Breakfast

[Doug Brown]

Here's another Osprey shot from my time in Florida last week. Thanks again to Jim Neiger for an excellent week of photography and some good times!



Canon 1D Mark IV, 300mm + 1.4x, f/4.5, 1/1600, ISO 640, manual exposure, hand held

[Dave Leroy]

An excellent shot. Pose, composition, inclusion of tree and exposure are right on.

If anything, it feels a little bit tight on the wing tips particularly the left hand side.

The lovely light and inclusion of fish really add to a top notch photo.

Dave

[Stu Bowie]

Good eye contact Doug, and I like how the Osprey is framed in the opening of the foliage. I do like the light and warm colours in this too. Thats a fair size catch he's got himself.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Excellent, Doug. Perfect approach shot and the fish adds a ton. Great light. I am also liking the vegetation acting like a frame.

[Melissa Groo]

What a great shot, Doug. That light is magnificent and the eye contact is stunning. I like the comp and framing as presented.

[Grace Scalzo]

Love the concentration on the landing. Looks like he's got his talon in the fish.

[Danny J Brown]

Oh boy, you caught him coming right at you and that fish sure was mangled. Nice one. Thanks.

DB

[Roman Kurywczak]

Love the angle Doug! Sweet light too! I like em' tight......so works for me!

[arash_hazeghi]

Excellent Doug, this one was a good landing

[Aidan Briggs]

Sweet light, incoming pose, and framing! Might just be me, but I could see another round of sharpening on the head.

[Doug Brown]

Might just be me, but I could see another round of sharpening on the head.

I agree that the head didn't take well to downsizing for web; it's pretty small in the frame on a 1024 pixel image so detail is hard to demonstrate. When viewed at 100% the head is sharp. Here's a 100% RAW file crop with default LR sharpening only. That said, I'll have another go at it later.

[Aidan Briggs]

The 100% looks good. I agree it's hard to get detail to show on web-sized images (especially BIF's) when the head is so small in the frame.

[arash_hazeghi]

RAW file looks very nice, one issue that I have noticed is that LR/PS applies too much NR to the RAW files at higher ISOs, even when you set the sliders to off, this softens details... I think this is why the crop doesn't look as sharp as it should be. If you want best quality from a Canon camera, especially at higher ISOs, you have to use DPP, there is really no way around it IMO.

Here is my unprocessed crop of the same bird (I was standing next to Doug on Jim's boat ) we were using identical lenses too! The only difference was that mine is ISO 1600!

[Doug Brown]

Here is my unprocessed crop of the same bird (I was standing next to Doug on Jim's boat ) we were using identical lenses too! The only difference was that mine is ISO 1600!

Thanks Arash. What settings were you using for NR in DPP?

[Dumay de Boulle]

great ctch in great light...That goes for boyh of you...nicly presented image Doug

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks Arash. What settings were you using for NR in DPP?

The usual settings that I showed you last time.

[Dan Brown]

Here's another Osprey shot from my time in Florida last week. Thanks again to Jim Neiger for an excellent week of photography and some good times!



Canon 1D Mark IV, 300mm + 1.4x, f/4.5, 1/1600, ISO 640, manual exposure, hand held

Love this, Doug! Great timing!

[Dan Brown]

RAW file looks very nice, one issue that I have noticed is that LR/PS applies too much NR to the RAW files at higher ISOs, even when you set the sliders to off, this softens details... I think this is why the crop doesn't look as sharp as it should be. If you want best quality from a Canon camera, especially at higher ISOs, you have to use DPP, there is really no way around it IMO.

Here is my unprocessed crop of the same bird (I was standing next to Doug on Jim's boat ) we were using identical lenses too! The only difference was that mine is ISO 1600!

This really demonstrates the advantage of using the highest ISO that you can and then handling the noise in PP! Good decision Arash, IMO!

[Flavio Rose]

The image shown initially is very nice, especially the prey item, but Arash's crop is sharper than Doug's, hmm. I am not sure to what to attribute the difference. DPP? Don't think it is the difference between 1/1600 and the presumably faster SS Arash used since 1/1600 should be plenty fast.

I would point out the telltale yellow in the bird's legs which I imagine is due to sun low in the sky making the legs red and blowing the red channel. I have downloaded the images and so verified that the red channel is blown in the legs. Since this yellow color and blowing are inevitable with low sun, I am not sure it is properly considered a blemish. (I infer that the sun was low in the sky from an assumption that Doug's EXIF gives the correct local time and not the time in Albuquerque, NM...)

[Doug Brown]

The image shown initially is very nice, especially the prey item, but Arash's crop is sharper than Doug's, hmm. I am not sure to what to attribute the difference. DPP? Don't think it is the difference between 1/1600 and the presumably faster SS Arash used since 1/1600 should be plenty fast.

I would point out the telltale yellow in the bird's legs which I imagine is due to sun low in the sky making the legs red and blowing the red channel. I have downloaded the images and so verified that the red channel is blown in the legs. Since this yellow color and blowing are inevitable with low sun, I am not sure it is properly considered a blemish. (I infer that the sun was low in the sky from an assumption that Doug's EXIF gives the correct local time and not the time in Albuquerque, NM...)

There are a number of possible explanations for why Arash's image is sharper. Slightly better focus in this particular frame and more DOF are the most likely reasons. I'm not sure what Arash's settings were, but I suspect he was more stopped down than I was.

I'll have a look at the red channel in the RAW file tomorrow and will let you know whether it's blown or not (I suspect not). I have no idea if the time was correct on my camera body; it was a rental camera and I never set the time (my Mark IV malfunctioned on day one of the trip so I rented another one). The photo was probably taken at approximately 8:30 am; Arash should be able to confirm this.

[arash_hazeghi]

There are a number of possible explanations for why Arash's image is sharper. Slightly better focus in this particular frame and more DOF are the most likely reasons. I'm not sure what Arash's settings were, but I suspect he was more stopped down than I was.

I'll have a look at the red channel in the RAW file tomorrow and will let you know whether it's blown or not (I suspect not). I have no idea if the time was correct on my camera body; it was a rental camera and I never set the time (my Mark IV malfunctioned on day one of the trip so I rented another one). The photo was probably taken at approximately 8:30 am; Arash should be able to confirm this.

Hey Doug
Mine was at f/5 time was 8AM. I think the difference is focus and ACR NR.

[Doug Brown]

I would point out the telltale yellow in the bird's legs which I imagine is due to sun low in the sky making the legs red and blowing the red channel. I have downloaded the images and so verified that the red channel is blown in the legs. Since this yellow color and blowing are inevitable with low sun, I am not sure it is properly considered a blemish. (I infer that the sun was low in the sky from an assumption that Doug's EXIF gives the correct local time and not the time in Albuquerque, NM...)

The red channel is not blown on the RAW file.

[Flavio Rose]

Thanks very much for the extra info, Arash and Doug.

I have had sun-low-in-the-sky images like that, i.e., the raw is not blown but any reasonable white balance and brightness for the final image causes the red channel to be blown in the jpeg. I think I may even have posted on the postprocessing forum asking for advice on what to do with those images. Don't know what to do about them even today. One can either (i) use a very blue white balance, or (ii) use a conventional white balance and darken the image to prevent the red channel blowing in jpeg and then curve the image to get its overall brightness back, or (iii) accept the blown red channel in jpeg. I guess desaturating the whites is also an option. I have resolved in the future to observe more carefully how the eyes perceive the color of white birds at sunrise/sunset.