Great White Egrets: good

ginger_55 · June 26, 2005

except, this first one, I think, thought, he was gorgeous, would have made more contrast, but sat with the histogram monitoring every step. More contrast made too white? I did crop him. Follow the gang here.

The next one IS in focus, same on the histogram and the white, and background, etc. even w highlight shadows. time of night: I did not even get to the gate til 5:30, left the grounds at 7:45. That is good shooting time, though, as far as the light..............but I missed so many just really good opportunities.

Was glad to see one bif in focus:

The next one could show part of my problem, will look at exif, if I remember. gotta leave. the next one, the skirt is gorgeous, and it is in focus. I did not bother to crop it as the head is not sharp, the skirt is, that is bird movement, not me. Not shake, bird. skirt is sharp, or was on my monitor.

420 mm, that is the 300 w 1 1/4 extender, f10, don't know why, I set it on f8, it must have crept, either that or it is giving the extender figure, -1 EV, .0015 sec or 1/640, ISO 400, I changed that to 800 about 1/2 way through,

that is the info on the exif.

I still think the skirt is gorgeous, and I like the other two, but this is a problem for me. I am not putting the other extender on as I have to manually focus it, and I wanted to get BIF this time.

Thanks for looking and any comments, especially re these sweet light shooting times. I have others where the bird is closer, if flying, not in focus, if not flying, is in focus for the most part. The ones I worked up are, will post them later.

I got one cowbird baby in flight, adorable, he is in focus, later for that, too.

Just wanted to post these before I got to church.

ginger (I am shooting at a distance now, do not want a shorter lens, I like this lens???) Oh, it is an f4 300 prime, canon, but it only goes to 5.6, or something, can't look now.

ian408 · June 26, 2005

These are nice shots compositionally. But exposure wise, they're off. The first
looks over-sharpened too. The third has a whiteish looking fog as well. Are you
over-processing?

If you're having trouble getting a higher shutter speed, try a higher ISO. Might
make add noise though.

The area you're shooting looks difficult to get good even light late in the day.

Ian

Andy · June 26, 2005

hi ginger - the first one is way over processed - looks like shadow/highlight gone to far - toss it

the second shot is quite good

ginger_55 · June 26, 2005

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/gallery/616144/1/26079968

Thanks for the response, Ian. I don't think I sharpened the top one much, not any of them actually, but they are all backlit, so there would be rims around things. From the light.

I really do appreciate the response. I posted the gallery thing there, the originals are available in it, sorry, I don't know how to show the orig RAW files. They were all in RAW.

ginger

ginger_55 · June 26, 2005

Andy, why would I toss it and not process it less?

I don't understand?

ginger

Thank you for commenting.

Andy · June 26, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

Andy, why would I toss it and not process it less?

I don't understand?

ginger

Thank you for commenting.

it looks like it's too underexposed, that's why i suggested to toss it....

Phil U. · June 26, 2005

Of the 3, I like the second one the best. On the first - it looks washed out and I can see the dark halo around the bird. Definitely to much shadow/highlight. You have to be careful with that one.

On the third - I opened it in photoshop and threw a levels layer at it with values 26, 1.05, 223 - It adds a little more contrast and I think looks a little better. The sky blows out but the bird is nicer.

I put a levels layer on the second one also with values 6, 1.08, 250. Small adjustment but a little snappier - may just be personal preference.

Nice catches on the BIFs!

ginger_55 · June 26, 2005

This, I just did it, with only saturation, a bit, curves and levels, no USM, no sharpening at all, not that I did. Will put the one below as it came up from RAW. -1.60 exposure in RAW. That was the main thing, to make sure of no over exposure. in sky etc.

I will bring it up from RAW with nothing done to it and post that, too.

This below is from RAW with all controls returned to where they started.

ginger

Andy · June 26, 2005

we need light

ginger_55 wrote:

This, I just did it, with only saturation, a bit, curves and levels, no USM, no sharpening at all, not that I did. Will put the one below as it came up from RAW. -1.60 exposure in RAW. That was the main thing, to make sure of no over exposure. in sky etc.

I will bring it up from RAW with nothing done to it and post that, too.

This below is from RAW with all controls returned to where they started.

ginger

it's all about the light ... without good lighting, the shots suffer imo. so, you *can* shoot these birds in this light - but - what's really special, really magical, is the shots you can get (and share) that are really well-lit.

i can't tell you how many shots i toss due to crummy lighting, ginger. a lot. remember, we as photographers are judged by the worst shot in our portfolio

so i for one, am very careful about what i put in it.

and when i get that *magic* shot, the one with the perfect lighting, expressiion, pose, color, etc, i'm so thrilled! btw - sometimes, you have to work at this - i'll often scout a location, and figure out how to get to the "other side" where the light on my (potential) subjects will be best...

cheers ginger

ginger_55 · June 26, 2005

they were shot in the same place at the same time, and they are all basically backlit.

Are you all not shooting any backlit birds?

Is that my problem, but the second one was turned a bit and the sun came onto it a bit more, so I had to leave the back darker. But it was the same place.

