Wild Adorable… Really?

[Kodiak Qc]

•


I won't argue their right to be at the marsh but their presence
is usually noisy, too numerous, and sometimes surprisingly
aggressive… read antagonistic.

For me, they are a challenge, shooting them in sunlight or in
the shade, they are difficult to render. This time, I wanted to
capture the good nature of these black birds in a darker envi-
ronment; neither being a guarantied end results.

Today, for whatever reason, things have fallen into place and
I think I'm pretty happy with these…

​

 

[hobsey]

You've done a stunning job, no detail lost at all.

 

[gramps]

Both work well Daniel

 

[Kodiak Qc]

You've done a stunning job, no detail lost at all.

Thanks, Anthony!

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Both work well Daniel

TY, Roger!

 

[Phil-D]

These are two nice detailed shots Daniel but they do look very blue, is there a reason for that? As you say, they are black birds

Reducing the blue channel looks better to my eyes on my monitor

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Reducing the blue channel looks better to my eyes on my monitor

The prismatic property of the Coot plumage will produce
hues of blues and that is natural. Known as iridescence,
light will be defracted under given angle of incidence, ob-
servable by many bird species.

Other birds, Mandarin, Pheasant, Ara…, will display more
complex iridescence but the Coot has only two from deep
blues to deeper violets.

 

[Phil-D]

So whats your explanation for the blue down the right hand side of its white head Daniel?

 

[Kodiak Qc]

o whats your explanation for the blue down the right hand side of its white head

Not an explanation but an observation.

Normal too as the bill is of pinkish colour is revealed
in a properly exposed and tonally balanced shot.

 

[Phil-D]

Can you post the shot up straight out of camera?

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•


Before formulating such a request I, personally,
would do some research on the subject.

If it is only a matter of taste, I have in my signature:
— "If personal taste is involved, discussion is pointless!

 

[Phil-D]

Before formulating such a request I, personally,
would do some research on the subject.

I did and found this video that explains it perfectly. The shadow down the side of the birds head shows as blue because of the cameras in ability to show the correct WB in both the areas of light and shadow.

I would have thought a man of your photography knowledge would have known that, instead of saying its how it looked on the day, which is impossible

I did exactly the same as described in the video, only using a layer mask in Elements 14, both have the desired affect of removing the blue, due to WB colour cast in shadows

https://vimeopro.com/jamesbrandon/10cpm14jb/video/133264848

What I don't understand Daniel, is why you offer you photos up for critique? It doesn't matter whats crit is offered you will not accept any of it, its you way or no way. This time its not about personal taste but the fact that the shot is technically wrong, its impossible for the side of the birds head to have looked blue like it does in your shot.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

I did and found this video that explains it perfectly

Good for you, Phil!

All I know is that the first was sold 16 times (11 countries)
and the second 9 times in 7 countries. Should I believe all
the AD of those magazines are just as ignorant as I am?

…/

 

[Phil-D]

All I know is that the first was sold 16 times (11 countries)
and the second 9 times in 7 countries. Should I believe all
the AD of those magazines are just as ignorant as I am?

So why offer them up for critique by hobbyist photographers, I'm not saying you shouldn't, I even started off by blowing smoke up your arse saying the were nice detailed shots, which you chose to ignore by going straight on the defensive.

Anyway, I've proved my point by posting the link, it explains what I was trying to say and its there for people to see.

I've just edit the last bit of my post as an after thought, there was no need for sarcasm on my part

 

[Littletank]

This discussion is quite interesting but is it possible that both points of view are correct? The matter of the blue cast, or whatever it is, no doubt is important in the case of an accurate representation of the bird but is of very little consequence in the case of a work of art.

 

[Phil-D]

This discussion is quite interesting but is it possible that both points of view are correct? The matter of the blue cast, or whatever it is, no doubt is important in the case of an accurate representation of the bird but is of very little consequence in the case of a work of art.

Norman, the fact the bird could well be iridescence in certain light isn't in dispute, it could well have had blue showing through the feathers. With my edit I did say that the shot looked better to me on my monitor.

The blue shadow down the side of the white head is a different matter and is a WB issues, easily corrected in pp'ing.

