RoamingScott wrote:
Ah, the infamous splotchy landscape example that proves nothing, in a birding thread no less! A new personal record in irrelevance, which...no small feat!
Yeah, just like your unhelpful preaching to the OP background replacement for nature photography is about as big a sin as you can commit. You just have to work harder in the field.
The OP happened to capture a great moment between the parent and the chick, and he can do whatever he wishes to with HIS background.
Maybe you should try harder to give helpful advice Father Scott.
ctgoldwing wrote:
I have been shooting birds at the local wetlands. The only position I can shoot some of the nesting ones puts them in the foreground with a totally blown out background. I've spent some time in LRC trying a bunch of things and just can't seem to get an acceptable image. I have tried the various sky replacements with meh success. . .
Any suggestions would be appreciated. This is my most recent iteration.
I like the image you posted in your first message. I think it's lovely.
Another option is to shoot with a circular polarizing filter on your lens. Depending on sky conditions and shooting angle relative to the Sun, it can deepen the values in the sky and reduce the appearance of haze, without affecting colors. Of course, there may be a penalty of up to 2 f/stops - but it can often be worth the trade, even when shooting wildlife.
Kenneth Lee wrote:
Another option is to shoot with a circular polarizing filter on your lens. Depending on sky conditions and shooting angle relative to the Sun, it can deepen the values in the sky and reduce the appearance of haze, without affecting colors. Of course, there may be a penalty of up to 2 f/stops - but it can often be worth the trade, even when shooting wildlife.
Thanks KL! Amazon is delivering one today. I neglected to take any from home so it looks like I'll have 2 77mm ones
I considered the light penalty but the 1-2 stop dynamic range reduction is worth testing out for me. I reshot the same subject today before 8 (too bad the filter hadn't come yet) and realized I will get better lighting if I go back close to sunset. Will try today.
I did manually bracket again, this time going deeper into underexposure. We will see. . .
ctgoldwing wrote:
Thanks KL! Amazon is delivering one today. I neglected to take any from home so it looks like I'll have 2 77mm ones
I considered the light penalty but the 1-2 stop dynamic range reduction is worth testing out for me. I reshot the same subject today before 8 (too bad the filter hadn't come yet) and realized I will get better lighting if I go back close to sunset. Will try today.
I did manually bracket again, this time going deeper into underexposure. We will see. . .
That can be useful, but do keep in mind that:
1. The effect varies based on your orientation to the sun — most effective at a 90 degree angle and not effective pointing toward the sun or straight away from it.
2. While it can, if everything lines up correctly, darken the blue sky, the polarizer doesn’t really do much to the clouds that are the source of the hot highlights in the photo. (Remember that it is used to darker sky while keeping clouds bright in order to create more dramatic contrast between sky and clouds.)
3. And, of course, a polarizer doesn’t block some light necessitating a slighlty higher ISO or adjustments to shutter speed and/or aperture.
ctgoldwing wrote:
Thanks KL! Amazon is delivering one today. I neglected to take any from home so it looks like I'll have 2 77mm ones
I considered the light penalty but the 1-2 stop dynamic range reduction is worth testing out for me. I reshot the same subject today before 8 (too bad the filter hadn't come yet) and realized I will get better lighting if I go back close to sunset. Will try today.
I did manually bracket again, this time going deeper into underexposure. We will see. . .
That certainly can be useful, but do keep in mind that:
1. The effect varies based on your orientation to the sun — most effective at a 90 degree angle and not effective pointing toward the sun or straight away from it. (So front-lit and back-lit subjects won’t benefit much if at all.)
2. While it can, if everything lines up correctly, darken the blue sky, the polarizer doesn’t really do much to the clouds that are the source of the hot highlights in the photo. (Remember that it is used to darker sky while keeping clouds bright in order to create more dramatic contrast between sky and clouds.)
3. And, of course, a polarizer doesn’t block some light necessitating a slighlty higher ISO or adjustments to shutter speed and/or aperture. This is less of an issue, perhaps, in midday light though a lot of bird photography is done in softer light in the early morning or the evening.
3. It also can change color balance a bit, though that can be good or bad…
Dan, I second every line of your above post - my thoughts exactly. Especially, about "the polarizer doesn’t really do much to the clouds that are the source of the hot highlights".
