Baby in a basket, and other I'on residents

ginger_55

Egret Anatomy: front and back, below.



Below, traffic accident...........I did mention the traffic problems caused by rapid growth in this area, did I not?





Photography by ginger

:1drink

david_h

I really like the look and feel of these photographs. Are you doing something different than before?
Very nice work, especially the baby in basket. It's about time Harry had some competition with these birds.

ginger_55

My youngest daughter had another take on the Traffic Accident egret photo.

Funny. (actually it was probably territorial and we are all wrong with our humor.)

ginger:D

david_h

Oh, I thought a bit of cropping would be interesting as well.
I played around and liked this square one - what do you think?

Harryb

Hey Ginger,

Excellent captures. I like the composition on the shots. They are a bit blown out though.

ginger_55

Harry, I sit here, with the little eyedropper, constantly checking for blown areas.

I am sorry you think thay are blown, I work them up in RAW, before I leave that I check again to make sure that I have not blown anything.

Then if I do anything else, in PS, that might affect the amt of white, I use the eyedropper. I don't remember on these shots, but in some egret shots, I have let the red go...............that area is so NOT red.

I will not let the rest get to 255, close but not there.

I let my photos go dark, for who asked as to what makes my shots different, and this area is so wooded, there is a lot of dark, that means I do need the whites not to go dark along with the green.

That is why I might go to selective colors, choose white, up the white, then check the possible blown areas with the eyedropper.

I appreciate your pointing out a possible problem. Probably, since some areas get to to the high 240s, not a lot of areas, but some, and with the contrast inherent in this method, they do look blown.

ginger

ginger_55

David, thanks for the crop idea. I prefer more background. Every branch, bit of green becomes important for me. But that is just me.

I think I will crop that one just like you did, it is a very good way to crop it, if one wants the emphasis just on the birds. I think I will do that and send it to KPOTD. I am sure they don't want a bunch of green.

thanks,
ginger

rutt

These are all three very beautiful shots. You have a way of making them look impressionistic. White birds seem to be very very challenging for digital photography and postprocessing. Ask Pathfinder about the times I've tortured him about trying to bring out the feather detail. Blown or not, my eye always wants to see more detail. In the past, I've tried using the under appreciated highlight feature of shadow/highlight to do this and also steepening the black curve in the highlights in CMYK. But there results have never been great. I'm planning on taking Dan Margulis' advanced course in the fall. Let's collect some nice sharp white birds and I'll see what he can make of them.

I love the way you work the tail feathers. You get an effect that only you seem to get. Like a white viel.

The middle shot might not be the most interesting bird shot, but I like the composition best by a lot.

How many TC's are you using?

Harryb

ginger_55 wrote:

Harry, I sit here, with the little eyedropper, constantly checking for blown areas.

I am sorry you think thay are blown, I work them up in RAW, before I leave that I check again to make sure that I have not blown anything.

Then if I do anything else, in PS, that might affect the amt of white, I use the eyedropper. I don't remember on these shots, but in some egret shots, I have let the red go...............that area is so NOT red.

I will not let the rest get to 255, close but not there.

I let my photos go dark, for who asked as to what makes my shots different, and this area is so wooded, there is a lot of dark, that means I do need the whites not to go dark along with the green.

That is why I might go to selective colors, choose white, up the white, then check the possible blown areas with the eyedropper.

I appreciate your pointing out a possible problem. Probably, since some areas get to to the high 240s, not a lot of areas, but some, and with the contrast inherent in this method, they do look blown.

ginger

In the second shot they is very little detail on the egrets, It doesn't make the shot bad, it still very good btw, it just could have been better

On the 3rd shot there is definitely some blown out portions. Again it doesn't make it a bad pic and sometimes some blow outs can't be helped especially when the background is important to the shot also. Check the spike on the right of the histogram

rutt

Ginger, try the highlight part of shadow/highlight after converting so as not to clip either end of the histogram. You might get a pleasant surprise.

ginger_55

Gosh, how can I respond to both of you? Rutt and Harry, you both make good points.