I would not be able to guess this or even judge it.............but I do know which way I was shooting them, so I would guess, since there are two directions, the other direction I planned on posting later, I should never shoot in this direction again, unless it is morning.

Please look later, don't judge everything by these, because this was in that direction, most of the others, if not all, were in the opposite direction with the sun hitting them, not backlit.

ginger

Allen · June 26, 2005

Ginger, don't despair, you have enough fine points in the shot to salvage a decent
result. Nothings blown out and there's enough detail. I hope you don't mind my
edit. It's hard to show in landscape something up high so I cropped to portrait. It gives
the sense of height.

If I tried a backlit shot like that I'd have purple edges around every leave.

I wish I
had a place to visit like you do. Keep 'um coming, you've had many interesting shots.
AL

bfjr · June 26, 2005

Ginger can give you no added expertise past what has already been said.
I like all your shots, this I do know and I understand our emotional connections to our works!!
Heck I don't even no nuttin about Raw, but soon will be jumping in.
Allen has done an excellent job on your shot and I did like the second BIF you posted. I really like backlight shots and the way the light can almost make an X-ray of the wing detail.
This is however hard to bring off, and yours ain't that shabby!!
As my work has gotten better (Geeeeezzz I hope

), I have been tossing more and more of my shots that once I thought were great.
Does any of that make sense, if so Great, if not Ignore me

Have a glorious Sunday

ian408 · June 26, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/gallery/616144/1/26079968

Thanks for the response, Ian. I don't think I sharpened the top one much, not any of them actually, but they are all backlit, so there would be rims around things. From the light.

You're welcome.

Whether the shot is over sharpned or not, it's over proccessed. It's tough to
recover the highlights in such a shot.

In these situations, you need to consider the direction of the light and either
shift your shooting position or use some type of artificial light.

Ian

Andy · June 26, 2005

Allen wrote:

Ginger, don't despair, you have enough fine points in the shot to salvage a decent
result. Nothings blown out and there's enough detail. I hope you don't mind my
edit. It's hard to show in landscape something up high so I cropped to portrait. It gives
the sense of height.

If I tried a backlit shot like that I'd have purple edges around every leave.I wish I
had a place to visit like you do. Keep 'um coming, you've had many interesting shots.
AL

yeah allan - nice work - can you detail your steps please?

Allen · June 26, 2005

andy wrote:

yeah allan - nice work - can you detail your steps please?

Thanks Andy, using PSP9 but the best I can remember,
First I zoomed in the check focus and detail. Good
Next, find a crop that presents a good view. I thought a vertical crop tells this story.
How can such a big bird sit on those small branches at the very top and all those small
branches below point this out.
Ran very lite NeatImage. Applied some flat contrast, this seems to even out the highs
and lows esp. in backlit pics. Then fiddled with the contrast and clarify to add depth
and finally played with USM. It's realy hard to remember with all the do's and undo's. Every
picture is different so I don't have any set method. Just alot of trail and error.

ginger_55 · June 27, 2005

Allen wrote:

Thanks Andy, using PSP9 but the best I can remember,
First I zoomed in the check focus and detail. Good
Next, find a crop that presents a good view. I thought a vertical crop tells this story.
How can such a big bird sit on those small branches at the very top and all those small
branches below point this out.
Ran very lite NeatImage. Applied some flat contrast, this seems to even out the highs
and lows esp. in backlit pics. Then fiddled with the contrast and clarify to add depth
and finally played with USM. It's realy hard to remember with all the do's and undo's. Every
picture is different so I don't have any set method. Just alot of trail and error.

Yeah, me too, unless it is a rote work up, I cannot detail it all.

I have been shooting all day. exhausted. more than exhausted.

shot from 3 or so til 8, that is a range. I can barely see out of my eyes.

probably got better shots, but not on the first card, that was interesting.

thanks, allen, do like that photo, and I really appreciate you taking the time to help with it. I know why I shoot on that side, that is where the activity is. Lots of flying, but it is not close: could use a 500 easy there. If It were closer, I would not have that crummy sky to deal with. That bothers me more than the bird.

I had alot in mind when I got there today. I was reading a nature photography book yesterday, forgot the author, but it is very good. I did remember that he said the subject must be separated from the background, either by color, focus, as in DOF, or something else. Also, since it is nature work, to be successful, the work should show something about the subject's surroundings/lifestyle or something.

Than there were andy's wise words.

So, this great blue heron walked out where I could pet him, I walked backwards faster than I had been walking fwd. I took what I could with my 420 lens. Then put on the 70-200, but that was late in the game, I was afraid he would leave, and I was chimping to get memory.

I did, finally, remember, that all would be for naught if I did not walk around this easily spooked bird to get to the side the sun was falling on. I got two photos from the other side before he flew off. I would not have dared post just a backlit shot and said "here is my great heron".

Oh, I don't have a flash except the one that the camera has, no fill, my old flash is not for the 20D. But if I did, these subjects are, for the most part, too far away, and they are alive, easily spooked. I can imagine how long they would stay around if I used a flash. Peta might come get me, too, if Harry didn't get me first.

Thanks, Allen I really appreciate it.

ginger

Great White Egrets: good

Comments