Lesser Yellowlegs

[Bill Dix]

Here's another view of a Yellowlegs in a grassy pool at Sandy Hook. I did some experimenting on this one, based in part on comments on an earlier image. 1st, I've been experimenting with fill flash settings since I've never used much flash. Also ran a Multiply layer on the BG, and a selective contrast brush on the bird using PhotoTools 2.5, plus some cloning and levels adjustments. C&C appreciated; I'm curious to know if I went too far.

D7000 | 500f4 + 1.4 TC | ISO 640 | 1/2500s @ f/6.3 | +0.3 EV | Speedlight & BB @ -1.7 EV

[Arthur Morris]

A little too far for me. A bit less contrast would improve this. Nicely framed by the veggies.

[Paul Lagasi]

Nice image Bill, nice alert pose...Is this a large crop? I imagine it is because it looks a little soft....not sure what all the level adjustment did, I'd like to see the original to compare. TFS

[Bill Dix]

Nice image Bill, nice alert pose...Is this a large crop? I imagine it is because it looks a little soft....not sure what all the level adjustment did, I'd like to see the original to compare. TFS

Paul, the OP is about 80% of full frame. Here is the original file, straight from RAW without processing other than resizing for web. At least part of the softness may be because I was sitting in the pool shooting through a bunch of vegetation. Also, I didn't mention that I experimented with the clone/luminosity and clone/color tools to take out some of the white building in the right BG.

Artie, I was afraid that I had overdone the contrast while trying to make the bird pop.

[dankearl]

Bill, I also experiment a bit with flash fill, it takes some test shots for me to get the light right and not "flash" looking.
If the flash is too bright, use a smaller aperture.
If I know I will be using flash, I take a few shots and adjust until it looks right, if I have the opportunity.
I also adjust the zoom on the light, I can adjust the zoom from 24-85mm, I have found though, that the aperture
setting makes more of a difference.
It can be nice to use f11 or 16 for bird shots, the only time I can do it is with flash.
You can also use low iso, try using 200 for instance with flash, again, it can be nice
to also use really low iso.

[Bill Dix]

Bill, I also experiment a bit with flash fill, it takes some test shots for me to get the light right and not "flash" looking.
If the flash is too bright, use a smaller aperture.
If I know I will be using flash, I take a few shots and adjust until it looks right, if I have the opportunity.
I also adjust the zoom on the light, I can adjust the zoom from 24-85mm, I have found though, that the aperture
setting makes more of a difference.
It can be nice to use f11 or 16 for bird shots, the only time I can do it is with flash.
You can also use low iso, try using 200 for instance with flash, again, it can be nice
to also use really low iso.

Thanks Dan. I can see I've got more experimenting to do. Actually, on this one, I thought I had the flash settings about right: -1.7EV on the Speedlight, with zoom set at 50mm as recommended for the BB. I didn't want more DOF and thus kept the aperture at 6.3. I probably could have dialed back on the ISO for better IQ. It doesn't look overflashed to me, but I'd be curious what others think -- I think here my problem was a little too much PP, contrast in particular.

[dankearl]

Bill, the thing with flash is, you will not get a lot of DOF, even with small apertures. The flash brings up the FG and the BG sort of disappears .

[Arthur Morris]

Sometimes simple is best.... The three seed heads are killer and obviously the white REFL does not bother me. In marketing Digital Basics I write often, many folks ruin their images in Photoshop (you have done that here with a perfectly fine image) rather than improving them....

Also, your uploaded file was only BOUT 70 kbs. See tomorrow's blog post

[Bill Dix]

Thank you Artie. Much more subtle than my heavy-handed OP. I appreciate your taking the time.

[Cheryl Arena Molennor]

I actually didn't mind your op with a little tweeking though ans scrolling down I saw thw repost and must say it looks super. I'd go with that look. Nice low angle bye the way.

[Paul Lagasi]

Very good advice above Bill, I am also guilty of the same thing, playing in CS5 then realizing the original looks better....nice touch Artie.

[Craig Brelsford]

I too used to get into these Photoshop death spirals, in which the more I worked, the worse the image looked. I'm spiraling less now, but when I do spiral, I've trained myself to press the ejector button and parachute out of the dying aircraft. One thing that the commentators seem to be missing is that you didn't have great material to work with. You got satisfyingly close, but the FG seems to be seeping onto the legs of the bird, the midground is busy, and the BG has that white glare top right. I think your mistake may have been to think that you could Photoshop up two notches, from mediocre to outstanding. I'm finding that Photoshop can take an image up just one level, from say mediocre to good, or from good to outstanding, but not from bad to good or from mediocre to outstanding. In your original post, you cropped the image kind of square so as to disinclude that harsh white glare, but the resulting frame is boxy; your yellowlegs hasn't got enough photo to look into. Also, you may have over-contrasted in response to that haze from the FG that's touching the legs of your bird.

