You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Lighter or darker? Any other critiques are requested, as well.
W
Which do you prefer? GBH in flight.
- Thread starter Whiskeyman
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Lighter or darker? Any other critiques are requested, as well.
W
Laurent Dieu
Active member
I prefer the darker version. Light is way better on this one, the feather looks also better.
Laurent.
Laurent.
I agree with Laurent, the second and darker one has my preference. The head with the eye has now more my attention.
I agree with the comments so far. Along with great and snowy egrets, the GBH is my most photographed bird since moving to the Florida coast five years ago. I think the darker version captures more detail of the bird's natural colors. Very nice photo, W.
Last edited:
Yup, darker one for me too.
I prefer the darker one. The eye pops more and there is more detail in the feathers. If this has been cropped and there is available space to the right, I would consider reframing the shot so he is flying into the frame vs. being centered. If this is "as shot", good job on filling the frame! Nice shot!
Considering that we are looking to small JPGs in a forum front end that - depending on the OS and the browser - may or may not use color profiling I would prefer the darker version, also because of the structure in the bright areas at the shoulder.
However, if it comes to printing I would probably take the other one. My friend has to get lots of prints of his photos regurlarly and he is getting best results if processing the pictures for screen first, then do a second version with the same setting but +0,25 to 0,3 stops brighter for printing and order it without automatic print optimization. I have see pictures on his and my computer with the print beside it and I can confirm his results.
However, if it comes to printing I would probably take the other one. My friend has to get lots of prints of his photos regurlarly and he is getting best results if processing the pictures for screen first, then do a second version with the same setting but +0,25 to 0,3 stops brighter for printing and order it without automatic print optimization. I have see pictures on his and my computer with the print beside it and I can confirm his results.
Thank you for the insight. Wouldn't the exposure change to take to print also be dependent upon the brightness of the monitor, though? Overall, I absolutely agree with the direction you're going toward. I prefer my prints a bit lighter than photos viewed on a monitor.
W
Thank you, and thank you again for the specific points of your critique. That type of detail really helps. And to show how much the original frame was filled, here is another photo take immediately before the one posted above:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
So there is room to move the subject around in the frame when processing it.
W
Thank you. In what region of Florida do you reside? I'm in the area north of Destin. There are spots around here with a lot of GBhs, but more and more habitat is being lost to development.
W
We live east of Panama City in an area called The Forgotten Coast. Nearby are St. Joseph's Bay, Gulf beaches and hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness, including the Apalachicola National Forest. Hurricane Michael caused much damage here so any ongoing development was mostly diverted to reconstruction, which is still ongoing. Although not likely as rich as other parts of the state, the opportunity for wildlife photography is quite good here and should be for some time to come.
Then you are a short drive from St. Mark's aren't you? That area, and east to the Big Bend, is one of the areas I'm looking at for retirement. (I like the lack of development.) Hopefully, you either didn't have much damage from Michael or have managed to get everything repaired. I was shocked at the devestation rendered by Hurricane Michael, to both natural and artificial elements.
I've been meaning to get to St. Mark's with my camera for a while. One of these days...
W
We are about a half mile from the bay, so we were unaffected by Michael's storm surge. Since we had no experience with that type of weather we left a day before the storm and spent a few days in Gainesville. It was heartbreaking to see the damage when we returned. We were very lucky, we only lost fencing that was due for replacement anyway.
Much of the area to the east, all the way over to the Big Bend, is protected and undeveloped (national forest and state WMAs). There are small towns along the coast with maybe one supermarket and of course a Dollar General. 'Real' shopping has to be done in the larger cities. For us the closest is Panama City. As you move further east you will transition to Tallahassee and possibly Crawfordville (Publix, Walmart) which is closer to St. Marks.
St. Marks NWR is around an hour and a half to the east of us. We've been there twice in the last few years, in January and May. Birdlife was much more plentiful in January, although there were a number of photo opportunities on each visit, most right from the main road. The refuge is currently open but according to their website the very nice visitor center and lighthouse are still closed. If you're interested I can give you a list of the wildlife that I photographed there.
Cheers, Steve
Much of the area to the east, all the way over to the Big Bend, is protected and undeveloped (national forest and state WMAs). There are small towns along the coast with maybe one supermarket and of course a Dollar General. 'Real' shopping has to be done in the larger cities. For us the closest is Panama City. As you move further east you will transition to Tallahassee and possibly Crawfordville (Publix, Walmart) which is closer to St. Marks.
St. Marks NWR is around an hour and a half to the east of us. We've been there twice in the last few years, in January and May. Birdlife was much more plentiful in January, although there were a number of photo opportunities on each visit, most right from the main road. The refuge is currently open but according to their website the very nice visitor center and lighthouse are still closed. If you're interested I can give you a list of the wildlife that I photographed there.
Cheers, Steve
FB101
Well-known member
This is also my favorite both for composition and light. This picture is also a perfect candidate for Steve's PS method for gently smoothing out backgrounds - it would increase the focus on the bird without completely eliminating the background which is part of the story here - that would also allow you to fine tune the lighting in the background to increase how the bird pops out, which is already really good.
Well, regarding brightness of monitor I cannot speak for others, but for calibration I use Xrite 1display Pro plus the corresponding solftware and setting the monitor brightness and contrast level is actually part of the calibration process. That said, the answer to your question - from my perspective - is "no"
.The calibration is done for particular ambient lighting conditions around your monitor(s). So, if I run a calibration cycle purely with daylight I would most likely get another setting compared with what I get if I do it in a dark room only with backgournd illumination of the wall behind my monitors with some LED lamps. Thus, If you have calibrated your monitor(s) for a particular ambient lighting situation and you change anything in the settings - including brightness or contrast - you are not looking at a calibrated screen anymore. If you keep everything together, i.e.
