Passerini's Tanager

[Doug Brown]

These are visually striking Tanagers from Costa Rica. It's a real challenge to balance the exposure between the velvet blacks of the body and the brilliant reds of the rump. Good post-processing is key, because I'm not sure it can be pulled off in camera. This male struck a really cool pose for me.



Canon 1D Mark IV, 500mm + 1.4x, f/7.1, 1/800, ISO 640, manual exposure, fill flash, tripod

[Ofer Levy]

Good eye contact and sharp. Black looks blocked with very little detail to me.

[Doug Brown]

Black looks blocked with very little detail to me.

Just out of curiosity, how much ambient light do you have in the room where you're viewing the image Ofer?

[Ofer Levy]

Not much. I use a calibrated Apple Cinema Display.
Edit: Opened the image in PS and I can see the details are there but it doesn't show as presented.

[Dan Brown]

Nice stretch pose, Doug! The perch has an nice shape and from my laptop the blacks look black but with detail. This is a very black bird, so black should be black, not dark gray IMO. I do wish for a little more interest in the BG, maybe more dark greens as a hint of the CR habitat (picky)

[Bill Dix]

Interesting pose. The blacks do indeed look velvety. I'm seeing detail in some places but not throughout, in my darkened room; but as Dan points out, this IS a black bird.

[Doug Brown]

I do wish for a little more interest in the BG, maybe more dark greens as a hint of the CR habitat (picky)

Hey Dan. We missed you this year! The BG in this frame is entirely natural; it's a distant hillside with yellowish brown vegetation. This is the dry season in Costa Rica (even though it still rains plenty). But I do agree that a more lush BG would have been nicer.

[Kiran Poonacha]

Striking indeed.. great expo and loved that forest feel here.. loved it Doug Bhai..

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Doug, I do see black details on my calibrated monitor upon closer inspection...I know you like your blacks deep....single-digits, teens? Terrific pose and HA...which is not always easy with poses. Red adds nicely and goes well with the BG...loved the BG a lot.

[Peter Farrell]

Great pose and perch, I like the velvet look to the blacks, the contrast of the red and the steel look of the beak. Nice BG color but agree it looks a little flat.
Peter

[Arthur Morris]

Love the image but the blacks look very dark in spots. Folks need to remember that JPEGs are more contrasty than TIFFs....

I turned off the one lamp in my new office and saw a bit more detail....

[Jim Fenton]

Cool bird, cool pose, cool perch but I agree....even with all the lights off in my room, the blacks are buried and the red looks a bit over done?

Also...could the eye be lightened a tad?

[James Fuller]

So when editing, should ambient light be kept to a minimum?

I can't seen any detail on the breast but I'm sitting under several flood lights.

As for the image, I think the crook in the perch compliments the birds pose very well.

[arash_hazeghi]

awesome pose and BG, the blacks look blocked on my screen too.

[arash_hazeghi]

PS here is what looks good on my screen (PC, calibrated) Mac screens are brighter so a nodge down if you have a mac.

[Doug Brown]

Thanks for the repost Arash. You've definitely brought out more detail. The only problem is that it no longer looks the way it looks in person. I opted for darker blacks that more closely resemble the real bird; the cost was blacks that look blocked on some peoples' monitors. As Artie pointed out, the JPEG conversion process hurts detail in the blacks. I'm definitely enjoying this discussion!

[Ofer Levy]

I can see plenty detail in the repost! I guess we see the same image very differently on different monitors.

[Doug Brown]

I can see plenty detail in the repost! I guess we see the same image very differently on different monitors.

I agree with you Ofer. What interests me about this discussion is how to balance extracting maximum detail vs. preserving a realistic version of the bird. I could have done the same thing in post, but I drew a line in the sand so-to-speak when it came to pulling out detail in the blacks. I felt like the more detail I pulled out, the less the bird looked like a Passerini's Tanager. So I tried to strike a happy medium.

[Don Lacy]

Hi Dan, On my freshly calibrated 27" LED iMac the image as posted is showing clipping of the shadows in both the blue and green channels with only the red channel showing detail in the shadows. I do see detail in some areas of the bird but other areas look blocked up and when I checked the values in PS I am getting readings of 0 for both or one of the channels. While this might be an accurate representation of the subject are eyes expect to see some detail in the shadows and when it is lacking the image does not seem right to me.

[Dan Brown]

I agree with you Ofer. What interests me about this discussion is how to balance extracting maximum detail vs. preserving a realistic version of the bird. I could have done the same thing in post, but I drew a line in the sand so-to-speak when it came to pulling out detail in the blacks. I felt like the more detail I pulled out, the less the bird looked like a Passerini's Tanager. So I tried to strike a happy medium.

