Pushing the Shutter Speed Envelope

[Arthur Morris]

Just for the heck-uv-it, I tried a few portraits of this cooperative drake Harlequin at ISO 400, Evaluative metering -1/3 stop: 1/8 sec. at f/14 in Manual mode. (1/8 sec. is not a typo....) Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens, 1.4X III TC, 25 mm extension tube, and EOS-1D Mark IV.

You gotta love 4-stop IS combined with good sharpness techniques. BTW, Gitzo 3530 LS tripod with the Mongoose M3.6 head....

Don't be shy; all honest comments and suggestions appreciated.

[Tom Rambaut]

I know you have been enjoying blurs and some OOTB stuff recently but to me this is classic Arthur Morris. Sharp and I love the texture in the feathers - detail in the whites! Slight HA towards us is a nice touch. I like the over the shoulder look here with the OOF shoulder in the bottom left hand corner however some might find this distracting. The colours are well shown without being oversaturated.

[Arthur Morris]

Thank you sir. I forgot to mention two things: I was working at right about 30X. And d-o-f in this situation was about 1/10 of one inch.

[Tom Rambaut]

Thank you sir. I forgot to mention two things: I was working at right about 30X. And d-o-f in this situation was about 1/10 of one inch.

Not sure what you mean by 30X. 1/10 of an inch - this would explain why the bill tip is OOF?

[Arthur Morris]

Not sure what you mean by 30X. 1/10 of an inch -this would explain why the bill tip is OOF?

30X is the approximate magnification. The bill tip is a bit soft because it is well more than 1/10 inch past the plane of focus, the eye and the side of the face. It is hard for folks to realize how shallow is the d-o-f with big glass at close range.

[Dave Leroy]

Co-operative is right. Nice and close. It looks like lots of cool blue light around but I might desat. the blues a bit especially in the whites. Nice and tight composition.

[Arthur Morris]

Co-operative is right. Nice and close. It looks like lots of cool blue light around but I might desat. the blues a bit especially in the whites. Nice and tight composition.

I am fine with the blues of the head as the bird is actually blue. But an excellent suggestion on the WHITEs. I added 15 points of YELLOW to the WHITEs and subtracted 90 points of BLACK in Selective Color. So thanks.

[Gary Esman]

Gorgeous shot Artie! The eye is beautiful. Love the detail in the feathers.

Gary.

[Marina Scarr]

Love this portrait and good lesson for me on the whites which do look better in the repost. Tack sharp.

[gail bisson]

Very nice! Amazing to be so sharp at such a low SS! Thankd for the lesson on toning down the blues in whites,
Gail

[Arthur Morris]

Very nice! Amazing to be so sharp at such a low SS! Thankd for the lesson on toning down the blues in whites. Gail

And the BLACKs in the WHITE . YAW.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Amazing portrait. Lots of beautiful details. Although the whites look better colour-wise in the repost I did prefer the fine details apparant on those on the OP.

[Arthur Morris]

Amazing portrait. Lots of beautiful details. Although the whites look better colour-wise in the repost I did prefer the fine details apparant on those on the OP.

Thanks Dan. I agree; it is a balancing act with this image.....

[arash_hazeghi]

impressive sharpness for such a low SS given the FL. I wonder if you could have take the TC off to get more dof and then crop tighter in post....

[Arthur Morris]

I will have to go back and see it he is still sitting there. But thanks for suggesting another good test for next time. My understanding (as per Mr. George Lepp) is that (in theory at least) the TC will produce a better quality image (all things being equal) than the crop. If the opposite were true then why ever buy or use a TC????

[arash_hazeghi]

I will have to go back and see it he is still sitting there. But thanks for suggesting another good test for next time. My understanding (as per Mr. George Lepp) is that (in theory at least) the TC will produce a better quality image (all things being equal) than the crop. If the opposite were true then why ever buy or use a TC????

