Got Your Back . . .

[Craig Brelsford]

Last month, Zhujie Temple, Sichuan, China. Elevation: above 4,000 m. Dramatic location on the eastern Tibetan Plateau. A baby stonechat was waiting for Mummy. Mummy mistakenly landed on baby’s back--that's the action you're seeing here. Mummy righted herself, landed on the branch, and delivered the bug to baby. I captured the entire series; this is the first image. The decision I'm most proud of here is my subject distance. I saw the baby waiting on the branch and could have moved in for a closeup. In that case, however, mother stonechat wouldn't have come, and I wouldn't have been able to capture this interesting behavior. I sensed that an immature stonechat wouldn't be unaccompanied for long, and I saw the possibility of an image capturing behavior. I therefore chose 15 m as the distance that would allow the birds to act naturally while keeping me close enough to get good IQ. In that sense, then, I "created" this photograph. I fault myself for shooting at ISO 1000. After nearly a year with the high-ISO D3S, my old habits, formed on the low-ISO D300, persist. In this image, 1/1600 was fast enough, but the point is that I could have shot at ISO 2000 or higher with little effect on IQ. I have, however, learned from my mistakes; I'm trusting ever more the high-ISO capabilities of my D3S and shooting at ever higher ISOs.

Device: Nikon D3S
Lens: VR 600mm F/4G
Focal Length: 600 mm
Aperture: F/5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/1600
Exposure Mode: Aperture Priority
Exposure Comp.: None
ISO Sensitivity: ISO 1000
Metering Mode: Center-Weight
Subject Distance: 15.0 m
Photoshoppery: The 204 KB limit is squeezing me here. I not only had to reduce image size, but I also had to save at 81 percent quality. My low limit is usually 85 percent. Maybe a re-think of the 204 KB limit is in order. I spot-removed some twigs that were causing interference. The usual sharpening of the birds and noise-reducing of the natural green BG.

[Randy Stout]

Craig:

Interesting description of your creative decision making process, and it was well rewarded.

Unusual scene captured. I suspect the baby was quite surprised. Excellent timing.

Nice background. I agree about the ISO discussion. You could have used a little more DOF here, as mom doesn't look quite as sharp as the chick. Could also be some motion blur on her.

Since all the action is going down, I would crop down somewhat from the top.

Raising a family has sure taken a toll on mom. She looks pretty beat up.

Cheers

Randy

[Ben_Sadd]

Great behaviour in this image. The background is really nice. I agree with Randy about extra dof and cropping from above. Did you consider doing anything with the one bit of green vegetation. For me it sticks out a little bit and is distracting. I wondered if it would be possible to desaturate it so it matches the other, presumably dead, parts.

[Marina Scarr]

Wonderful moment captured here, Craig, and good self critique. It took me a year when I switched to the 1D3 to believe that I could shoot at high ISO's. Even though the mom is a tad soft, this an awesome capture with the environment, the killer BG, the adult and chick, the behavior and the prey all included to tell the story.

[Emily Norman]

This is truly a wonderful capture and I applaud your patience in waiting for the mom to arrive. I agree with the idea about possibly desaturating the more vivid greens to make them match the golds, but that is a very minor detail here. Gorgeous!!

[Arthur Morris]

Photoshoppery: The 204 KB limit is squeezing me here. I not only had to reduce image size, but I also had to save at 81 percent quality. My low limit is usually 85 percent. Maybe a re-think of the 204 KB limit is in order. I spot-removed some twigs that were causing interference. The usual sharpening of the birds and noise-reducing of the natural green BG.

Neat behavior. Looks a bit contrasty and yes, the baby is the sharper of the two.

Your comments on file size baffle me. It is a common lament and I never have a clue as to what folks are doing that causes problems. Here is what I do currently: I start with my master file and crop horizontals 1024 px wide at 96 dpi. (I know that that does not make sense but it works). I sharpen Unsharp Mask with the Amount between 130 and 225 (to taste) and the Radius always at .3. Average Amount would be about 180. Then I Save for Web with the image optimized to <195 kb. If you convert to sRGB you need to make sure that the Embed Color Profile box is checked.

I have been doing it this way (albeit with smaller sized images and smaller KB allowances) for more than ten years and all that I have ever heard is "Your JPEGs look great!" I have never once had image quality problems by having to save at <200kb. Ever. So when I see comments like those above I am always mystified....

[Craig Brelsford]

Your comments on file size baffle me. . . .

I work pretty much as you do, Artie, except I create images at 300 dpi, not 96. But you're right; maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Craig Brelsford]

. . . I would crop down somewhat from the top.

Gracias, Randy. Here's the situation: IQ begins to fall if I crop the image any tighter. I therefore had a choice: Leave more room at the top, or leave it at the bottom. Farther below is more of that unattractive dead foliage. Above was that sweet green BG. I chose to show more of the clean green. Do you see my dilemma? Is there some other way of solving the problem? Again, the bottom line was that in my opinion I simply couldn't make the image any littler.

[Arthur Morris]

Craig, Which images do you create at 300 dpi?

[Craig Brelsford]

Craig, Which images do you create at 300 dpi?

Artie, in Photoshop Camera Raw 6.4.1, there's a line at the bottom. Click on it for Workflow Options. In Workflow Options, I set the resolution to 300 pixels per inch. I use that setting again and again.

[Arthur Morris]

Craig, You did not answer my question. Do you use 300 dpi for your master files or for the JPEGs that you post here?

[Craig Brelsford]

Craig, You did not answer my question. Do you use 300 dpi for your master files or for the JPEGs that you post here?

I'm not sure. I take the raw image from the camera and open it in Camera Raw. After I'm finished processing it in Camera Raw, I open it in Photoshop. I then rename the newly opened file, save it in Photoshop format, process it, and save once again. I then go to Save for Web & Devices in PS and save it a final time as a JPEG. I make no changes to the 300 pixels per inch setting from Camera Raw. I hope that answers your question; in any case, I'm trying to get a grasp on what pixels per inch means and why pixels per inch matters.

[Arthur Morris]

Well, I am not too good at understanding that stuff either. The word on the street is "72 dpi for the web." I used to post 800 px wide < 80kbs and they look great too. You need to get a handle on what you are doing if you are having IQ problems..... I do not use LR so I have no clue what is going on there.

[Craig Brelsford]

Well, I am not too good at understanding that stuff either. The word on the street is "72 dpi for the web." I used to post 800 px wide < 80kbs and they look great too. You need to get a handle on what you are doing if you are having IQ problems..... I do not use LR so I have no clue what is going on there.

'Ppreciate your taking the time, Artie. I just performed an experiment. I took a raw (.nef) file, opened it in Camera Raw, set the resolution to 300 pixels per inch, saved it in Camera Raw and allowed it to open in Photoshop, changed file size to 1024 by 681 pixels, opened Save for Web & Devices, and chose 100 percent as my quality. I saved it as a JPEG. File size: 459 KB. I then performed the selfsame actions again on the selfsame raw file, only this time in Camera Raw I changed the resolution to 72 pixels per inch. File size: again, 459 KB. In both instances, to ensure that the resolution was as I'd set it in Camera Raw, I clicked on File Info (under File) in PS and found the tab File Data. There, the Resolution X and Resolution Y both read 300 on the first go, and 72 on the second go.

Changing the resolution from 300 pixels per inch to 72 had no effect on the size of the final JPEG file. Any insights you can offer there?

Finally, what does "LR" stand for?

[Arthur Morris]

LR is Lightroom. Other than that you have lost me

[Arthur Morris]

Craig et al, There is some relevant info in the comments here.