Seed Pop

BirdPhotographers.net

Help Support BirdPhotographers.net:

Brian Sump

Avian Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
BPN Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
2,837
Location
Golden, CO
20240704-untitled-Brian-Sump-20240704-untitled-Brian-Sump-_SR69517-Enhanced-NR-Edit-CROP-2-3-24.jpg


The Lesser (and American, not shown here) Goldfinches absolutely love the thistleweed plants as the blooms fade and the seeds begin to release.

Watching these guys pluck them out is quite fun. A male shown here, which are quite a bit more attractive than the more drab females.... that's common of course.

R6
840mm
Handheld
ISO 2500
1/4000
f7.1

LR and PS.
 
Brian it looks good but I think the yellows are blown, I tried Point color -10 Saturation and -7 Luminance I suspect you don't like it bit I think perhaps better detail.
 
Brian it looks good but I think the yellows are blown, I tried Point color -10 Saturation and -7 Luminance I suspect you don't like it bit I think perhaps better detail.

Hi Jon.

Blown? Nah, just a little saturated in the red channel. It happens to me most times when I downsize and it's hard to avoid. Several of Steve's images have the same effect as I've discovered.

I think it's a matter of what we're trying to achieve. Certainly, one could grab the red channel and/or desat the yellows a bit but my question is - when you see a bird with a bright colored breast or head (i.e. Goldfinch, Lazuli Bunting) in a nice, warm morning sunlight, what does the eye see? Does it see every single feather in the breast?

Admittedly, I have come a long way in PP (most of us here have) thanks to the collective feedback. My main goals now are to limit contrast and not overcook the blacks. Do we like bright, rich colors? Yep, you bet especially because the USA light is more rich as you know... :t3
 
Hi Brian,

Some questions:

- As it stands for me, it's a bit sparse ie BOAS, albeit that it's eating a seed, so I just wonder if there was some other elements that could have 'peppered' or have been introduced into the frame just to add some interest in the BRG, but others may argue not???

- Is the image cropped or FF, it would be good to know as no one adds this in these days, as this can have an effect re IQ/sharpening. I thought you had the R5, not the R6 with only 20mpx.

- Was the image under exposed, the reason I ask is there appears to be this odd looking colouration in the Darks/Blacks of the plumage, hinting that things may be under exposed albeit as presented it could go more in terms of exposure, (no idea on this bird colouring however, looks a bit like our Siskin).

- There is detail in the feathers of the yellow breast plumage at 100%, no idea on what Jon calls/refers to as 'blown', but what you may have done in PP could well of increase the bleed of the colour to achieve the end result. Without seeing the raw, it hard to offer options is what is the best route to reflect/render the yellow part of the plumage, obviously Ps rather than Lr, but...

I think it's a matter of what we're trying to achieve. Certainly, one could grab the red channel and/or desat the yellows a bit but my question is - when you see a bird with a bright colored breast or head (i.e. Goldfinch, Lazuli Bunting) in a nice, warm morning sunlight, what does the eye see? Does it see every single feather in the breast?

But are you not then making a Global change and is this the correct adjustment? Could it have been 'pushed' through other edits within your PP workflow? What ISO are your eyes working too when looking at the subject compared to a camera? Certainly viewing without a camera you won't see all the finer detail the camera will collect, ie like the fine hairs around a Kestrels eye.

All you can do is render an image as close to what we think Brian, but this goes back IMHO to viewing on non 4k and 4k. 4k makes everything incredibly bright, vibrant, rich colours, super sharp, but in truth the colours are more muted ie may be 75% of folks interpretation. This is why some folk passed comment that my style is thin/washed out (words to that effect), but in fact they are closer to the actual subject from my perspective. It's an old chestnut which I'm not debating, just an overview.

Brian, more questions than answers, but I think worth asking.

TFS
Steve
 
Hi Steve, speaking of the good old days, whatever happened to this kind of stuff around here "I really like this and that, great work to get ____ and ____ to pop, etc. A couple ways you might be able to improve are _____" :t3

Haha. All good, the questions are fine and I'm glad to chime in.

Hi Brian,

Some questions:

- As it stands for me, it's a bit sparse ie BOAS, albeit that it's eating a seed, so I just wonder if there was some other elements that could have 'peppered' or have been introduced into the frame just to add some interest in the BRG, but others may argue not???

- Is the image cropped or FF, it would be good to know as no one adds this in these days, as this can have an effect re IQ/sharpening. I thought you had the R5, not the R6 with only 20mpx.

- Was the image under exposed, the reason I ask is there appears to be this odd looking colouration in the Darks/Blacks of the plumage, hinting that things may be under exposed albeit as presented it could go more in terms of exposure, (no idea on this bird colouring however, looks a bit like our Siskin).

