RTH

[arash_hazeghi]

This image was made about a year ago with Doug Brown in half Moon Bay. The hawk landed to hunt as vole but it missed and spent some time on the ground trying to find the prey.



1D4 500mm f/5 1/2500sec ISO 800 (this one was underexposed by one stop but fortunately I was able to recover in post!)

[dankearl]

Stunning Arash, just a beautiful portrait.
It does appear a tad dark, but the color is so rich, it looks very nice as is.
Nice little perch you managed to get him on.

[Alan Murphy]

Lopve the light and setting. Sweet image Arash.

[Don Lacy]

Sweet sweet light makes this one for me Arash, well done on recovery in post.

[adrian dancy]

The lighting is to die for and the pose excellent. The crown of the bird's head and a small part of the back appear to have lost a bit of edge sharpness through processing(?). The image is just a tad flat and needs a bit more contrast to make it 'pop'. All in all a superb capture.

[Gary Esman]

Sweet light and the detail is awesome!

Gary.

[arash_hazeghi]

The lighting is to die for and the pose excellent. The crown of the bird's head and a small part of the back appear to have lost a bit of edge sharpness through processing(?). The image is just a tad flat and needs a bit more contrast to make it 'pop'. All in all a superb capture.

Thanks Adrain for taking the time to mention what you observed,
The BG NR mask had bled into the head and back areas, I fixed it-thanks.

I am not sure about image being flat though, on my screen it looks good and if you look at the histogram it's pretty punchy, so it may be your monitor...more contrast will make it look contrasty and unnatural. I did increase BG brightness a bit :)

Thanks again and thanks everyone for nice comments

[Cheryl Arena Molennor]

Gorgeous light Arash. I see a nice subtle difference in the repost. Wonderful detail and the weeds in front of the bird add to the great setting.

[Roger Clark]

The lighting is to die for and the pose excellent. The crown of the bird's head and a small part of the back appear to have lost a bit of edge sharpness through processing(?). The image is just a tad flat and needs a bit more contrast to make it 'pop'. All in all a superb capture.

Adrian,

The flatness of the image is due to the low phase angle: the angle from between the sun and the camera at the subject. While the light is sweet from the sun being low in the sky, the low phase angle reduces shadows, both on the large scale and on the finest scales. That leads to a reduction in fine texture and form on the body which makes the subject look more 3-dimensional. A higher phase angle would have improved an already fine image, meaning put the sun further to one side if possible (of course with all the other things to watch, like head angle). We had a big thread about this a while back.

Roger

[arash_hazeghi]

Adrian,

The flatness of the image is due to the low phase angle: the angle from between the sun and the camera at the subject. While the light is sweet from the sun being low in the sky, the low phase angle reduces shadows, both on the large scale and on the finest scales. That leads to a reduction in fine texture and form on the body which makes the subject look more 3-dimensional. A higher phase angle would have improved an already fine image, meaning put the sun further to one side if possible (of course with all the other things to watch, like head angle). We had a big thread about this a while back.

Roger

Roger I am not sure if this image is flat at all,and I am not sure about your comments I actually find it quite bizarre, what do you mean by "phase angle"? The light here is not polarized obviously.

I don't find loss of any loss texture in the feathers of the RTH. I have made hundreds of photos of this bird under different conditions and this image actually has great feather detail IMO. The 3D view is achieved by using shallow DOF not by "loss of texture" or light angle

[arash_hazeghi]

Here is a 100% unsharpened crop of the RAW, the texture detail is quite good IMO.

[Roger Clark]

Roger I am not sure if this image is flat at all,and I am not sure about your comments I actually find it quite bizarre, what do you mean by "phase angle"? The light here is not polarized obviously.

I don't find loss of any loss texture in the feathers of the RTH. I have made hundreds of photos of this bird under different conditions and this image actually has great feather detail IMO. The 3D view is achieved by using shallow DOF not by "loss of texture" or light angle

Arash,
Phase angle has nothing to do with polarized light (although particulate surfaces do polarize the light as a function of phase angle, but that is not what I am talking about).

See this BPN thread on the subject:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ht=phase+angle

Low phase angle is when the sun is behind you. An example is the full moon. The full moon shows no shadows, making it difficult to see fine texture, and the moon looks flat. Same with mountains. If the sun is directly behind while viewing a mountain, it look flat. Same with other subjects, down to birds, and insects.

