Critique Little Owl - Keep or Bin?

[RedRobin]

When you are walking home after an all-day session and you suddenly hear and then spot an Owl but the sun has disappeared below the horizon 20 minutes ago and it's also been a dull day, what do you do? < Give it a shot of course! Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

It was handheld leaning on a rock at only 1/15s and ISO 3200 on Olympus E-M1X + ED 100-400mm + 1.4x. The image is uncropped but the Owl is distant and shot at max zoom (1120mm FF equivalent).

If you had shot this image would you keep it or bin it?

EDIT : See Reply #17 for an improved version.

LITTLE OWL AFTER SUNDOWN by Robin Procter, on Flickr

I have to say I am impressed with the Olympus performance and have decided to keep it but with the knowledge it's not one of my best Little Owl photos. Same location, different day and year :

LITTLE OWLS BIG LOVE by Robin Procter, on Flickr

 

[Deleted member 3428]

It's a good record shot Robin, I would keep a jpeg version as a record. I do like to record what I see around my local area.

 

[Box Brownie]

When you are walking home after an all-day session and you suddenly hear and then spot an Owl but the sun has disappeared below the horizon 20 minutes ago and it's also been a dull day, what do you do? < Give it a shot of course! Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

It was handheld leaning on a rock at only 1/15s and ISO 3200 on Olympus E-M1X + ED 100-400mm + 1.4x. The image is uncropped but the Owl is distant and shot at max zoom (1120mm FF equivalent).

If you had shot this image would you keep it or bin it?

LITTLE OWL AFTER SUNDOWN by Robin Procter, on Flickr

I have to say I am impressed with the Olympus performance and have decided to keep it but with the knowledge it's not one of my best Little Owl photos. Same location, different day and year :

LITTLE OWLS BIG LOVE by Robin Procter, on Flickr

In comparison to the lovely frame filler it is more of a record shot but looking at zoomed in on the phone the LO looks sharp......so more of an environmental record shot

It's a good record shot Robin, I would keep a jpeg version as a record. I do like to record what I see around my local area.

 

[the black fox]

robin I dont know why but you seem to be struggling in your p.p lately , there is a aurora around this bird that looks really weird . and the noise is prevalent in the sky detail . I do realise that its a difficult shot and would be hard for anyone to pull back and I admire you attempting it . but possibly a bridge to far

 

[RedRobin]

robin I dont know why but you seem to be struggling in your p.p lately , there is a aurora around this bird that looks really weird . and the noise is prevalent in the sky detail . I do realise that its a difficult shot and would be hard for anyone to pull back and I admire you attempting it . but possibly a bridge to far

.... I used your favourite Topaz DeNoise AI for this one and noticed a slight patchiness. I'm not sure yet how the bird's aura has manifested itself but Owls are said to be very wise
I'll try p-p on another version and see if I can polish the turd.

Do you really think that my post-processing is struggling lately? :

WREN ON A COLD FROSTY EARLY MORNING by Robin Procter, on Flickr

I think it's only struggling on the ones which are questionable whether to keep.

 

[popcorn]

I'd be over the moon... I've been looking for, and failing to find, Little Owls for months!

 

[Phil-D]

I'd keep it Robin..........I have 1000's of crap, sorry, record shots of owls cluttering up my HD's, why shouldn't you!

 

[the black fox]

.... I used your favourite Topaz DeNoise AI for this one and noticed a slight patchiness. I'm not sure yet how the bird's aura has manifested itself but Owls are said to be very wise
I'll try p-p on another version and see if I can polish the turd.

Do you really think that my post-processing is struggling lately? :

WREN ON A COLD FROSTY EARLY MORNING by Robin Procter, on Flickr

I think it's only struggling on the ones which are questionable whether to keep.

Yes agree there robin , but you know I will tell you the truth rather than the kings new clothes version . The wren is 85% fine apart from a slight blurring on the breast which could be down to d.o.f . I stopped using the 1.4 with the present weather /light conditions to but hoping that will pick up through the year

 

[sk66]

I only keep images if they are at least equal in quality to what I already have in my portfolio... hopefully better.

 

[dragonfly]

Pretty much what Steven said. I keep slimming my own library and it's not easy. Good effort though.