Well, all things are not equal here (DOF ), if you had enough DOF TC would be a better choice for sure to get more details/crop less. The tip of the beak is a minor point but I wonder how it would look with shoulder area a bit sharper...

[Ofer Levy]

I tend to agree with Arash's suggestion regarding removing the teleconverter in here. The OOF shoulder and beak really weaken this image. Slightly less IQ due to a crop wouldn't have hurt the image that much IMHO.

[Todd Frost]

Outstanding portrait Artie. No problem with the oof shoulder in fg on my end (but I am a lover of oof FG elements in an image).
Good job with geting such a sharp image with these settings. Well done. TFS

Todd

[RakeshDhareshwar]

Great sharpness for that low shutter speed . Also, have to hand it for the bird which has stayed rock steady !!

[Stu Bowie]

Superb detail captured here, tack sharp, with a good HA. As Dan stated, the whites do look 'white' in the repost, but do like your OP too.

[Cheryl Arena Molennor]

That is some great detail and amazing techs. I don't mind the oof shoulder as I feel the curve of it helps the all over design and it helps that you got some brown feathers visible. My only wish woul be for a little depth in the tip of the bil just a little.. Whites look better in repost

[MohsenVahedipour]

Perfect portrait with excellent feather details & lovely eye.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Artie, loved the exposure, details and HA.

[Jeroen Stel]

Hi Arthur,

Wonderful portrait made under difficult light situation. Could you explain more on the sharpening technique you have used for this one as the detail looks amazing and very well sharpened.

All the best,

Jeroen Stel

[Robert Holguin]

Wow!!! Wonderful portrait. The detail is just amazing, love the eye, and real nice head angle.
Well done.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Arthur, Wonderful portrait made under difficult light situation. Could you explain more on the sharpening technique you have used for this one as the detail looks amazing and very well sharpened. All the best, Jeroen Stel

Hi Jeroen, I ran a contrast mask on the master file--unsharp mask at 12/60/0, covered it with a hide-all mask, and then painted away only the dark feathers of the face. I do that with most of my bird photographs. For the down-sized JPEG I sharpened as I usually do at 140-180/0.3/0 in unsharp mask. You might be interested in our Digital Basics file....

However, I did run Detail Extractor from NIK Color Efex Pro also on the dark areas of plumage. It is an amazing plug-in. You can learn lots more about the NIK stuff here. I first started using Detail Extractor on WHITEs but find that it works great on dark feathers as well. As with all Photoshop stuff the trick is to avoid over-doing it.

[Arthur Morris]

Well, all things are not equal here (DOF ), if you had enough DOF TC would be a better choice for sure to get more details/crop less. The tip of the beak is a minor point but I wonder how it would look with shoulder area a bit sharper...

You make a good point. I hope to get back to Barnegat next year to replicate the situation. In the meantime I will be on the lookout for something similar.

[Steven Kersting]

Great job on the low SS. What's that, 1600mm? Did you use mirror up and remote SR? I would have to....

The first post seems dark to me, in the second the whites are a bit too hot and the blues went a bit greener.

I took a quick shot at it....
Pasted first image into new layer and set WB by using the white dropper on the hottest part of the circular cheek patch and the black dropper on the darkest spot on the crest; reduced whites to 245 and blacks to 10.
Copied to new layer and did a shadows/highlights adjustment, layer mode in lighten, opacity around 50%.
Added dodge/burn layer and lightened the eye, layer mode in overlay, opacity around 50%.
Depending on taste, the shadow recovery level might have been set differently as the blue feathers are a little "harder" now...No sharpening was done.
I think this made the whites less blue while keeping the blue feathers truer to the original post and retain the majority of the highlight details from the original.
I don't think it's 100%, but it's close to what I would do with it.

[Arthur Morris]

Great job on the low SS. What's that, 1600mm? Did you use mirror up and remote SR? I would have to....

The first post seems dark to me, in the second the whites are a bit too hot and the blues went a bit greener.

