Mallard Hen, Lake Miramar, San Diego CA

[Roger Smith]

Canon 5D MIV, 300 f.28 I, 300mm, f2.8, ISO 320, 1/3200

 

[John Mack]

Solid image off this hen. The low angle is nice. Exposure looks a little bright here. The comp works well.

 

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Roger,

Yes to too bright. The sun from our left is less than ideal -- that is what caused the shadow on her back. Try to have your shadow pointed within 10-15 degrees of the bird. This bird looks as if it has some other-than-Mallard genes ...

with love, artie

 

[Roger Smith]

Thank you so much Artie and Mack, I took the advice and tried to rework the image. Totally appreciate the sun angle reminder Artie!

 

[Arthur Morris]

• Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 Macintosh

Better. But the image is still considerably over-exposed. See the next pane. I used the Spot Healing Brush on the specular highlights on the breast and I added CYAN to the REDs in Selective Color ...

 

[Arthur Morris]

• Flash not fired
• Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)

You can see the over-exposure in the screen capture here. Note that the histogram climbing up the right hand wall shows that the REDs are without detail, i.e. > 255, 255, 255. I am betting that the image could be salvaged if you start over and convert the image correctly ... If you like, shoot me the RAW file to my [email protected] address using a large file transfer service.

with love, artie

 

[Roger Smith]

Many, many thanks Artie. You've given me allot to think about with respect to my editing process. I've been pushing exposure when printing images because I've coming up with dark printed images. I've re-run my Spyder calibration and dropped the brightness on my monitor. But I've definitely not paid enough attention to the RGB values in the histogram. I'll be sure to do so. REALLY appreciate it!

 

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Roger, You are welcome. Just the basics Pushing the exposure to the right is a good strategy as long as you do not over-expose the image. You did that here. As I said, most times somewhat over-exposed RAW files can be saved if you know what you are doing ... Checking the RGB values should be the first thing that you do when you convert an image. Heck, every image. I would urge you to make Digital Basics II your post-processing bible. Learn more here.

I'd still love to get my hands on the RAW file and see if it is save-able ...

with love, artie

 

[Arthur Morris]

• Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
• EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM
• ƒ/2.8
• 300mm
• 1/3200s
• ISO 320
• Flash not fired
• 32.913923333333
• -117.09982166667
• 2239m above sea level
• Sat, 11 August 2018 6:00 PM
• Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 Macintosh

Roger,

Thanks for sending the ARW file. You are a bad man. When I wrote the original Digital Basics a zillion years ago, part of the sales pitch was that too many good photographers were ruining there good images in Photoshop. That is what you have done here. You introduced the hot REDs and the overexposure. The exposure of your RAW file was spot on. I converted it without much fanfare in ACR -- I am getting too lazy to use DPP 4 -- and did not do much in Photoshop aside from eliminating the specular highlights on the breast and lightening the duck's back. I would urge you to get yourself a copy of the vastly updated Digital Basics III by clicking here.

With love, artie

ps: LMK if you would like me to send you my optimized version.

 

[Roger Smith]

Artie, you are the best. And still the teacher I see! Lots to work through here for me but lesson learned. And I'll be sure to practice. This really shows me the value of posting on this site, rather than relying on a bunch of "likes" in other places that make you feel good about yourself, but never help you develop as a photographer.
Thank you again! I owe you lunch at "Islands" next time you are in San Diego
Roger
PS, I received your message, but if you needed the email its [email protected]

 

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for your kind words and your willingness to learn.

with love, artie