Of course these guys are not native to Colorado, so this must be an escapee that has shown up in a park. Beautiful to see, just the same.
D3s
300/2.8 with 1.7x TC
1/1000
f/7.1
ISO 220
Sharpened
Mandarin Drake
Of course these guys are not native to Colorado, so this must be an escapee that has shown up in a park. Beautiful to see, just the same.
D3s
300/2.8 with 1.7x TC
1/1000
f/7.1
ISO 220
Sharpened
Fantastic image Tom. Great comp, details and exposure. Excellent job.
Hi Tom, Beautiful bird love the water and colors I think it could use a bit more sharpening especially around the eye and I would clone out the specular highlights on the bill.
Don Lacy
You don't take a photograph, you make it - Ansel Adams
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs - Ansel Adams
http://www.witnessnature.net/
https://500px.com/lacy
Excellent capture Tom, lots to like here! Love the low angle, color rendition, and reflection. Whites are a bit hot, especially around the eye and the vertical white stripes. Don't know what software you use, but this would be an easy fix in most programs. Always a treat to find these colorful characters. Well done!
"It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera... they are made with the eye, heart, and head." - Henri Cartier Bresson
Please visit me on the web at http://kerryperkinsphotography.com
Kerry,Originally Posted by Kerry Perkins
I am on calibrated apple cinema and I am not seeing hot whites. Here is my RGB values from eye drop tools.
Just to share some info I learned in the past and from others, there is a lot of variation from screen to screen based on setting and pixels size. IMO what we see is our version of image based on our monitor. Read this thread if you want to see more about this topic. Just sharing this link with a good intent.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ion?highlight=
Thank you Sid, Kerry and Don for the comments and suggestions. SId, thank you for the link on screen/monitor variations.
Hi Sid, I am not disagreeing with your analysis and I always welcome constructive discussion.
I am quite familiar with monitors and calibration, as I have spent over 20 years setting up displays for the film and broadcast industries. I would not make the mistake of using a monitor output to determine the contents of a digital file, unless that monitor was a waveform analyzer. For the purposes of our discussion, the monitor has nothing to do with the input values. I could turn the monitor off and it wouldn't change the data in the file, which is what you are showing with the eyedropper tool in PS as well as the tool I discuss in the next paragraph.
Mac computers come with a hand little utility called DigitalColor Meter. It displays the values of the input to the monitor for any pixel that you put your cursor on. What I love about this is that I can evaluate the image as it is displayed on the web without using PS. Unfortunately, the screen capture doesn't show where my cursor was, but you can see in the detail window of the meter that it was just to the left of the eye. As you can see in this image, there are indeed some very hot pixels in there and please note that I did not say "blown whites". I said "a bit hot", and I am sticking with that thought.In Scott Kelby's excellent book on PS CS4, he shows how to set the highlight and shadow preferences for the curves tool. He sets the white clip point to 245 and the black point to 7. Since I started limiting my peak whites to 245, I have noticed more details in those areas. Maybe I'm nuts, but that's what I see. There may be detail there, but it is extremely hard to discern so why put those values in my image?
I would suggest that everyone check out this thread about the subject here - http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hread.php/8197 . Take note of the example shown in panes #15 and #17.
To clarify, I am not asserting that my opinions are facts, just saying that images look nicer to me when the whites are no hotter than 245 or so. If you go check out Artie's galleries on his web site, you won't find any values even that high on the white plumage of a bird. In the background, like snow or a white sky, maybe. But not on the bird. Don't take my word for it, go look around and see what you find.
"It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera... they are made with the eye, heart, and head." - Henri Cartier Bresson
Please visit me on the web at http://kerryperkinsphotography.com
I don't think the whites are blown, but they are saturated.
245 white point is a rule of thumb for print, and not a bad one to apply for screen as whites tend to "bleach".
For those of you using Firefox on a PC....there is an add-on called ColorZilla that does the same thing that Kerry is talking about.
http://www.colorzilla.com/firefox/
Bill
Overall, a great image. I'd love to see one of these.
I love the reflection.
My biggest critique is the DOF seems a bit short. The tail and the far wing are OOF.