A 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 isn't a fast lens, to begin with. I would mind losing at least one stop of light (or more with some of the cheaper CPL filters) very much.
This is the kind of post that I originally joined FM for. Great examples of how to do things. Congrats to OP for asking and to those who provided viable, beautiful options.
I started my love for photography over 60 years ago in great part because of my love for nature. I've finally realized, in my old age (I'm closer to 80 than 70), that there are times when I can't get a perfect image and maybe I should enjoy the moment and be thankful for the opportunity to observe.
Also, I'd be careful judging others sin. Unless you qualify as one who can cast the first stone.
chez wrote:
I actually like the blown sky version better. The heron just blends into the grey sky in this version.
The original version has more impact as an image. The sky is just a backdrop to the main and very interesting action in the photo. The highlights in the clouds are meaningless in terms of the image. The blown segments contribute to the sensation of bright light.
chiron wrote:
The original version has more impact as an image. The sky is just a backdrop to the main and very interesting action in the photo. The highlights in the clouds are meaningless in terms of the image. The blown segments contribute to the sensation of bright light.
Based on many of the replies here, including yours there are many ways to view this image - and what the final version should look like.
It reminds me of my darkroom days. I would spend 6-7 hours working on a few B&W negatives to come up with 1 print that I was mostly happy with. Color was even worse
A CPL would do f-all for an image like this. You guys can keep dancing around it, but I won't (and don't!), this is just a textbook scene where the DR is really really tough for most cameras. Blowing highlights does no favors for post work, and the best thing you can do is simply not blow them in the first place. Adding something that further lowers your available DR is antithetical to your goals.
The moment is indeed nice, but everything else is working against it. If you have no nature-journalistic integrity, you can work way less, knowing you'll just replace 2/3rds of your image later. If you care about capturing something real, you need to set yourself up for success from the get-go.
If you think the advice of "improve your fieldcraft and put the sun behind you" isn't the best advice for a budding birder, you're beyond help.
All of that said, I don't think the original image is beyond saving, I think it just lacks a bit of savviness in post.
The preacher is back with another sermon. The OP did not ask for your advice on nature-journalistic integrity .
He asked for advice on the photo he had taken. I guess if someone asks how they can improve a shot they took on a trip to Africa, you would tell them to go back and shoot with the sun behind them.
If you are such the expert wildlife photographer you think you are, you would know there are many, many times when you can't shoot with the sun behind you, and you may only have a few seconds to capture your subject in that one pose, and never again.
ctgoldwing wrote:
The only position I can shoot some of the nesting ones puts them in the foreground with a totally blown out background. I've spent some time in LRC trying a bunch of things and just can't seem to get an acceptable image. I have tried the various sky replacements with meh success. . .
Any suggestions would be appreciated. This is my most recent iteration.
hello, if this is a situation you experience often, there is another option. that is using a soft edge graduated neutral density filter. they come in different sizes and strengths. i don't know if you have used one before. they are used commonly in landscape photography, but would apply to your situation. you would need a filter holder and lens ring adaptor. you slide the filter down from the top of the holder with the soft edge down and you see in the viewfinder the effect it is having on the picture. you bring it low enough for the amount of light reduction you want without overly effecting the subject. you can also use the camera's histogram to help with the exposure as you use it. it would be a small cost for the holder, lens adaptor ring, and filters, so if you rarely find yourself in these lighting conditions it might not be worthwhile. there are many online sources for information and tips for using them. i have used them with my rf 100-500 and had good results.
The moment is excellent, and the shot is definitely workable, as we’ve seen in this thread.
We can’t always count on perfect light when photographing birds, so the ideal approach is often to make time-of-exposure decisions (often quickly!) that best capture image data that you can work with in post.
Ideally in this shot the exposure might have been reduced a bit to save a bit more of those background highlights. But I don’t think that the highlights in this case kill the shot, especially with a tighter crop on the pair of birds, perhaps a bit of work on those highlights, etc.
Good discussion (other than the bit of bickering). I'm in the camp of put the camera down when the light is wrong, but I also often try at least a few shots anyway and play with them in post to see what I can salvage. Doesn't cost anything with digital, and like Dan pointed out, modern sensors capture an incredible DR.
I actually like your original shot a lot - the blown sky doesn't bother me since the subjects are so compelling - just a "high key" feel.
