I hope to get to NJ in January to get some additional chances.

**denise ippolito** · 12-21-2010, 10:00 AM

Jon, I never shot w/ a Nikon but I was going by what Art Morris had said in this thread- Take a look.:)

**Bill Dix** · 12-21-2010, 11:57 AM

Nice shot, with good HA. Repost is an improvement. Good discussion above -- esp. Don't Fight the Light. A lower angle might have been nice, but since these guys like to swim around rocky shores, and if Rockport is anything like Barnegat, I suspect it was tough to get a water-level perspective.

**Jon Saperia** · 12-21-2010, 12:37 PM

I agree with you about the lower angle however you are also correct about access. The only way to see these guys is by climbing down a typical new england rocky shore. I mean boulders 3 - 5 high. As you get closer to the water, or course it gets slippery (I was lying down in a pool of frozen/cold water when I took this). I have learned that at high-tide one can get closer which does not always correspond with the best light of the day for photography.

**Jon Saperia** · 12-21-2010, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by denise ippolito

Jon, I never shot w/ a Nikon but I was going by what Art Morris had said in this thread- Take a look.:)

I think the first trip I was on with Artie was in 2008 at Bosque. We talked about EC and I thought that Canon needed a bit more at that time when dealing with the situation above. Yet in the post you pointed me to, he suggests the opposite. Nikon on the other hand required more positive compensation at the time. I admit I could have misremembered or that things may have changed. One thing is for sure for Nikon shooters (and I bet this does also apply for Canon) - different bodies are different. I am finding I need more compensation (especially of the type we are discussing here) with my D700 body than I did with my D300 - I can not conclusively prove it, but I think different modes impact the amount of EC needed as well. I suspect this is due to the different sensors/metering systems. At the end of the day - we have to do what Artie had said - check the histogram :-) I did, but clearly not often enough. Sometimes the ducks will not wait for me :-)

I really appreciate people trying to help me with this. They guys are hard right.

**Doug Brown** · 12-21-2010, 12:51 PM

Attached Images

**Jon Saperia** · 12-21-2010, 12:58 PM

Thanks for this.. Your post has helped drive home a better of way of my thinking of this "expose for the whites". I had mostly been thinking that I would expose to the right and a few 'blinkies' were OK. I like your suggestion better-- I will try that.
/jon

**Desmond Chan** · 12-22-2010, 02:22 PM

Too bad about the blown hightlights. Agreed with the good comments and suggests above.

**Jon Saperia** · 12-22-2010, 02:58 PM

Thanks everyone. If we look at the posting Artie just made in the newsletter of a Harlequin, it is a beautiful image. Even there though it whites look bright. Perhaps there is something about the texture of the feathers as well?

**Doug Brown** · 12-22-2010, 07:22 PM

Attached Images

**Jon Saperia** · 12-22-2010, 07:30 PM

Thanks very much. Those are the best whites by far on a Harlequin image I have ever seen. Great photo!
/jon

Thread: Harlequin Duck

Thread Tools

Display

Harlequin Duck

Posting Permissions