Here is a recent BPN image made at high phase angle where the body of the bird shows wonderful 3-D form due to the shadows:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/90937
The sun is about 30 degrees to the left, so we see nice shadows on the right side of the bird. The phase angle is then about 30 degrees. The shadow provides form to the subject and fine texture in the feathers.

When the phase angle is low, one can still resolve fine texture if there is a color contrast, but most often a higher phase angle (20 to 30 degrees) produces just enough tiny shadows to show the best fine texture. For more on this subject, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_a...28astronomy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_surge (see the section on shadow hiding).

Roger

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash,
Phase angle has nothing to do with polarized light (although particulate surfaces do polarize the light as a function of phase angle, but that is not what I am talking about).

See this BPN thread on the subject:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ht=phase+angle

Low phase angle is when the sun is behind you. An example is the full moon. The full moon shows no shadows, making it difficult to see fine texture, and the moon looks flat. Same with mountains. If the sun is directly behind while viewing a mountain, it look flat. Same with other subjects, down to birds, and insects.

Here is a recent BPN image made at high phase angle where the body of the bird shows wonderful 3-D form due to the shadows:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/90937
The sun is about 30 degrees to the left, so we see nice shadows on the right side of the bird. The phase angle is then about 30 degrees. The shadow provides form to the subject and fine texture in the feathers.

When the phase angle is low, one can still resolve fine texture if there is a color contrast, but most often a higher phase angle (20 to 30 degrees) produces just enough tiny shadows to show the best fine texture. For more on this subject, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_angle_(astronomy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_surge (see the section on shadow hiding).

Roger

Humm...I am not sure if I agree. You can definitely get excellent texture detail and 3D look with the sun behind you. That's the way I do it.

[Roger Clark]

Here is a 100% unsharpened crop of the RAW, the texture detail is quite good IMO.

Arash,
The image is nicely focused and sharp, though a little noisy from the ISO setting, but it does lack textural detail in the feathers due to the low phase angle.

If you have another image of this type of bird, made at a similar distance, but a phase angle around 30 degrees, you will see a difference in the fine texture (as well as coarser textures).

Or the next time you are out imaging, try some different phase angles and study the effect on the textural detail.

Roger

[Dan Avelon]

what a sweet image, Not flat at all, the pop and 3D look is amazing! Very sharp and detailed as well.

Your images always have exceptional detail and IQ and this one is no exception.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash,
The image is nicely focused and sharp, though a little noisy from the ISO setting, but it does lack textural detail in the feathers due to the low phase angle.

If you have another image of this type of bird, made at a similar distance, but a phase angle around 30 degrees, you will see a difference in the fine texture (as well as coarser textures).

Or the next time you are out imaging, try some different phase angles and study the effect on the textural detail.

Roger

Roger what you say makes no sense to me.

From your comment it is evident that you have no experience photographing this bird. I don't see any lack of details in RTH plumage given the distance, if you have a 100% crop of a RTH image at a similar distance that you have taken yourself and shows more details please post for us to see.

[Ofer Levy]

Stunning image Arash! Beautiful light and colours. Looks plenty sharp to me and FLAT is one of those things you CAN NOT say about this image. I am not sure I understand all the input regarding light angle etc - I really don't think it is relevant in here - looks excellent to me!

[Roger Clark]

Roger what you say makes no sense to me.

From your comment it is evident that you have no experience photographing this bird. I don't see any lack of details in RTH plumage given the distance, if you have a 100% crop of a RTH image at a similar distance that you have taken yourself and shows more details please post for us to see.

Arash,

You posted an image in a critique forum. Another person commented it was flat. I gave an explanation with plenty of references to explain why. It is fine to respectfully disagree, but it is not appropriate to insult those who who are trying to help you. Yes, I have photographed RTH as well as many other birds, and I find your response insulting. The properties regarding the angle of light and image impact apply to all subjects, including RTH.

"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it.
But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography."
- George Eastman

I will not comment on your images any more.

Roger

[Ken Watkins]

Arash,

All of this "tecnical" stuff aside I think this is a remarkable image which I would be more than happy to have in my collection, wonderfully rich colours, which is just what I expect too see from a MkIV

[Daniel Cadieux]

Sweet, sweetlight here Arash, and you got a terrific opportunity of this fella way down on the ground.. Different light angles can give different and interesting results (in a good way) and Roger's input can open up some ideas or thing to think about, but I like this image as it is...couldn't ask for better IMO.