 

[RedRobin]

Yes agree there robin , but you know I will tell you the truth rather than the kings new clothes version . The wren is 85% fine apart from a slight blurring on the breast which could be down to d.o.f . I stopped using the 1.4 with the present weather /light conditions to but hoping that will pick up through the year

..... Yes, I do appreciate your honesty in your opinions.

The "slight blurring on the breast" is possibly down to DoF but not when you see it elsewhere - It may be DoF but is more likely to be the fact that the Wren was fluttering his breast feathers in the cold. Or it could even be the cold northerly breeze which there was. Either way and being honest myself, I have to say that I find it disappointing when a picture is judged in such technical detail which tends to be common here on TP. There is much more to a satisfying result than just technical IQ, IMHO.

If I have any criticism of some not all of your Fieldfare photos it's that they are so pristine that they sometimes don't look real - I still love them though. But that's only my personal opinion and it amounts to diddly squat.

 

[RedRobin]

I only keep images if they are at least equal in quality to what I already have in my portfolio... hopefully better.

.... I think most of us continually strive and aspire to achieving 'better' images but sometimes an image can be all about a memory it evokes and not just about cold technical 'perfection'.

 

[Dale.]

Keep!

Why not? it's a memory at the very least and in a few year's time, you'd probably regret deleting it. Even a full size JPEG won't take up much room on your HD.

 

[the black fox]

..... Yes, I do appreciate your honesty in your opinions.

The "slight blurring on the breast" is possibly down to DoF but not when you see it elsewhere - It may be DoF but is more likely to be the fact that the Wren was fluttering his breast feathers in the cold. Or it could even be the cold northerly breeze which there was. Either way and being honest myself, I have to say that I find it disappointing when a picture is judged in such technical detail which tends to be common here on TP. There is much more to a satisfying result than just technical IQ, IMHO.

If I have any criticism of some not all of your Fieldfare photos it's that they are so pristine that they sometimes don't look real - I still love them though. But that's only my personal opinion and it amounts to diddly squat.

no problem mate known each other to long . jealous of the frosty branches though just cold wet and murky up here weird weather. my best image memories are long gone but she was gorgeous at the time ,nudge nudge wink wink ya know what I mean

 

[superpippo]

I would keep it, mainly because I have never seen one and, given the circumstances that you describe I think that it is very creditable.
I like environmental shots and often I prefer them.
I agree with jeff @the black fox that there is a bit of a glow around the bird but I don'have the knowledge as to what that might be. The sky generally looks bit strange, again, probaably because of the circumstances that you describe.

The wren shot is charming

 

[Phil-D]

Even a full size JPEG won't take up much room on your HD.

I even keep the bl**dy raw file Dale! :banghead::banghead:

I only keep images if they are at least equal in quality to what I already have in my portfolio... hopefully better.

Spoken as a true photographer Steven but............last breeding season, for the first time, I've found myself going back and looking at a lot of me old crap record shots of the Long-eared owls to compare feather detail/ patterns and, sadly enough, found it quite interesting.


Also last year we had a ringed female, she was the 1st at this particular site in the 6 years I've been watching them. I only know because I went back through 100's of photos just to double check I hadn't missed the ring in previous years.

Point I'm making is, as a photographer I'd have probably deleted 1000's but that bit of birder and massive interest I have in the LEO's, makes me save them

 

[RedRobin]

I would keep it, mainly because I have never seen one and, given the circumstances that you describe I think that it is very creditable.
I like environmental shots and often I prefer them.
I agree with jeff @the black fox that there is a bit of a glow around the bird but I don'have the knowledge as to what that might be. The sky generally looks bit strange, again, probaably because of the circumstances that you describe.

The wren shot is charming

.... Thanks Alan and also thanks Jeff @the black fox who as usual has inspired me to have another go at processing it. This is the result :

LITTLE OWL AFTER SUNDOWN by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ ^ ^ I have reduced the colour saturation and also removed a subtle vignette, both of which have improved the sky. It's still not my best Little Owl image but I had never heard a Little Owl call for so long, a good 5 minutes! This image will always remind me of those moments.

Keep!