I can't understand why Daniel seems to think different.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•

In a PM, some moments ago, I was remembered:

— "and you have nothing to prove."​

I will answer your points, Norman, as they are legitimate

… is it possible that both points of view are correct?

No, Norman, because Phil's is based on incorrect ob-
servations.

…no doubt is important in the case of an accurate representation of the bird…

I use all the great powers of my tool and experience at
making sure that the end publication has correct values

…very little consequence in the case of a work of art.

Thanks for that, Norman, but the composition and the
final rendition would not justify, nor suffer in my book,
any imagery techniques or tweaks. As I always repeat
to my students: "Mother Nature needs no makeup."

 

[Phil-D]

In a PM, some moments ago, I was remembered:
— "and you have nothing to prove."

 

[BillN_33]

The prismatic property of the Coot plumage will produce
hues of blues and that is natural. Known as iridescence,
light will be detracted under given angle of incidence, ob-
servable by many bird species.

.

Does that comment also apply to the water Daniel

IMHO, the image is one of your usual manufactured "Marsh shots" which seem to obey their own rules as far as saturation and light is concerned .......... I have said this in other ways a number of times ....... I have never seen such natural light and colours that seem to be present "down at the Marsh"
The digital sensor has vast flexibility between black and white and hot and cold that you can play with in different parts of the images to get some wondrous effects

Coots are black

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/tenderness…-really.664007/

but I have never seen water that colour

 

[Kodiak Qc]

…

I think the thread called "Critique" recently
created — in October — should be informative.

 

[BillN_33]

I think the thread called "Critique" recently
created — in October — should be informative.

I agree, ..........................reading through your replies to the comments made by Phil ......... those were my exact thoughts

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are so many reasons things can appear "Blue" in photographs. Blue light from the sky. Reflected light and iridescence.
There almost no true blacks or whites in any scene. This is especially true of things like feathers.
The colour we see is influenced by every thing including our own power of observation.

If this shot had been taken at sunset there would undoubtedly have been influences of reds oranges and yellows to be found in both the water and feathers. Though we all know that Coots do not have those colours in their plumage.

I suggest that the shots are correct as shown.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

There are so many reasons things can appear "Blue" in photographs. Blue light from the sky. Reflected light and iridescence.

Correct.

This is especially true of things like feathers.

Correct again.

If this shot had been taken at sunset

These were taken at 12:08 and 12:10 on September13

I suggest that the shots are correct as shown.

Thank your Sir.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•

Is this the blue area spoken of? Really?

 

[BillN_33]

There are so many reasons things can appear "Blue" in photographs. Blue light from the sky. Reflected light and iridescence.

I know, in fact most people know

There almost no true blacks or whites in any scene. This is especially true of things like feathers.

maybe

The colour we see is influenced by every thing including our own power of observation.

obviously - we see what WE see

If this shot had been taken at sunset there would undoubtedly have been influences of reds oranges and yellows to be found in both the water and feathers. Though we all know that Coots do not have those colours in their plumage.

I suggest that the shots are correct as shown.

I disagree

Look at most of Daniels "down at the Marsh shots" ........ as I have said they have "Transylvanian mystery" ...... it's the combination of colours in the single image that confuses me - of course I accept different feather colours in different lights ..... I see this all the time ......... but it is the combinations that Daniel produces that I have never seen - have a look at the link that I posted

IMHO Phil is correct in his WB observations

Daniel constantly offers critique, but he never accepts as valid any given by others ...........

 

[Littletank]

I am not specifically defending Daniel but does it matter what colour the water is or the sky or the vegetation, it is the overall artistic effect that matters. Unless, of course, the image is a record shot.

 

[BillN_33]

I am not specifically defending Daniel but does it matter what colour the water is or the sky or the vegetation, it is the overall artistic effect that matters. Unless, of course, the image is a record shot.

That is true .. to a lesser or greater extent you can make any image look different from the natural quite easily ...... that's what is being debated ....... is the blue cast really there .. simple as that .......... all shots can have an element of manufacture ... as I said look at the link I posted ..... and generally the water colours that Daniel produces, down at "The Marsh"

I have not expressed at opinion on "artistic effect" - that is a very personal matter - I would just like to know the facts

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•


Again, legitimate questions, Norman.

does it matter what colour the water is or the sky or the vegetation,

To me it does matter, as in these takes, a true to nature
rendition is a must for the publishers I work for.

it is the overall artistic effect that matters.