- the monitor
,- its complete setting via local the local menu,
- the ambient lighgting scenario and
- the color profile (file) that has been created during calibration process with this ambient lighting scenario,
you should ideally have a constant difference between the exposure setting for working on the screen versus printing.
Why do I - think I - know ? Because
- I have two workplaces with different ambient lighing scenarios,
- each of which equipped with two monitors, but of different type,
- the monitors on both workplaces are calibrated with the same tool and the same software.
I happened to order prints directly from both of these workplace after processing the images there and I discovered that the correction that my friend recommended to me, worked for both workplaces and looking at the prints beside the monitors afterwards showed very similar results in relation to the comparison of what I see on the screen versus what I have on paper.
Something I haven't tested yet is whether I would need a different correction offset if I ordered prints on a different material. Up to now I only did this for "normal" photo paper but I would expect to need different offset if getting prints on AluDibond or Acrylic glass. But again, if you do order prints after processing them with a calibrated monitor in its valid setup, the required offset to get your desired results might be different.
It sounds like you're about 45-60 minutes east of where I live, in light traffic. Perhaps we can meet up and shoot together one day after this COVID-19 mess is over with. I'm pleased to hear that you had little damage from the storm. I was in Missouri on a business trip when Michael arrived, but my wife was at home when it came through, and it appeared that Michael was headed straight at our local area before it took the final turn to the east before making landfall. We were extremely fortunate, but to others' misfortune.
I'm familiar with the Gainesville area, having lived there for a short while in college. One of my three children just graduated from UF and another is in his third year, albeit as a Senior in class status. Since he is a double major, he has about two years left before graduation. There are some really good shooting opportunities in that area: Sweetwater Wetlands, Paynes Prarie and the La Chua Trail all have great potential. Paynes Prarie is home to "wild" horses and also has bison roaming freely, in addition to many bird species in the area. Of what I'm aware, the Snail Kites in the area are some of the northernmost on the Florida peninsula, and some go there in search of that bird alone. There are lakes in the region that are Bald Eagle hotspots, with dozens of eagles using them as fishing/hunting areas.
I'd love to know what species you saw a St. Marks; a list would be good, but posting the photos would be better.
Cheers to you, as well.
Wayne
Well, regarding brightness of monitor I cannot speak for others, but for calibration I use Xrite 1display Pro plus the corresponding solftware and setting the monitor brightness and contrast level is actually part of the calibration process. That said, the answer to your question - from my perspective - is "no"
The calibration is done for particular ambient lighting conditions around your monitor(s). So, if I run a calibration cycle purely with daylight I would most likely get another setting compared with what I get if I do it in a dark room only with backgournd illumination of the wall behind my monitors with some LED lamps. Thus, If you have calibrated your monitor(s) for a particular ambient lighting situation and you change anything in the settings - including brightness or contrast - you are not looking at a calibrated screen anymore. If you keep everything together, i.e.
- the monitor
- its complete setting via local the local menu,
- the ambient lighgting scenario and
- the color profile (file) that has been created during calibration process with this ambient lighting scenario,
you should ideally have a constant difference between the exposure setting for working on the screen versus printing.
Why do I - think I - know ? Because
- I have two workplaces with different ambient lighing scenarios,
- each of which equipped with two monitors, but of different type,
- the monitors on both workplaces are calibrated with the same tool and the same software.
I happened to order prints directly from both of these workplace after processing the images there and I discovered that the correction that my friend recommended to me, worked for both workplaces and looking at the prints beside the monitors afterwards showed very similar results in relation to the comparison of what I see on the screen versus what I have on paper.
Something I haven't tested yet is whether I would need a different correction offset if I ordered prints on a different material. Up to now I only did this for "normal" photo paper but I would expect to need different offset if getting prints on AluDibond or Acrylic glass. But again, if you do order prints after processing them with a calibrated monitor in its valid setup, the required offset to get your desired results might be different.
Thank you. I'm only on one monitor, an iMac Retina 5k, but the lighting conditions do change throughout the day since there are windows on three sides. I'll make a note to calibrate each time I plan on processing for a serious print.
W
Okay, I'll get "nitpicky" since I think you really want a complete critique. I like the shot you took just before on post #9 better than the original. In the original the bird has flown past you and is just starting to fly away. When the bird is even with you, or better yet, still coming toward you, that tends to make for the best shots. I would give the bird in the original post more space around it in the frame, as well. The background in this case is an interesting part of the bird's environment and adds to the picture. Finally, I would add just a touch of color temperature warming to the bird. To my eye the background has warmer lighting than the bird. Like I said, I am REALLY nitpicking here. It's a great shot as is, and of the two originals I would go with others here in saying the darker looks a bit better.
Here's the list of the creatures I photographed at St. Marks. There were certainly others there but were too far away, at least for me. I'll check for photos however the first time we went I still had my Panasonic 'bridge' camera so the quality will be well below the standards set on these forums.
Alligators
Anhingas
GBHs
Coot, American Wigeon, other ducks
Moorhen
Coastal plain cooter and other turtles
Little blue herons
Eagles (distant nest)
Red shouldered hawk
Brown thrasher
Red-headed woodpecker
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Red-winged blackbirds
Thank you, Woody. I'm looking for "nitpicky" critiques, as I want to improve my shots.
Wayne