Why not? it's a memory at the very least and in a few year's time, you'd probably regret deleting it. Even a full size JPEG won't take up much room on your HD.

 

[sk66]

.... I think most of us continually strive and aspire to achieving 'better' images but sometimes an image can be all about a memory it evokes and not just about cold technical 'perfection'.

If I don't have an image that evokes that feeling/memory then it would automatically be better than what I have in my portfolio... I didn't qualify "better."
But, if it is a really marginal image, I would have to have a strong personal attachment in order to keep it...

 

[Dale.]

I even keep the bl**dy raw file Dale! :banghead::banghead:

Me too Phil, as well as 16 bit TIFFs of anything I process and a web prepared, usually 2048 x whatever JPEGS. I often hear my hard drive creaking.



I will go back to images from the last few months or so, usually unprocessed RAWS and review them. If they are samey or just obviously not going to work, unless they have some kind of emotional or memory provoking value, I will delete them at that stage. I call them sitters as opposed to keepers.

I don't think a keeper has to necessarily have technical image qualities, if it provokes a memory or emotion, then I'd keep it, even if it's not a particularly good image wise. I think Robin's image is definately memory provoking for him and should be kept.

If it was my image, I'd keep it, as I don't have any of Little Owls.

 

[pooley]

Sadly, for me its a 'bin' Robin.

If it was your first little owl then I'd keep it as record shot, but not once you've shown us that other shot.

Mike

 

[RedRobin]

Me too Phil, as well as 16 bit TIFFs of anything I process and a web prepared, usually 2048 x whatever JPEGS. I often hear my hard drive creaking.

I will go back to images from the last few months or so, usually unprocessed RAWS and review them. If they are samey or just obviously not going to work, unless they have some kind of emotional or memory provoking value, I will delete them at that stage. I call them sitters as opposed to keepers.

I don't think a keeper has to necessarily have technical image qualities, if it provokes a memory or emotion, then I'd keep it, even if it's not a particularly good image wise. I think Robin's image is definately memory provoking for him and should be kept.

If it was my image, I'd keep it, as I don't have any of Little Owls.

.... Initially I load all my images onto an external hard drive and then cull and colour code in FastRaw Viewer. The chosen ones (I only shoot RAW) are then moved into my Capture One Catalog on my desktop Mac and then adjusted and post-processed and finally exported as JPEGs at 2048px longest side.

I like your term 'sitters' and I have sitters as well as keepers which keep both the RAW and any TIFF files.

You seem to be one of the few photographers here who appreciates that images can be valid to keep when they evoke fond memories. However, there is an IQ standard below which I will bin even if they have good memories. But we each have our own individual preferences.

I have quite a few photos of Little Owls because I am lucky enough to know where they are locally but they are still quite elusive, at least my local ones are.

 

[RedRobin]

Sadly, for me its a 'bin' Robin.

If it was your first little owl then I'd keep it as record shot, but not once you've shown us that other shot.

Mike

Hi Mike,

We each have our own individual preferences and criteria for judging both our own photographic efforts and those of others.

Personally, I never keep something just for the record if it falls below my own set standard. I don't submit records of any wildlife species no matter how rare and I don't publish their exact location or go anywhere near Twatter! I tend to have a strong dislike of twitchers and birders if they don't give comfortable distance and respect to wildlife, which far too many don't.

I think that we all strive as photographers to better our previous shots but for me it's as much about capturing the memory of that moment in time - As long as a shot isn't absolutely obvious rubbish!

As said in my original post, I had to give it a go in spite of no tripod and being 20 minutes after the sun has gone below the horizon. As much as anything I was testing my Olympus E-M1X currently industry-leading image stabilisation and autofocussing in very low light.

I have now added a sky and I wonder if this was the first version of this image I had published, how it would be judged

LITTLE OWL HERALDING THE SUNSET by Robin Procter, on Flickr

 

[davidy233]

I have now added a sky and I wonder if this was the first version of this image I had published, how it would be judged

Pic with original sky is much better Robin IMO

 

[RedRobin]

Pic with original sky is much better Robin IMO

.... Thanks David. Honest opinion and feedback is either helpful or interesting and always appreciated.

Would you keep or bin the original sky version which you prefer?