I took a quick shot at it....
Pasted first image into new layer and set WB by using the white dropper on the hottest part of the circular cheek patch and the black dropper on the darkest spot on the crest; reduced whites to 245 and blacks to 10.
Copied to new layer and did a shadows/highlights adjustment, layer mode in lighten, opacity around 50%.
Added dodge/burn layer and lightened the eye, layer mode in overlay, opacity around 50%.
Depending on taste, the shadow recovery level might have been set differently as the blue feathers are a little "harder" now...No sharpening was done.
I think this made the whites less blue while keeping the blue feathers truer to the original post and retain the majority of the highlight details from the original.
I don't think it's 100%, but it's close to what I would do with it.

Thanks. Your version looks a bit too light for me from here :). But appreciated. Not sure where you saw 1600mm??? Please explain. I did not use mirror-up or anything else fancy here; I just pushed the shutter button.

[Steven Kersting]

Monitors...there's just no knowing is there?

800mm x1.4TC x1.3crop...I guessed at an "effective 1600mm"...the number's more like 1450mm.I think with my D7000 and Sigma 800 +TC (no IS) I would have a very hard time getting an image that sharp without lockup/release..maybe if I used small bursts.

[Arthur Morris]

Monitors...there's just no knowing is there?

800mm x1.4TC x1.3crop...I guessed at an "effective 1600mm"...the number's more like 1450mm.I think with my D7000 and Sigma 800 +TC (no IS) I would have a very hard time getting an image that sharp without lockup/release..maybe if I used small bursts.

Here is the correct math: 800 X 1.4 X 1.3 = 1456 times 1.03 for the approximately 3% effective increase in focal length from the 25mm tube = 1499.68. That works out to very close to 30X magnification...

I just went back and saw that I had mis-read your original comment...

And yes, monitors (even calibrated ones) do vary. And yes, I was even amazed at the sharpness given the magnification and the way in which the image was made.

[Jeroen Stel]

Hi Arthur,

Thanks for your explenation on the post processing used for this one. I know NIK Color Effex Pro but have never used the plug in you mentioned. I generally use their filters for landscaping etc.
Will have a look at the Digital Basics File though i think i master most of the described techniques. I just fine post processing very intriguing and am amazed at how many methods are out there. Have tried many myself over the years but do find that some images need a bit more work and extra techniques such as the described NIK technique so thank you for that.

All the best.

Jeroen Stel

[Arthur Morris]

YAW and all good. Technically the items that I mentioned are filters; the whole program is a plug-in.

[Karl Egressy]

The details and sharpnes is out of this world. Most impressive, portrait shot.
Interestingly I like the the original darked eye version over the lighter one.

[Jeroen Stel]

Hi Arthur,

Just gave NIK's Detail Extractor a try and though i like the effect it does seem to enhance noise quite a bit. Is that your experience too or do you use a certain setting wich eliminates that?
I also ordered the Digital Basics File from your website just to see if there's anything i have missed out on in terms of post processing.

All the best.

Jeroen Stel

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Arthur,

Just gave NIK's Detail Extractor a try and though i like the effect it does seem to enhance noise quite a bit. Is that your experience too or do you use a certain setting wich eliminates that?
I also ordered the Digital Basics File from your website just to see if there's anything i have missed out on in terms of post processing.

All the best.

Jeroen Stel

As I think that I cautioned somewhere, you need to use it judiciously. Easiest is to run it at 100% and then paint it in on the bird (via the use of a Hide-all mask as above) where you need it after reducing the opacity of the Layer. Or, you can simply move the various sliders to the left before applying it. Thanks for your order. Even experienced Photoshop folks glean a nugget or two from DB. Do you use Quick Masks regularly?

You can see another Details Extractor image here: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...6-Barnegat-Hen. Applied judiciously.

[Arthur Morris]

The details and sharpnes is out of this world. Most impressive, portrait shot. Interestingly I like the the original darked eye version over the lighter one.

