Share a few Duckys

bfjr

No egrets, herrons, eagles, etc.
But I found this little park not 10min form home and during week it's pretty empty :
Anyway took a few shots, trashed most :cry , but would like to share these two with all of you:

gus

Sharp & kinda dark which i like...what lens is it ?

Harryb

bfjr wrote:

No egrets, herrons, eagles, etc.
But I found this little park not 10min form home and during week it's pretty empty :
Anyway took a few shots, trashed most :cry , but would like to share these two with all of you:

Hey Ben,

The second shot is really fine. Its perfectly exposed. Exposing for a white subject against a dark background ain't easy and you did well here.

I usually dump most of my shots afetr a shoot also.

Harry

bfjr

Humungus wrote:

Sharp & kinda dark which i like...what lens is it ?

Thank you for commenting.
Why the lens attached to my camera, of course
Sadly I am still waiting to join the ranks of the, DSLR crowd.
In the meantime I use Panasonic FZ20, which of course has only one lens ( but a good one) Lieca 35 - 432 (aprox) f2.8 throughout its range

bfjr

Harryb wrote:

Hey Ben,

The second shot is really fine. Its perfectly exposed. Exposing for a white subject against a dark background ain't easy and you did well here.

I usually dump most of my shots afetr a shoot also.

Harry

Thank you Harry for stopping by. Don't let this go to your Head , but seeing your shots is one reason why I shot this image. Wanted to see if I can expose like that and retain the detail in both shadow and highlights. Worked at not seeing 255, 255, 255 on any part of the duck.
Thank you again for confirming I'm moving in the right direction.

Shakey

Nice shots BFJR very sharp ,and yes I agree Harry sets the bar very high.

Tim

Dixie

Photoshop CS Shadows/Highlights tool will fix the wide range between dark and light in the second photo and still maintain the detail in the duck's white feathers. I would also recommend a different crop as shown below.

Dixie

I couldn't do too much with the blown out whites in the first photo. My recommendation in this case is to spot meter on the light area to bring out the detail in the duck and then, if necessary, use the Shadows/Highlights tool to bring the darker areas of the photo back into an acceptable range to show detail there. That's basically what was done in the adjustments I did to the second photo above. Regretfully, once light/white areas are blown out there isn't a lot which can be done to save them because the detail just isn't there in photo.

Harryb

bfjr wrote:

Thank you Harry for stopping by. Don't let this go to your Head , but seeing your shots is one reason why I shot this image. Wanted to see if I can expose like that and retain the detail in both shadow and highlights. Worked at not seeing 255, 255, 255 on any part of the duck.
Thank you again for confirming I'm moving in the right direction.

Hey Ben,

255 is a baaaad number. When I'm shooting a white bird I'm not all that concerned with the background too much because the bird is the subject. If I lose some of the detail in the water thats usually not that much of a problem. If your camera has a histogram you always want to be checking that when shooting this type of shot.

If you see data over on the right you will probably want to make a negative ev adjustment. If you see a lot of data squeezed to the left you may want to go the other way even if you have to blow out a few (very few) highlights. Experience is the best teacher here.

I'm not crazy about PS's shadows and highlights tool. I'll use it or Nikon Capture's D-Lighting on rare occasions. Usually I don't like the overall effect it has (not natural and at times very noisy). Its best when used very lightly.

jwear

second shot
Ben your second shot is great no ofence dixie but a like the original the dark is good options options we all have 8 or 100 nice shot Ben no blow outs on white very good Jeff

Kirwin

Image 2 is quite ducky! The exposure is just right! Thanks for sharin'.

bfjr wrote:

No egrets, herrons, eagles, etc.
But I found this little park not 10min form home and during week it's pretty empty :
Anyway took a few shots, trashed most :cry , but would like to share these two with all of you:

Dixie

I have no problem with fixing exposures in the camera first. That is always my first choice - when it can be done. Changing the ev will change the entire spectrum and either lighten or darken the image uniformly. I prefer spot metering the lightest area to set the shot, however, if that can't be done then I go with changing the ev.

As with any tool in PS, the Shadows/Highlights tool can be over done. Used in moderation (or lightly as Harry says) it can be a good tool to savage a shot which cannot be reshot. I will say that some photos, either too much blown out or areas which are too dark, just are not good candidates for Shadows/Highlights Tool. Again, it is normally easier to bring up the dark areas than to bring down the blown areas so I feel that it is more important to expose for the lighter areas.

The darker the dark area is the more noise that will be placed into the image using the S/H tool. Therefore, the more detail that you can see to begin with, the better are ones chances to improve the image without inducing noise. This means that correct settings for the initial shot are by far the most important and cannot be stressed enough.
I've stated before that when you are shooting in a studio you can control all aspects of the exposure. However, when shooting in nature you have to do the best you can with what nature hands you which means starting with the most correct exposure settings you can for the shot you are taking. ...and there are no PS fixes to replace incorrectly set exposures.

