Florida Scrub Jay

S

SKM

Messages
3,119
Edit My Images
No
Due to loss of habitat there are few places to spot these very confiding birds. This one landed by the car as we were about to leave the location and I only had my 24-105 lens on the camera. No problem though as he stayed very close, full frame at less than 2 metres

Stan

34869480480_0199148669_o.jpg
 
•


…some details in the shadows that count for
+/- 10% of the shot but little details in the high
keys that cover 80% + of the take!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


…some details in the shadows that count for
+/- 10% of the shot but little details in the high
keys that cover 80% + of the take!
Click to expand...

When I viewed this earlier on my laptop I might have agreed with you Daniel but I know that when viewing on my laptop, images look very bright and detail is lost.

Viewing now on my monitor, recently calibrated, I can't see any part of the bird where detail is lost.

Here's a screen shot showing the histograms, I'm no expert on reading them, but no where does it show detail is lost but I'n happy to stand corrected if you can show different.

Every time we have this, I do wonder if its just down to the devices we view on and you are viewing things a lot brighter than I am Daniel

screen shot stans bird.jpg


After all that, lovely looking bird Stan, very unusual and detail looks spot on to me (y)
 
Phil-D said:
I do wonder if its just down to the devices we view on and you are viewing things a lot brighter than I am
Click to expand...


The screen shot is exactly what I see and
the joined histograms reflect perfectly the
STTR approach.

BTW, I said nothing of the bird as birds are
of no interest to me since I'm not a birder but
a photographer. The subject is only a part of
the image; that includes the environment too.

As a photographer, I see this image as a re-
cord document for possible working purposes
only as it offers no visual pleasures but only
information.

I would have liked so much to discuss these!
 
@Kodiak Qc

So where on the histogram does it show detail is lost, genuine question because I can't see any loss of detail any where on the shot, apart from that cause by dof.
 
Thanks Phil

I really dont understand what Daniel is getting at here, my screen like your is calibrated and the exposure relates to the scene on the day, the road which is a large part of the scene is just a light dirt road and the only darker tones in the image are the birds blue feathers, so the histogram is just right with the bias of lighter tones towards the right.

What is the STTR approach ? Serious question - these initials may be fine for Daniels students but on here explain in proper words.:D:D

I do also wonder whether Daniel is looking at and processing on a calibrated monitor as many of his images seem to be underexposed and lacking shadow detail - an observation not a criticism

Stan
 
This is an interesting one, it raises the issue of producing 'as was' or 'best we can make of it'.
The histograms show that no detail has been lost but the image shows that detail has not been used to the best advantage (depending on your view of my first sentence).
By using ACR/Levels/Curves that detail can be enhanced and provide what some may consider a more pleasing image but one that is not exactly as seen in the light at the time.
One of the reasons for ETTR (or STTR as Daniel calls it) is to maximise detail by recovering highlights with resulting less noise than comes from recovering from shadow ... eg

View attachment 104024


Personally I prefer the 'recovered' option in these situations (not saying my edit is better than Stan's original) but I understand the opposing view ... whatever, it's nice to see a different colourful bird :)
 
Last edited:
thanks for looking Roger

I understand the concept of shooting to the right which is what my histogram shows. Sometimes shooting and producing a properly exposed image as it was does not always work and tweaks are needed to show the bird in its natural colours, however in this case I think it is spot on. I did wonder if I had got the birds colour correct, is the blue too muted for example but looking at various images on the internet, the vast majority, shot in differing lights are very similar to what I have shown. With common birds you know what they are supposed to look like but with a species one has not seen in the flesh it is much more difficult

Stan
 
gramps said:
This is an interesting one, it raises the issue of producing 'as was' or 'best we can make of it'.
The histograms show that no detail has been lost but the image shows that detail has not been used to the best advantage (depending on your view of my first sentence).
By using ACR/Levels/Curves that detail can be enhanced and provide what some may consider a more pleasing image but one that is not exactly as seen in the light at the time.
One of the reasons for ETTR (or STTR as Daniel calls it) is to maximise detail by recovering highlights with resulting less noise than comes from recovering from shadow ... eg

View attachment 104024


Personally I prefer the 'recovered' option in these situations (not saying my edit is better than Stan's original) but I understand the opposing view ... whatever, it's nice to see a different colourful bird :)
Click to expand...

Looks over processed now to me Roger, blues look over saturated and the over all image looks harsh. I think being shot in high bright sun hasn't helped but Stans edit works perfect for the conditions :)
 
Last edited:
I've never seen one Stan so I cannot give any authoritative comment on colour but checking with Google results for the bird they all show greater depth of colour e.g. (http://refugeassociation.org)

scrub-jay-merritt-island-nwr-jack-rogers1.jpg


The lighter coloured feather to the chest/underside could easily lose detail when captured in bright sunlight ('as-was') but when exposed to the right (as yours was) enables that detail to be recovered, showing what appears to be the correct colouring for the species. I can't find a really light image on the first page of Google results ... but it's only my observation as critique for the photo. :)
 
gramps said:
results for the bird they all show greater depth of colour
Click to expand...


…brilliant demonstration!

Neither have I ever seen the bird in person!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
…but it was already
Click to expand...

Only in your opinion not mine ;)

This is becoming a little tiresome now Daniel, lets agree to disagree. Its obvious we see things totally different.

You make some very bold statements, the quote above being one of them. What you need to start adding, is that's only your opinion, not a fact!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top