On my monitor the repost in Pane 28 is overall too light. I did lighten the iris in my post. It is important to remember that when you are exposing properly for the WHITEs that the midtones are one stop under.... Folks who do not understand that concept need to study the section on Exposure Theory in the original ABP if they wish to become competent photographers.... The principles covered there are vital to understanding exposure yet 49 or 50 photographers whom I encounter, even those with tens of thousands of dollars of gear have no clue as to the relationship of correct exposure levels for WHITEs, midtones, and BLACKs....

[Jeroen Stel]

Hi Arthur,

Thanks again for your comments and yes i do use Quick Masking all the time for many years now as i think it is the most important (or helpful) tool in Photoshop as it can be used in so many ways.
I will play around with the settings of NIK's Detail Extractor carefully as suggested.

greetings,

Jeroen Stel

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Arthur,

Thanks again for your comments and yes i do use Quick Masking all the time for many years now as i think it is the most important (or helpful) tool in Photoshop as it can be used in so many ways.
I will play around with the settings of NIK's Detail Extractor carefully as suggested.

greetings,

Jeroen Stel

YAW. I have been loving and using Quick Masks for years since Robert O'Toole taught them to me years ago. I find myself using fewer than I used to as I do lots of stuff that I used to do with QMs with Hide-all Masks since Denise Ippolito taught me those. I am a Photoshop sponge.

[Jeroen Stel]

Me too.. I think overall the importance of Photoshop is underrated by many photographers. It is often te difference between a good shot and a great looking image.
Have to dive into thos hide-all masks as i have never used that technique..

greetings,

Jeroen Stel

[Jeroen Stel]

Some of the Photoshop plug-ins i like to use and wich might be of use to you and other forum members are:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_...New/index.html

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/photoshop-tools.htm

http://www.guygowan.com

And ofcourse the NIK filters you have mentioned before.

Hope this helps everyone interested in some more post-processing tips.

greetings,

Jeroen Stel

[Arthur Morris]

Me too.. I think overall the importance of Photoshop is underrated by many photographers. It is often te difference between a good shot and a great looking image.
Have to dive into thos hide-all masks as i have never used that technique.. greetings, Jeroen Stel

I agree. But not underrated by you and by me. I actually first published Digital Basics after I saw man good photographers on IPTs ruining excellent images in Photoshop rather than improving them.... Hide-all masks are great when you want an effect only on a small area of an image. And you will find the details in the Layer Masking for Dummies section of Digital Basics.

[Jeroen Stel]

Have tried some Hide-all-masking and indeed it works really well. I will have to see wether this works faster then quick-masking as i have been used to doing the same thing with quick masks in the past.
Did read some of the Digital Basics File allready and it is very interesting so far. I did sent you an e-mail on correcting color casts as i think the method i use might be of interest to you when i compare it to the methods described in the Basics File.

greetings,

Jeroen Stel

[Steven Kersting]

On my monitor the repost in Pane 28 is overall too light. I did lighten the iris in my post. It is important to remember that when you are exposing properly for the WHITEs that the midtones are one stop under.... Folks who do not understand that concept need to study the section on Exposure Theory in the original ABP if they wish to become competent photographers.... The principles covered there are vital to understanding exposure yet 49 or 50 photographers whom I encounter, even those with tens of thousands of dollars of gear have no clue as to the relationship of correct exposure levels for WHITEs, midtones, and BLACKs....

How do you get "one stop"? If a scene has 8 stops recorded from white to darkest (meaning 2 stops not present at the dark end if using the zone system) the midtones would fall 5 stops below pure white. Or, if an image sensor could only record 8 stops from black to white with all tones present; then the midtones would fall 4 stops below white. Are you using some other definition of a stop?

I don't really know how you would measure "a stop" in post. For me it is simplest to say whites should be at ~245, blacks at ~10, and midtones at ~120 (if using 18% grey) or something around Wh 95%, Bl 5%, G 40% if using LR. (the reductions at the B/W ends due to display/print limitations)

I note that in my repost the whites read at 255 and not the 245 I *thought* I had set them at.