- There is detail in the feathers of the yellow breast plumage at 100%, no idea on what Jon calls/refers to as 'blown', but what you may have done in PP could well of increase the bleed of the colour to achieve the end result. Without seeing the raw, it hard to offer options is what is the best route to reflect/render the yellow part of the plumage, obviously Ps rather than Lr, but...



But are you not then making a Global change and is this the correct adjustment? Could it have been 'pushed' through other edits within your PP workflow? What ISO are your eyes working too when looking at the subject compared to a camera? Certainly viewing without a camera you won't see all the finer detail the camera will collect, ie like the fine hairs around a Kestrels eye.

All you can do is render an image as close to what we think Brian, but this goes back IMHO to viewing on non 4k and 4k. 4k makes everything incredibly bright, vibrant, rich colours, super sharp, but in truth the colours are more muted ie may be 75% of folks interpretation. This is why some folk passed comment that my style is thin/washed out (words to that effect), but in fact they are closer to the actual subject from my perspective. It's an old chestnut which I'm not debating, just an overview.

Brian, more questions than answers, but I think worth asking.

TFS
Steve

This is pretty much the bkg as it was. I did take out a leaf from another thistle on the left after the crop but not much else to go for.

This was also in the wild, and it was not a set up so I was quite pleased tbh.

The image was indeed cropped to around 4k pixels on the long edge. Not extreme but I was pretty close.

I did have an R5 AND and R6, as we often use the R6 for family stuff. I sold my R5 a month ago and got on the list for the R5ii so using the R6 for now.

The image was exposed pretty well IMO. Here is the frame right next to it (I didn't want to reset my o.g. settings to screenshot)

Screen Shot 2024-07-20 at 8.05.34 AM.png


Lesser GF.jpg


The only global adjustments for color were WB, then I removed a bunch of yellow overcast globally toward the end. I asked you about this and you don't have an issue but most of my frames in sunlight have a yellow cast, which you have commented on the past (images need a slight adjust on the overall colors in the subject vs bkg many times), so I adjust that.

I get the points on detail on 4k. At some point weighing out sat of colors, extracting contrast, etc all factor in. Your Kingfishers had really nice colors IMO and I understand using diff blend modes helps with that, which I now use more and more. And making sure to set the curves layers to luminosity if not selecting a different blend mode in order to ensure there's no color shift.

Anyways, I feel good about the progress but we're all on some sort of journey....
 
Hi Brian, halcyon days, but I do wonder where another guy went, often posted with you, an older gentleman I think, but joined around the same time???

Not sure about the R6, unless budget dictated, I would have kept the R5 & gone for the R3, best of both worlds. R5 MK2 looks impressive and perhaps the true Flagship, the R1 is the R3 MK2, but neither a Flagship when you consider perhaps the Z9 or A1, but the Z9 I have been incredibly impressed with all round. The R5 MK2 will arrive sooner, so enjoy, just make sure you set it up correctly, but from what I have seen, it's not too far off the old R5, just with an additional menu. I would think about the battery grip, not the air cooled one, but it just feels nicer in the had and will chew up batteries. Stick a 512 card in, you will need it for sure and more storage space too, you will shoot far more than you think.

OK, back to the Q&A's :bg3:

This is pretty much the bkg as it was. I did take out a leaf from another thistle on the left after the crop but not much else to go for.

The edits is neither here nor there, it just seemed a bit sterile if you know what I mean, a bit like Jon's WP, but less so. I just felt it needed a little more variation in the BKG to add even more authenticity as I do think it looks a bit set up in its appearance, just my take, again others will happily disagree.

The image was indeed cropped to around 4k pixels on the long edge. Not extreme but I was pretty close.

My assumption based on 4086px wide was cropped to about 75% of the image which isn't huge as you said, it's just folk crop hard and then wonder why the IQ had gone. The R52 will be nice and if in the right light - awesome.

The image was exposed pretty well IMO. Here is the frame right next to it (I didn't want to reset my o.g. settings to screenshot)

The true way is with Raw digger, I bet you had another 2/3rds to go, the more you get used to reading the Histogram in camera the better, once capture that's it sort of, but generally you have a whole stop to play with. Lr & Ps will show things are clipped when they are not, they just can't render things correctly. I had an image where it looked blown on a leg, on inspection data was there but Lr could not fix, so you use alternative options.

1/4000 was this for BIF, dropped to 1/2500, ISO would be lower, better IQ to a degree.

The only global adjustments for color were WB, then I removed a bunch of yellow overcast globally toward the end. I asked you about this and you don't have an issue but most of my frames in sunlight have a yellow cast, which you have commented on the past (images need a slight adjust on the overall colors in the subject vs bkg many times), so I adjust that.

I'm trying to get my head around this Brian and I can't as I just don't understand 'removed a bunch of yellow globally'.

First question when do you do the WB as this may affect things.