In these cases, the value is not the artistic intent but the
usually ignored captures in such critical light conditions.

Your questions are properly legitimate and feel free to
bring them up — and don't worry about me, I can cope
with such situations.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

I would just like to know the facts

It doesn't feel like that to me. I feel like these are no
longer critiques but serving to make a point that must
be won whatever. I don't play that kind of game, sorry.

 

[BillN_33]

It doesn't fell like that to me. I feel like these are no
longer critiques but serving to make a point that must
be won whatever. I don't play that kind of game, sorry.

your call then ... artistic interpretation

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Look at most of Daniels "down at the Marsh shots" ........ as I have said they have "Transylvanian mystery" ...... it's the combination of colours in the single image that confuses me - of course I accept different feather colours in different lights ..... I see this all the time ......... but it is the combinations that Daniel produces that I have never seen - have a look at the link that I posted

IMHO Phil is correct in his WB observations

Daniel constantly offers critique, but he never accepts as valid any given by others ...........

We are well aware of your beliefs about these and other shots and I would defend your right to hold them.
However I find them of remarkably little real value, as they are too simplistic to fit the reality of these circumstances.

This argument played out many years ago with the advent of impressionists. who demonstrated that portraits were rarely composed of skin colour, but every colour of both reflected and direct light as well as visually complementary and opposite hues.

The idea that an image contains only one colour balance is completely wrong.

Of course it would be possible for @Kodiak Qc to adjust the colours to your expectations. But it would be neither the reality nor what he saw.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

When we look at what are seemingly pure black and white feathers, what we mainly see, since they have no colour of them selves, is the light reflected onto them and illuminating them,.
This will also be subject to any natural variation they might have. through wear and tear and natural fading and staining. Any spectral regions will also be subject to iridescence.
almost all the colours we see are derived from the local environment and the various colours that it reflects, supported by any direct illumination.

The colours seen in a black and white bird will inevitably be mainly that of its environment and the light falling on it at the time. These colours will change as these factors change.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

These are two nice detailed shots Daniel but they do look very blue, is there a reason for that? As you say, they are black birds

Reducing the blue channel looks better to my eyes on my monitor

View attachment 111706

You will note that in your variation there is less detail in much of the water as you have remove much of the blue channel supporting it.
It is true that you have neutralised much of the reflected blue in the feathers, but that has flattened them and lost much of the detail derived from the blueish illumination.
With the blue has gone much of the gloss, and the feathers look an unnatural flat black.
We Know the feathers of a coot are black, there is no need to falsify the colour of the ambient light to achieve a neutral black, when that was not the true situation.

The colours in the Original vary from a maroon to a iridescent deep blue. your variation has lost almost all of this.

 

[Phil-D]

Amazing, all this because I offered a little constructive criticism and edited one of Daniels shots...........in a critique section of the forum!!

 

[BillN_33]

We are well aware of your beliefs about these and other shots and I would defend your right to hold them.
However I find them of remarkably little real value, as they are too simplistic to fit the reality of these circumstances.

This argument played out many years ago with the advent of impressionists. who demonstrated that portraits were rarely composed of skin colour, but every colour of both reflected and direct light as well as visually complementary and opposite hues.

The idea that an image contains only one colour balance is completely wrong.

Of course it would be possible for @Kodiak Qc to adjust the colours to your expectations. But it would be neither the reality nor what he saw.

A Coots feathers are blackish or verging on grey, maybe with the occasional brown - I have yet to see any significant, what Daniel calls "iridescence", in a Coot's feathers in any light .... other birds yes .......but not a Coot

A good majority of Daniels "Marsh" images verge on "darkness" ..... I have said this a number of times - he processes them that way, (have a look at other examples) ............ he preaches black and white points, mid tone adjustments etc., ... but when he receives critique he never accepts it

He may be creative in his approach but that is not what is being discussed here

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Those of us who used to make our own colour prints, will remember how when you adjust the colour for a series of test prints. That as you reduce the neutral grey caused by the unbalanced colour. You reach a point when the image suddenly come to life and the colours become clear and bright. At this point the Colour balance will be at its closest to reality.
When this point is reached you also find that not only are the colours cleanest, but also the detail is greatest, and the tonal range is also at its greatest. However it by no means, means that the colour balance is totally neutral.