Steve Cavigliano

Ben,

Good work

That 2nd one is the nicer shot (no foliage covering part of the duck) and as Harry points out, the exposure is right on ^5

What you do with an image like this, after uploading, is completely up to the individual, IMO Personally, I would have gone down a post processing path similar to Dixie's. I would have lightened the duck and maybe got some of the yellow out of the white feathers, using selective color. Or, you could go in other directions, or leave it as is. That's one of the things I love about digital. There are always so many options available for a nicely exposed, well focused image :

Thanks for sharing your duckys,
Steve

bfjr

Shakey wrote:

Nice shots BFJR very sharp ,and yes I agree Harry sets the bar very high.

Tim

Thanks Shakey, and yes makes the rest of us reach up higher as well

bfjr

Dixie wrote:

Photoshop CS Shadows/Highlights tool will fix the wide range between dark and light in the second photo and still maintain the detail in the duck's white feathers. I would also recommend a different crop as shown below.

Geeez Dixie, thanks for taking of your time to show a different version, and more importantly (to me) how to do it!!
Much useful info in your posts, which is exactly the help I come to expect here (Great Forum).
I do think I still like my darker image, I like the richer (darker) look in the water, along with keeping the foreground darker and thereby not so pronounced.

bfjr

Dixie wrote:

I couldn't do too much with the blown out whites in the first photo. My recommendation in this case is to spot meter on the light area to bring out the detail in the duck and then, if necessary, use the Shadows/Highlights tool to bring the darker areas of the photo back into an acceptable range to show detail there. That's basically what was done in the adjustments I did to the second photo above. Regretfully, once light/white areas are blown out there isn't a lot which can be done to save them because the detail just isn't there in photo.

Your 100% right this image is headin for the :flush

bfjr

Harryb wrote:

Hey Ben,

255 is a baaaad number. When I'm shooting a white bird I'm not all that concerned with the background too much because the bird is the subject. If I lose some of the detail in the water thats usually not that much of a problem. If your camera has a histogram you always want to be checking that when shooting this type of shot.

If you see data over on the right you will probably want to make a negative ev adjustment. If you see a lot of data squeezed to the left you may want to go the other way even if you have to blow out a few (very few) highlights. Experience is the best teacher here.

I'm not crazy about PS's shadows and highlights tool. I'll use it or Nikon Capture's D-Lighting on rare occasions. Usually I don't like the overall effect it has (not natural and at times very noisy). Its best when used very lightly.

Harry, yes my camera does have histogram, and I'll start using it NOW !

bfjr

jwear wrote:

Ben your second shot is great no ofence dixie but a like the original the dark is good options options we all have 8 or 100 nice shot Ben no blow outs on white very good Jeff

Jeff, I'm with you I do still like the darker image, just seems richer to me

bfjr

Kirwin wrote:

Image 2 is quite ducky! The exposure is just right! Thanks for sharin'.

No, thank you for commenting. I'm glad you liked

bfjr

Dixie wrote:

I have no problem with fixing exposures in the camera first. That is always my first choice - when it can be done. Changing the ev will change the entire spectrum and either lighten or darken the image uniformly. I prefer spot metering the lightest area to set the shot, however, if that can't be done then I go with changing the ev.

As with any tool in PS, the Shadows/Highlights tool can be over done. Used in moderation (or lightly as Harry says) it can be a good tool to savage a shot which cannot be reshot. I will say that some photos, either too much blown out or areas which are too dark, just are not good candidates for Shadows/Highlights Tool. Again, it is normally easier to bring up the dark areas than to bring down the blown areas so I feel that it is more important to expose for the lighter areas.

The darker the dark area is the more noise that will be placed into the image using the S/H tool. Therefore, the more detail that you can see to begin with, the better are ones chances to improve the image without inducing noise. This means that correct settings for the initial shot are by far the most important and cannot be stressed enough.
I've stated before that when you are shooting in a studio you can control all aspects of the exposure. However, when shooting in nature you have to do the best you can with what nature hands you which means starting with the most correct exposure settings you can for the shot you are taking. ...and there are no PS fixes to replace incorrectly set exposures.

Again 100%, image gotta stand on its own !!
Old saying "Can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse"

bfjr

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Ben,

Good work

That 2nd one is the nicer shot (no foliage covering part of the duck) and as Harry points out, the exposure is right on ^5

What you do with an image like this, after uploading, is completely up to the individual, IMO Personally, I would have gone down a post processing path similar to Dixie's. I would have lightened the duck and maybe got some of the yellow out of the white feathers, using selective color. Or, you could go in other directions, or leave it as is. That's one of the things I love about digital. There are always so many options available for a nicely exposed, well focused image :

Thanks for sharing your duckys,
Steve

Thank you Steve! As you well know being told your exporsure is right on is more then half the battle in creating a keeper and high praise from a fellow photographer.
Yes all the options available could be good for my Duckys, but I must admit sometimes it drives me BATTY