It's hard to a degree in Lr ton achieve a good WB but, my WF has changed quite a while back so the whole set up has changed from Camera to PP, but don't get hung up about what I do.

If you are shooting in 'Golden light' it does create some awesome lighting, but to me you should still see the real colours if that makes sense, its hard to explain without seeing your raw, only then do you get to understand what you see and any additional casts you refer to and why you do things. I'm just thinking every action has a consequence and what you are doing, is the correct route????

If I take my Raws into Photo Mechanic for the first edit they look crap in terms of colour, just Walt Disney on steroids with a truck load of Contrast thrown in, but that's just the Software and I never judge it there.

Without getting too bogged down, just think about the image in layers and so the bird and seed head are one range of tones, the FG & BG are two other separate 'tones' in terms of light????

I get the points on detail on 4k. At some point weighing out sat of colors, extracting contrast, etc all factor in. Your Kingfishers had really nice colors IMO and I understand using diff blend modes helps with that, which I now use more and more. And making sure to set the curves layers to luminosity if not selecting a different blend mode in order to ensure there's no color shift.

I never really edit it on the MBPro because of the screen, edits or just to see are fine, but for me it all looks to glossy and Hollywood. The KF were easy, but I feel I would over bake if I had a 4k screen, somehow the non 4k reflect more true colours to my eyes and these have been looking at images since the mid '90's albeit advertising in the first half, so perhaps are either tired., or just used to seeing the rendering.

Layers, Curves & Blend modes to a degree, but I fear you are following a huge rabbit hole feeling the images need more in depth, where in some cases they don't and can look better with less.

My Leopards had minimal adjustments and about three adjustments in Ps, the ones in dappled light not posted here took a little more time, but again not complicated in execution but all simple manipulations. So, I would question each step Brian, is it needed, why are you doing it, will the image benefit or not?
 
Hi Brian, halcyon days, but I do wonder where another guy went, often posted with you, an older gentleman I think, but joined around the same time???

Not sure about the R6, unless budget dictated, I would have kept the R5 & gone for the R3, best of both worlds. R5 MK2 looks impressive and perhaps the true Flagship, the R1 is the R3 MK2, but neither a Flagship when you consider perhaps the Z9 or A1, but the Z9 I have been incredibly impressed with all round. The R5 MK2 will arrive sooner, so enjoy, just make sure you set it up correctly, but from what I have seen, it's not too far off the old R5, just with an additional menu. I would think about the battery grip, not the air cooled one, but it just feels nicer in the had and will chew up batteries. Stick a 512 card in, you will need it for sure and more storage space too, you will shoot far more than you think.

Do you mean Kurt Bowman? I think he's been having a few health issues and maybe not getting out as much. Might have been disenchanted too because sometimes the feedback here can be less than inviting and unhelpful.

I hear that actually, but I like the R6 with the lower MP and can be better in low light. Guess it could have gone either way.

So you're shooting Nikon AND Canon currently?

Good info on the grip, definitely will get it and the new batteries. I do have the 512 card currently.

OK, back to the Q&A's :bg3:



The edits is neither here nor there, it just seemed a bit sterile if you know what I mean, a bit like Jon's WP, but less so. I just felt it needed a little more variation in the BKG to add even more authenticity as I do think it looks a bit set up in its appearance, just my take, again others will happily disagree.

I mean, I could brush in some mottling or gradient in some mottling I guess but it's as it was :)

I'm trying to get my head around this Brian and I can't as I just don't understand 'removed a bunch of yellow globally'.

First question when do you do the WB as this may affect things.

It's hard to a degree in Lr ton achieve a good WB but, my WF has changed quite a while back so the whole set up has changed from Camera to PP, but don't get hung up about what I do.

If you are shooting in 'Golden light' it does create some awesome lighting, but to me you should still see the real colours if that makes sense, its hard to explain without seeing your raw, only then do you get to understand what you see and any additional casts you refer to and why you do things. I'm just thinking every action has a consequence and what you are doing, is the correct route????

If I take my Raws into Photo Mechanic for the first edit they look crap in terms of colour, just Walt Disney on steroids with a truck load of Contrast thrown in, but that's just the Software and I never judge it there.

Without getting too bogged down, just think about the image in layers and so the bird and seed head are one range of tones, the FG & BG are two other separate 'tones' in terms of light????

Not sure here. I'm going to play around more with Levels by color channel. That might help.

Layers, Curves & Blend modes to a degree, but I fear you are following a huge rabbit hole feeling the images need more in depth, where in some cases they don't and can look better with less.

My Leopards had minimal adjustments and about three adjustments in Ps, the ones in dappled light not posted here took a little more time, but again not complicated in execution but all simple manipulations. So, I would question each step Brian, is it needed, why are you doing it, will the image benefit or not?

Oh, but we like the rabbit holes so much Steve :t3
 

Latest posts

Back
Top