I agree that your original post is faithful to the realistic black that one sees in this species Doug! Good work knowing your subject!

[Arthur Morris]

Great point by Don about the clipping in the Blue and Green channels but disagree on the part of our (sic) eyes expecting to see details in the darkest areas...

Arash's repost does show lots more detail at the cost of losing Doug's interpretation of the image and, in addition, the introduction of noise in the blacks.

For me something about half way between the two might work.

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Doug. Interesting discussion for sure here. I agree with Dan about the background but of course you and I knew that and had discussed it as an aspect of the placement of those feeders. It was an interesting alternative to the other feeders we were working.

I think your original post is actually quite faithful to what the male Passerini's look like. In fact, I'm viewing one out my home office window right now in nice morning light, and your OP is a good representation of what I'm seeing.

Definitely a tough bird to photograph. I have one picture that I like of this species, which was captured in soft but bright morning semi-side light a couple of years ago. That light seemed to have brought out some really nice feather detail in the blacks. I may post a JPEG version of the original RAW capture later today to see what people come up with in terms of optimizing it.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Doug Brown]

Alright folks. Here is an attempt at bringing out a bit more detail in the blacks while still preserving the overall look of the bird. Thumbs up or thumbs down?

[Doug Brown]

And here's an A-B comparison. The new version is on the left.

[Arthur Morris]

Way better and still nice and BLACK!

[Mike Tracy]

The first thing I noticed yesterday but kept my comments to myself was the bird looked too cut and pasted. Regardless of color, images whether they are painted or photographed need to have subtle variations in tonality to create the illusion of depth while working within the confines of two dimensions. Since the original post lacked subtle or even distinct shadows and highlights I believe the mind perceives the blacks as lacking detail. Not sure if I expressed this correctly or even if anyone will agree.

[arash_hazeghi]

What interests me about this discussion is how to balance extracting maximum detail vs. preserving a realistic version of the bird.

Good points, I think it is purely subjective as you were the only one at the scene, so you should go for what looks best to you. From a purely technical point it is best to adjust the black level to use the full DR of the image. Also for photos like this that have subtle tones in blacks (or highlights), average LCD screens will struggle to show the full tonality so it will look slightly different on different screens. For my personal taste your repost is still just a little bit dark.

Very nice work!

[Doug Brown]

The first thing I noticed yesterday but kept my comments to myself was the bird looked too cut and pasted. Regardless of color, images whether they are painted or photographed need to have subtle variations in tonality to create the illusion of depth while working within the confines of two dimensions. Since the original post lacked subtle or even distinct shadows and highlights I believe the mind perceives the blacks as lacking detail. Not sure if I expressed this correctly or even if anyone will agree.

Good point Mike! What do you think of my repost?

[Dan Brown]

Also for photos like this that have subtle tones in blacks (or highlights), average LCD screens will struggle to show the full tonality

Another point to think about here is the human eye's ability to view the original post with the huge difference in brightness between the black bird and the much brighter BG. I find it hard to look at the bird and see detail (that seems to be there) because of this extreme contrast. So, in my repost of Doug's OP, I selected the bird, created a layer via this copy, then reduced the brightness of the underlying BG copy. At least to my eye, the black details in the bird are easier to see. Of course, the bird really looks like a cutout and I wouldn't suggest that Doug mess his OP or reP's up doing this but it does illustrate the point that the human eye (mine at least!) struggles to look at a dark object in a bright hole!!

As I have stated above, I like Doug's rendition of this species and the BG is flat but fine IMO. Your last repost looks great Doug IMO

[Don Lacy]

What i find interesting is if this was a white bird and their were clipped channels we wouldn't even be having this discussion
as all agrees that a white bird is exposed wrong if it is bright white without detail in the feathers. I think you could you could open up even more as the repost still has clipped channels.

[Doug Brown]

I think you could you could open up even more as the repost still has clipped channels.

I know I can open up more Don. But opening transforms the bird into something that it doesn't look like to my eye. I don't see any clipped channels in the repost BTW.

[Doug Brown]

Thank you all for the excellent feedback and for participating in this most interesting discussion!

[James Salywoda]

Your B comparison looks great Doug

[Don Lacy]

I know I can open up more Don. But opening transforms the bird into something that it doesn't look like to my eye. I don't see any clipped channels in the repost BTW.

Dan could be my monitor while good it still does not cover all of the RGB color space.