I just checked with the eyedropper, especially on the anatomy shot which shows little feather detail, is very contrasty and I thought looked most blown. My computer will not let this window and PS CS be open at the same time, so I have to go out, etc. The anatomy, front/back shot, it was under 250 in all areas I checked, (most of the birds) on all fronts.

I did not check the shot you showed, Harry.

I also checked the sRGB, made sure that is the setting that I have. It is the only setting, so it has to be coming down that way. I will say that the greens appear more important to me when it is in PS, I work on a pretty big photo there.

I did a bunch of these yesterday, put these few up just before we lost power for the night.

On one bunch you put up, Harry, I had the same thoughts that you have expressed, blown, and the same ones Rutt has expressed, lack of detail.

I came to the conclusion that it had to do with distance from subject.???
Just a thought. As far as detail, I mean. However, I was about the same distance from all of those birds, they, in their high density living area, were all in the same place. I have to check out further down that trail.

Anyway, some should not be "smoother" than others. I cut back on the noise reduction that I had been upping in RAW, instead, I took it down. Got a lot of noise in a shot, became wary, upped it again, if I saw the potential for large areas where noise tends to show up, I made the decision to up it to ward off problems. Shots like that traffic problem, all of the shots, actually, except maybe babies, I probably upped the noise reduction in RAW. That could acct for the smooth look, to a degree. But it used to be my way to always up it, so it is not the whole story.

Rutt, if you take stuff to Marguilis, I can provide you with examples. And when you are getting them, yourself, try the distance test. I think there is a certain distance where things still look good, but where the detail is less.

On an aside, before I get breakfast and more coffee, the butt shotte, the one that is too close and everyone, except my friend, doesn't like. I had enough down time, with the cable, I did just about each feather, individually. Often using the sharpen tool, then backing off if necessary. I really worked that photo for detail, smile.

I often work, just a bit and rather fast, the parts you were speaking of Rutt, the ethereal feathers that look so pretty to me. A bit of, just a bit of dodge or burn, depending, a tad of sharp, whatever, erasing anything done like blur, I do that. That drape of feathers is often my favorite part. Thanks for noticing.

Harry, I will check on the traffic shot to see what the spike is, if it is all colors or just the one, as it is in PS, can't vouch for down here.

On the gamut thing, I have decided to work up , or take photos already shown to be out of gamut like the first Secret Garden shot, then send variations in to be printed, a simple 4 X 6 should tell me how a commercial print would hold up. I am most curious about EX prints, if I were EVER to sell anything, that is where I would expect it to be printed. I know that the only shot I had a problem with in the calendar done by lulu, it was green, dark green, saturated green.

Coffee and toast coming up,
thanks, all,
ginger

ginger_55

rutt wrote:

Ginger, try the highlight part of shadow/highlight after converting so as not to clip either end of the histogram. You might get a pleasant surprise.

I have a problem.....................my histogram does not show a problem.

So, it is either in bringing it down here, or it is a calibration of my histogram.

Whatever, unless I solve the basic problem, I will not have the tool of the histogram at all, not as a reliable tool.

Could you tell me how to copy the histogram to bring down here.

I have just checked every setting I have, tried to copy the histogram, the workspace, anything like that, don't know how.

Then I brought the damn bird back down to smugmug, thinking that maybe with the view proof setting on yesterday, that might have thrown it off, and I brought the new bird over to compare here, doesn't look like a difference to me.

I printed out the info from smugmug last night, on color, I found the papers, but I have not had a chance to read them.

On COLOR SETTINGS, would someone with a windows, adobe PS CS, please tell me every setting on theirs..................please.

ginger

ginger_55

rutt wrote:

These are all three very beautiful shots. You have a way of making them look impressionistic. White birds seem to be very very challenging for digital photography and postprocessing. Ask Pathfinder about the times I've tortured him about trying to bring out the feather detail. Blown or not, my eye always wants to see more detail. In the past, I've tried using the under appreciated highlight feature of shadow/highlight to do this and also steepening the black curve in the highlights in CMYK. But there results have never been great. I'm planning on taking Dan Margulis' advanced course in the fall. Let's collect some nice sharp white birds and I'll see what he can make of them.

I love the way you work the tail feathers. You get an effect that only you seem to get. Like a white viel.