[Stu Bowie]

Great perspective Arash, and I do like your repost. I really like the warm colours in this, together with the sharpness.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash,

You posted an image in a critique forum. Another person commented it was flat. I gave an explanation with plenty of references to explain why. It is fine to respectfully disagree, but it is not appropriate to insult those who who are trying to help you. Yes, I have photographed RTH as well as many other birds, and I find your response insulting. The properties regarding the angle of light and image impact apply to all subjects, including RTH.

"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it.
But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography."
- George Eastman

I will not comment on your images any more.

Roger

Roger I always appreciate honest critique and I have always been receptive that's why I made the repost. However I did not find your comments relevant or correct, this is a critique forum and people look for ways to improve their images not to make them worse. IMO your comments about "phase angle" is misleading and will confuse the average photographer, it implies that people should not put the sun behind them and shoot at an angle which will create harsh shadows, any experienced photographer knows this. I asked that you post a RTH image to show us how the details could possibly improve with what you suggest, I don't find it insulting, but I think it's best if you saved these discussions for a different forum.

Thanks

[Don Lacy]

Not to take sides here but what Roger is talking about is used and taught by other photographers including Chas and is a technique used by landscape to portrait photographers to create the perception of depth and ad detail. It obviously really wasn't needed here but that does not mean it is not important and or relevant to bird photographers.

[arash_hazeghi]

Not to take sides here but what Roger is talking about is used and taught by other photographers including Chas and is a technique used by landscape to portrait photographers to create the perception of depth and ad detail. It obviously really wasn't needed here but that does not mean it is not important and or relevant to bird photographers.

Hi Don,

I believe that the best way to create an excellent bird photographs is to put the sun behind you. If you have an example of a RTH photo taken from a given distance from different angles I would be very interested to see. I would be very surprised if the best photo is not the one with the sun behind the photographer. One of the major mistakes that I see people make in the field is that they don't pay attention to the direction of the light, this creates harsh shadows and unpleasant look not to mention deep shadow recovery that causes noise and poor IQ. Of course there are exceptions and cases that you intentionally use side-light or even back-light for artistic effects but as a general rule sun needs to be behind the photographer.

Of course you can use side light to create artistic effects in a portrait (it has been done since 100 years ago, it's nothing new ) but I don't find it relevant to detail rendition in the photo presented here. IMO the best way to isolate the subject from BG is with appropriate aperture and focal length.


Thanks for your comments

[Don Lacy]

Hi Don,

I believe that the best way to create an excellent bird photographs is to put the sun behind you. If you have an example of a RTH photo taken from a given distance from different angles I would be very interested to see. I would be very surprised if the best photo is not the one with the sun behind the photographer. One of the major mistakes that I see people make in the field is that they don't pay attention to the direction of the light, this creates harsh shadows and unpleasant look not to mention deep shadow recovery that causes noise and poor IQ. Of course there are exceptions and cases that you intentionally use side-light or even back-light for artistic effects but as a general rule sun needs to be behind the photographer.

Of course you can use side light to create artistic effects in a portrait (it has been done since 100 years ago, it's nothing new ) but I don't find it relevant to detail rendition in the photo presented here. IMO the best way to isolate the subject from BG is with appropriate aperture and focal length.


Thanks for your comments

I am not talking about side lighting but changing the angle of light about 10-30 degrees from being straight on. If you have not closed your mind to learning new things I am willing to bet if you review your images you will find very few where you were in a straight line from subject to sun.
Regards

[Roger Clark]

Don,

Well said.

I just posted examples of phase angle effects at:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...e-image-detail

Hopefully that clarifies some things for people.

Roger

[arash_hazeghi]

I am not talking about side lighting but changing the angle of light about 10-30 degrees from being straight on. If you have not closed your mind to learning new things I am willing to bet if you review your images you will find very few where you were in a straight line from subject to sun.
Regards

Thanks Don,

I am not sure, 30 degrees is a large angle and can create hash shadows on the subject. Again, if you have a RTH example that proves 30 degree incident angle is better than having the sun behind you in terms of details please post so we can all see and learn.