This is also true in Lithographic printing where one of the highest quality techniques is to use what is called under colour reduction. This involves Removing any C M and Y inks that would combine to form a neutral grey. and replace than with an equal density of black. This not only reduces the amount of ink used but considerably clarifies the image. When combined with using a stochastic screen process. it also reduces any screen patterning and increases the realism of the printing.
To a large extent variations on these techniques are used in Post processing in Digital photography, though few photographers seem aware that this is what they might be doing.

For instance the Fuji X filter on the sensor is the nearest we have to a stochastic screen. and when we adjust the colour balance we are reducing neutral grey over laying and dulling the colours and detail.
It is just another way of looking at white balance.

 

[BillN_33]

Those of us who used to make our own colour prints, will remember how when you adjust the colour for a series of test prints. That as you reduce the neutral grey caused by the unbalanced colour. You reach a point when the image suddenly come to life and the colours become clear and bright. At this point the Colour balance will be at its closest to reality.
When this point is reached you also find that not only are the colours cleanest, but also the detail is greatest, and the tonal range is also at its greatest. However it by no means, means that the colour balance is totally neutral.

This is also true in Lithographic printing where one of the highest quality techniques is to use what is called under colour reduction. This involves Removing any C M and Y inks that would combine to form a neutral grey. and replace than with an equal density of black. This not only reduces the amount of ink used but considerably clarifies the image. When combined with using a stochastic screen process. it also reduces any screen patterning and increases the realism of the printing.
To a large extent variations on these techniques are used in Post processing in Digital photography, though few photographers seem aware that this is what they might be doing.

For instance the Fuji X filter on the sensor is the nearest we have to a stochastic screen. and when we adjust the colour balance we are reducing neutral grey over laying and dulling the colours and detail.
It is just another way of looking at white balance.

so is this a true reflection, (excuse the pun) of the water that Daniels saw?

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/tenderness…-really.664007/

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Amazing, all this because I offered a little constructive criticism and edited one of Daniels shots...........in a critique section of the forum!!

Surely we are all allowed our opinions too.... clearly you do no like yours to be criticised.
I do not mind in the least what you think about my observations. or what you might care to add to them.
This is how we learn about other opinions.
At that point we can accept them or discard them... the choices are our own.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Reducing the blue channel looks better to my eyes on my monitor

Amazing, all this because I offered a little constructive criticism and edited one of Daniels shots

Constructive you say?

I sent to my agent a full version that look exactly like Phil's proposal.
He forwarded it to all the clients and four have answered already…

Münich
Wir würden nicht Ihre Prämienpreise für diese Art von Scheiße zahlen

We would not pay your premium fee for this type of shyt
​

Lyon
J'espère que vous n'êtes pas sérieux Monsieur Daniel!

I hope you are not serious Mr. Daniel!
​

Bern
Hier in der Schweiz sehen unsere Blässhuhn wie die erste Version aus. Wir wissen nicht, von welchem Planeten diese neue Version kommt

Here in Switzerland, our Coots are looking like the first version. We don't know from wich planet this new version comes from
​

Valencia
¿Que es eso? ¡Nunca podría publicar tales cosas!

What is that? I could never publish that picture!
​

so is this a true reflection, (excuse the pun) of the water that Daniels saw?

Yes, the sky was so intense that morning. I never use
vibrance, saturation or alike.

 

[Phil-D]

Surely we are all allowed our opinions too

Yes Terry, I'm confused why you think we are not?

clearly you do no like yours to be criticised.

You could not be further from the truth, the only reason I post any image in the forum is for crit, what makes you think different?

I do not mind in the least what you think about my observations. or what you might care to add to them.

What makes you think anything I've wrote is aimed at you? I haven't quoted any of your posts.

This is how we learn about other opinions.

Agree

At that point we can accept them or discard them... the choices are our own.

Agree

At this point I can't understand the reason for your post after quoting mine but as you say, we are all entitled to quote and post what we like, if I wasn't confused before........I am now!!!