[Bob Pelkey]

Bill, It seemed evident when you posted the full frame shot in #4 that you merely wanted to clarify the crop. In #1, the image appears excessively worked and cropped awkwardly. I devoted about 20 minutes experimenting with what was closer to my vision of the image. What I found lacking in Artie's rendition was a preferred sharpness in the bird as you were attempting. I over did it myself I think, but I definitely want to see the bird be more attention grabbing than the vegetation as appealing as the latter is in the full frame. Process: Copied #4. Used the lasso tool to closely outline the bird from the top of the frame to blur everything else. Strength 8, preserve details 4%, reduce color noise 45%, sharpen details 10%, 3 times. I then attempted to focus the wing of the bird which was of special concern. Used the lasso tool to outline the bird closely. Selected remove lens blur 36%, 2.8 pixels in smart sharpen. Still dissatisfied while leaving the results, I added in unsharp mask, 146%, 5 pixels, threshold 100 levels. I still wasn't greatly pleased with the sharpness of the flank and sharpened edges which I can't undo. By doing that, the head of the bird now appears overly sharpened in my version, but I hope it gives you inspiration to get exactly want you want out of it. Also used the spot healing brush tool to remove highlights in the vegetation and on the bill of the bird. Great flash work.

[Arthur Morris]

Thank you Artie. Much more subtle than my heavy-handed OP. I appreciate your taking the time.

You are most welcome. Study Digital Basics and remember to keep things simple. I have actually gone that direction in recent months by lowering my default settings in ACR for Vibrance and Contrast. The next (free) update of Digital Basics will reflect those changes.

[Bill Dix]

Thanks again, everyone, for the helpful critique. As I said in the OP, I used this image to try some experimenting. I recently switched from Elements to CS5, with the free PhotoTools 2.5 plug-in, and wanted to try some tools that I hadn't used in the past. I picked this image to play with because it had some obvious shortcomings (softness at the bottom from the OOF vegetation; white building in the right BG; clutter of vegetation), but I liked the pose, and the fact that the bird was framed by vegetation (as an alternative to the beautifully clean FG/BG images that adorn this site), and hoped that I could pull the bird out of its surroundings. In other words, make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Craig's perceptive critique nailed it: perhaps photoshoppery can raise an image one notch, but not two. So I did find myself in a death spiral, trying to clone out the white BG, botching the masking and then having to resort to an awkward crop to solve it; and over-contrasting to address the foggy bottom and the cluttered foliage. Reposts by Artie and Bob show that simple is often better. I still like some aspects of Pane 1. With some adjustments (reversals) to contrast, crop and USM, I think it has the potential to be a 'fair' image, but certainly not 'outstanding'. I have perhaps 20 frames of this bird with decent poses and HA, so I'll go back and try to apply the lessons learned here to another of those rather than beating this one to death.

This thread demonstrates to me the value of BPN, and the honest criticism that one can get instead of simple 'Wow, great image' comments one sees elsewhere. Thank you all.

[Bill Dix]

Also, your uploaded file was only BOUT 70 kbs. See tomorrow's blog post

BTW, Artie, the files that I uploaded, both the OP and the resized RAW, were 198 KB JPEGs. I don't know if something happens to them in the upload process, but that's what the files are on my computer. I read your blog post, which is most helpful and a different way of saving than I have been using. The files in this post were done using Save for Web/Optimize to File Size: 200KB, which produced the 198 KB files, at 1024px, 72dpi. I'll give your method a try.

[Arthur Morris]

Not sure why....

[Bill Dix]

I decided to give it one more try. I went back to an earlier version, this one without nearly as much contrast or sharpening, and more room to the right. It still gets rid of the white building BG. I saved it using the method outlined in Artie's blog (cropping the TIFF to 1024 @ 96dpi before saving to web and optimizing at <200 kb). One difference is that I normally do all the sharpening on the JPEG. Also, I notice that when I finally do the Save for Web it converts it to 72 dpi even if I had previously saved it at 96. In my opinion this is better than my OP; but whether it's better than Artie's and Bob's minimalist reposts from the full-frame image is still a question. (PS: curiously, the uploaded image here on BPN looks slightly more contrasty than the JPEG of the same file on my computer as viewed with the Picasa Photo Viewer - go figure).