Cheers

[Don Lacy]

Again, if you have a RTH example that proves 30 degree incident angle is better than having the sun behind you in terms of details please post so we can all see and learn.

Arash, I do not have that image and your insistence that me or Roger post it is a straw man argument just because I do not have it does not mean it does not exist. Art Wolfe talks about front lighting creating two dimensional images in is book The Art Of Nature Photography and how you need to get off angle to create depth and a three dimensional feel to your images I also know Charles Glatzer wrote about the same technique in a post or article somewhere just because you dismiss it does not mean it's not true

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, I do not have that image and your insistence that me or Roger post it is a straw man argument just because I do not have it does not mean it does not exist. Art Wolfe talks about front lighting creating two dimensional images in is book The Art Of Nature Photography and how you need to get off angle to create depth and a three dimensional feel to your images I also know Charles Glatzer wrote about the same technique in a post or article somewhere just because you dismiss it does not mean it's not true

Don,

Of course it is possible to create different effects with light, I never said that didn't exist. The discussion was about the RTH image presented for critique here. I said that IMO the angle of light and detail rendition was optimal in the image above. Do you agree or disagree?

I think most photographers agreed detail and light is good in the image above as presented and it is not flat.

I believe changing the angle in the above photo would have resulted in a worse photograph and that's the point I was making, since this is a critique forum and people look at this stuff to improve their images not to make them worse.

Thanks again.

[Don Lacy]

Don,

Of course it is possible to create different effects with light, I never said that didn't exist. The discussion was about the RTH image presented for critique here. I said that IMO the angle of light and detail rendition was optimal in the image above. Do you agree or disagree?

I think most photographers agreed detail and light is good in the image above as presented and it is not flat.

I believe changing the angle in the above photo would have resulted in a worse photograph and that's the point I was making, since this is a critique forum and people look at this stuff to improve their images not to make them worse.

Thanks again.

Arash, It seems we might have been arguing different points to me the image is flat as in two dimensional not in color or impact and yes it has plenty of detail. I am not sure if changing the angle slightly would have resulted in a worst image for the reasons I stated above but we do not know since that was the only angle taken. Looking forward to seeing more of your images in the future and thanks for taking the time to talk about this.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, It seems we might have been arguing different points to me the image is flat as in two dimensional not in color or impact and yes it has plenty of detail. I am not sure if changing the angle slightly would have resulted in a worst image for the reasons I stated above but we do not know since that was the only angle taken. Looking forward to seeing more of your images in the future and thanks for taking the time to talk about this.

thanks for your comments Don.

[Jay Gould]

Arash, from a layman's point of view, does it make a difference when the sun is behind you if it is high in the sky or low in the sky? Artie and others always teach pointing your shadow at the bird; however, I think that Roger has explained this a bit more in the thread: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...e-image-detail.

BTW, I like the image and do understand/see it as 2D rather than 3D. Clearly there is depth comparing the bird to the BG; however, the bird doesn't have a lot of depth on my screen.

Regardless, I know you will keep them coming; I do like everything you post.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, from a layman's point of view, does it make a difference when the sun is behind you if it is high in the sky or low in the sky? Artie and others always teach pointing your shadow at the bird; however, I think that Roger is talking about something a bit different. Roger?


BTW, I like the image and do understand/see it as 2D rather than 3D. Clearly there is depth comparing the bird to the BG; however, the bird doesn't have a lot of depth on my screen.

Regardless, I know you will keep them coming; I do like everything you post.

Jay,

Artie is right, if you ask him he will tell you the best time to make photographs is when your shadow is about 3 times longer than yourself. So don't take images when the sun is too high in the sky, it will create harsh shadows unless you are using fill ;)

Ultimately an image is a 2D signal so whether it looks 2D or 3D is just a perception and subjective IMO. Maybe in future we will have SLRs with stereo 3D capability so we can capture images in 3D :)

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Arash, I liked the light a lot.

I see what Roger says about getting more minute feather shadows when the light is not exactly from behind you....but a little from left or right. That "creates" more details. That does help...but can create bigger shadows that you dont want. I think that strategy does work well for head shots. If the subject is cooperative doesn't hurt to shoot from slightly different positions...which anyways we do most times to get the BG we want.

Discussion is fine, but let us please not get carried away.