 

[sk66]

I have now added a sky and I wonder if this was the first version of this image I had published, how it would be judged

Honestly, I would still bin it... IMHO the IQ just doesn't come close to holding up even at only 3MP viewing resolution (original size on flickr). There is so much noise, and so little detail, that IDT it would make a good 8x10 print.

 

[the black fox]

As I said to you via p.m I much prefer the sky replacement version . It loses that white patch around the bird .. it’s still a record shot obviously but now looks keepable

 

[Deleted member 34016]

.... I used your favourite Topaz DeNoise AI for this one and noticed a slight patchiness. I'm not sure yet how the bird's aura has manifested itself but Owls are said to be very wise
I'll try p-p on another version and see if I can polish the turd.

Do you really think that my post-processing is struggling lately? :

WREN ON A COLD FROSTY EARLY MORNING by Robin Procter, on Flickr

I think it's only struggling on the ones which are questionable whether to keep.

Maybe a slight twitch in PP??

Personally, I'd bin the Owl image


Les

 

[RedRobin]

Maybe a slight twitch in PP??

Personally, I'd bin the Owl image

Les

.... Sorry Les but I much prefer my Wren version. Yours looks overexposed and has killed the early morning light and atmosphere which existed.

But now looking at your Flickr page I can see that the 'paler' look is very much your chosen style for birds generally. Nothing wrong with that but simply not to my personal taste.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Not an issue Robin- the histogram in RAW was indicating your image was underexposed- but hey each to their own

 

[RedRobin]

Not an issue Robin- the histogram in RAW was indicating your image was underexposed- but hey each to their own

.... I do sometimes struggle a bit with the histogram in very low or poor light. Perhaps the ideal result would be somewhere in between your and my typical exposure style. I will try to learn from what you have said, so thankyou.

 

[sk66]

.... I do sometimes struggle a bit with the histogram in very low or poor light. Perhaps the ideal result would be somewhere in between your and my typical exposure style. I will try to learn from what you have said, so thankyou.

Proper editing exposure is one of the things I struggle with the most; because I don't currently have a dedicated/controlled editing environment. The apparent image exposure will vary with monitor calibration, ambient viewing conditions (brightness), and the editing/viewing programs BG/surrounding colors... but the histogram (and BP/WP) never lie. That still leaves the question of "where should the histogram lie," and creative intent...
And because this is web based, we will never be seeing exactly the same thing...

 

[RedRobin]

Proper editing exposure is one of the things I struggle with the most; because I don't currently have a dedicated/controlled editing environment. The apparent image exposure will vary with monitor calibration, ambient viewing conditions (brightness), and the editing/viewing programs BG/surrounding colors... but the histogram (and BP/WP) never lie. That still leaves the question of "where should the histogram lie," and creative intent...
And because this is web based, we will never be seeing exactly the same thing...

.... There is a very well established opinion that the histogram should ideally bias towards the right (as I'm sure you already know) but sometimes, too often, wildlife target circumstances hardly leave you time. Or in the case of low light, not always much choice.

Plus, no matter what anyone claims, m4/3 size sensors do not perform quite as well (noisier) on higher ISO values as full-frame sensors do. One of the reasons I am buying (I won't say investing!) the new Olympus ED 150-400mm+1.25x is that its wider aperture promises to offer being able to select lower ISO.

 

[sk66]

There is a very well established opinion that the histogram should ideally bias towards the right (as I'm sure you already know) but sometimes, too often, wildlife target circumstances hardly leave you time. Or in the case of low light, not always much choice.

I was talking during editing; not at the time of capture... I never look at the histogram when taking pictures (only sometimes blinkies)

 

[RedRobin]

I was talking during editing; not at the time of capture... I never look at the histogram when taking pictures (only sometimes blinkies)

.... I shoot on a mirrorless Olympus E-M1X (their flagship) and have the option to see the histogram in the viewfinder switched on. So most of the time it's not difficult to glance at it.

I convert the RAW and post-process in Capture One and also check the histogram there too but adjusting it can create compromises sometimes.

The aim is to always get everything right in the camera first! That's the challenge and especially shooting moving targets, although the Owl was typically very still!