I have no idea where you focused but I'm guessing not on the eye, and if you had the reflection would probably be more OOF. I'm guessing the reflection is probably around 10" closer to you than the bird. (if you did focus on the eye then it is either motion blur (doubtful at 1/1000) or your lens is front focusing some)
With the D3s I think you could have gone to F11 and increased the ISO without issue.
I also think getting the whole bird in sharp focus and letting the reflection fall off a little more would be preferable with the given settings.
Thanks for the explanation Kerry. Looks like you know much more than I know about highlights and white values. Thanks for the links.Hi Sid, I am not disagreeing with your analysis and I always welcome constructive discussion.
I am quite familiar with monitors and calibration, as I have spent over 20 years setting up displays for the film and broadcast industries. I would not make the mistake of using a monitor output to determine the contents of a digital file, unless that monitor was a waveform analyzer. For the purposes of our discussion, the monitor has nothing to do with the input values. I could turn the monitor off and it wouldn't change the data in the file, which is what you are showing with the eyedropper tool in PS as well as the tool I discuss in the next paragraph.
Mac computers come with a hand little utility called DigitalColor Meter. It displays the values of the input to the monitor for any pixel that you put your cursor on. What I love about this is that I can evaluate the image as it is displayed on the web without using PS. Unfortunately, the screen capture doesn't show where my cursor was, but you can see in the detail window of the meter that it was just to the left of the eye. As you can see in this image, there are indeed some very hot pixels in there and please note that I did not say "blown whites". I said "a bit hot", and I am sticking with that thought.
I would suggest that everyone check out this thread about the subject here - http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hread.php/8197 . Take note of the example shown in panes #15 and #17.
To clarify, I am not asserting that my opinions are facts, just saying that images look nicer to me when the whites are no hotter than 245 or so. If you go check out Artie's galleries on his web site, you won't find any values even that high on the white plumage of a bird. In the background, like snow or a white sky, maybe. But not on the bird. Don't take my word for it, go look around and see what you find.
Sid, not at all - I've just suffered so many blown-out whites of my own that I went looking for the reasons and solutions.
Tom, Sid makes very good points about monitors - didn't mean to hijack your thread. It is important to have a calibrated monitor as well as controlling the dynamic range in the capture.
BTW, I love the little red fox in your avatar.
"It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera... they are made with the eye, heart, and head." - Henri Cartier Bresson
Please visit me on the web at http://kerryperkinsphotography.com
Thank you all for the discussion. I always struggle with losing detail in whites, so this was no hijack at all, I need to learn.
Steven, I see your point about the DOF. I have attached a screen shot with the focus point shown at the base of the beak. I try to focus on the eye but with him moving, I missed.
Hi Tom , The focus point is close enough to the eye that is not really the issue you need more DOF from a smaller aperture to get the tail sharp. I ran a round of sharpening and work on the whites in this repost.
Don Lacy
You don't take a photograph, you make it - Ansel Adams
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs - Ansel Adams
http://www.witnessnature.net/
https://500px.com/lacy
Don, your repost looks better, thank you for your time and efforts.
Not always possible to place sensor on eye with moving subjects. Make sure you have enough DOF to cover the whole subject. It should take care of it.
Good suggestions everyone. I may try again this weekend if the bird is still around. If so, I will increase the DOF, and check the histogram and try to gain a better overall exposure. I was trying to expose to the right, but when I got home and downloaded it, I did have to adjust the exposure some to the right, so I was off in the camera. I will keep learning. Thanks again to all who have commented and reposted.
If the focus point is actually as reported, then I think the lens is probably front focusing.
There should be (generally) 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind. You were well inside hyper-focal distance for the shot so DOF will be narrow, but should have the "typical" balance.
Instead it looks to be about 3/4 in front 1/4 behind....
Steven, you may be right. I have never calibrated the lens. I may have to get the Lens Align II and get to work and this is a good reminder to check it out.
I have a 1D mkIV Canon and the focus point will noy always show where you are actually focused. It can depend on how you have some of the custom functions set in regards to tracking sensitivity.
Bill