The middle shot might not be the most interesting bird shot, but I like the composition best by a lot.

How many TC's are you using?

I like the middle shot best, too. And it isn't the birds that I like, it is the tree area. I put a lot of work in that, and it paid off for me. I didn't expect to work it. I thought it would be a pretty straight work up. It was the burning and the dodging: design really.

I have noticed the lack of moss in these shots, that means there isn't any, or much, there. No live oaks. The Yankees who have bought those places probably don't notice that they aren't really in the south, smile.

However, I think that is an everygreen. I think it is beautiful.

Oh, yes, the birds, they are pretty. They kind of set off the trees well, give them a reason d'etre.

ginger

tmlphoto

Ginger, I like these shots alot. The first one is my favorite. As, Rutt says they have a sort of impressionistic feel to them that I like very much. I wouldn't worry about the highlights on these. I have been noticing hightlights on alot of published pictures lately and they are very often blown, aristic license I think. My advice, don't sweat the highlights. Great work.

Shay Stephens

I agree, make the photo/subject look the way you want and forget about the highlights.

Technical perfection can be the death scream of an artistic photo.

tmlphoto wrote:

I wouldn't worry about the highlights on these. I have been noticing hightlights on alot of published pictures lately and they are very often blown, aristic license I think. My advice, don't sweat the highlights. Great work.

ginger_55

Thanks, Shay and Thomas. I appreciate the nice comments and had to laugh at "the scream of creativity" or death thereof , or something.

Thanks for stopping, thanks for commenting.

Oh, as a thought, I posted some flowers from a workshop with a well known photographer. He has books, which I can't afford. He has small books which I do have. But the people at the workshop were looking at them, so I did, too. And I started saying things like "these are blown". His response was "that it was a choice between something like the background and the foreground and that was the compromise", something like that. He really looked confused.

He does use digital now, but not all the time. He stuck with film longer than some did.
I remember my shock that he had broken the "rules" and his confusion that there were "rules". I just think that is funny. I just remembered it.

Thanks again.

ginger

wxwax

Shay Stephens wrote:

I agree, make the photo/subject look the way you want and forget about the highlights.

Technical perfection can be the death scream of an artistic photo.

You know, I've been coming to that conclusion too. Glad to hear you say it.

Ginger, I really like these shots.

Harry...

Mongrel

Ginger, for what it's worth...
I immediately *liked* all of these shots. As mentioned previously, they have a certain feel to them. Impressionistic? I guess that's what you call it, as I honestly don't know what it's called But the *feeling* I got from them was 'old', as in turn of the century studio shots that I've seen. You know the hand colored jobs with all the lush vegetation and darkened look to them?

Anyway...I *really* dig that style of photography, so as I said I was into your shots from the get go.

Funny, until it was mentioned, "blown highlights" didn't even cross my mind. This type of shot (to me anyway) isn't a 'National Geographic type technically perfect nature shot' type of shot. IF that's what you were going for, then well, maybe the highlights are blown :uhoh

But somehow I get the impression that's not what your intent was.

Keep it up, you are doing fine...

Mongrel

Sally

ginger's birds
Well, ok, the birds may be blown in spots, but I think the definition in the feathers is fabulous. I can live with a little blowout, to see wingspread with feathers like that.

I agree that the comp of the middle picture is wonderful. AND I like the the uncropped photo the best.

Way to go, Gingerella!!!!

Sally

4labs

Ginger you are compiling quite a collection of egret shots from this location. Keep them coming they are great!

jeff lapoint

ginger,

i havent been on the board as much as usual lately, but i see i've missed some great posts of yurs. i really like the look and feel of the egret shots you have been posting. the contrast with the green works quite well as does the dreamy soft feel to the photos. very well done!

-j

bfjr

Ok I'm gonna step into this

Ginger 1st nice series, you do seem to be developing a particular style with your bird shots

Harry is right some blown spots
Shay is right , make the photo/subject look the way you want and forget about the highlights.

Been guilty of this one myself :--Technical perfection can be the death scream of an artistic photo.

So I gues I'll just say

They are aritisticly blown :lol4