Bald Eagle on my beach walk

[BrianH]

Had a few minutes today and went to the beach eagle hunting and bagged this one

 

[Judy N]

I have taken a few pictures of bald eagles but this one takes the cake. What an awesome subject and resultant photo.

 

[BrianH]

I have taken a few pictures of bald eagles but this one takes the cake. What an awesome subject and resultant photo.

thanks. My techniques and eye have improved since Ive started hanging out here

 

[Ernst-Ulrich Schafer]

Great Shot. He's GORGEOUS!!!

 

[NinaS]

great capture

maybe try playing with your levels or curves just a bit to bump up the image a bit

 

[BrianH]

great capture

maybe try playing with your levels or curves just a bit to bump up the image a bit

I guess Im confused, this pic on my computer and the printed version match true life colors..........So I should over process the colors?

 

[NinaS]

not talking about colors as much as just taking your finished product up a notch

try playing with the levels a bit, you may find a richer result that has more pop ... just a suggestion

I'm heading out the door, back tonight, but if you want to send me a .jpg version, I'd be happy to show you later what I'm talking about ... my email is itzmeagain@gmail.com

 

[BobH]

I guess Im confused, this pic on my computer and the printed version match true life colors..........So I should over process the colors?

Well, that's where photography becomes "art". It's your choice whether or not to bump the colors, lighten things up, that sort of thing.

You can approach it from a "photojournalist" point of view, and try to show what was there as accurately as possible, or you can take more an artistic view, and play around with the image somewhat.

Or, you can do both, and create one image that's more natural looking, and a second that's more saturated and vibrant. It's all up to the photographer.

 

[Leia]

Great shot!

Every monitor is different, but my first thought was indeed "Great capture!" (and it truly is!!!) and "looks like it could use some level adjustment".

Again, it might be my monitor (not calibrated in 2 weeks and could be due) - but I think I am seeing what Nina is. On mine, it doesn't have natural looking levels. It looks like (on my monitor mind you) that you flattened the levels somewhat...took out the middarks and shadows. Has nothing to do with the color tones per se'. I wouldn't touch those at all. Simply adjusting the black/white levels would give it pop. Make it more 3 dimensional.

*makes note to dig the Pantone out and calibrate tonight after George goes to work*

 

[BrianH]

Well, that's where photography becomes "art". It's your choice whether or not to bump the colors, lighten things up, that sort of thing.

You can approach it from a "photojournalist" point of view, and try to show what was there as accurately as possible, or you can take more an artistic view, and play around with the image somewhat.

Or, you can do both, and create one image that's more natural looking, and a second that's more saturated and vibrant. It's all up to the photographer.

I do saturate on many pics but on nature I tend to want it to look..............well.......... natural. LOL

 

[Leia]

I have been meaning to bring this up for awhile. "Natural" is also highly subjective.

For years I saw natural one way....then I got new eyeglasses.

I walked outside and WOW!! The contrasts! The colors!!! I see a lot of color and contrasts the last two years that I didn't see before. I will never forget that amazing DIFFERENCE a change in prescription could make. How sharpness and clarity enhanced natural contrasts and colors. Natural isn't flat. There are blacks. There are whites. There are very vibrant tones out there in between the flatter tones.

Granted, I think some people's eye glasses are even more powerful than mine.

Then there is biology. As an extreme example, one of my best friends is color blind. His take on color would be different than yours and mine. He doesn't see what we see. Likewise, take someone on certain medications. They will see things in technicolor vibrancy that only photoshop would reproduce for others.

Regarding your eagle shot, I personally wouldn't touch the saturation at all.

 

[BrianH]

I have been meaning to bring this up for awhile. "Natural" is also highly subjective.

For years I saw natural one way....then I got new eyeglasses.

I walked outside and WOW!! The contrasts! The colors!!! I see a lot of color and contrasts the last two years that I didn't see before. I will never forget that amazing DIFFERENCE a change in prescription could make. How sharpness and clarity enhanced natural contrasts and colors. Natural isn't flat. There are blacks. There are whites. There are very vibrant tones out there in between the flatter tones.

Granted, I think some people's eye glasses are even more powerful than mine.

Then there is biology. As an extreme example, one of my best friends is color blind. His take on color would be different than yours and mine. He doesn't see what we see. Likewise, take someone on certain medications. They will see things in technicolor vibrancy that only photoshop would reproduce for others.

Regarding your eagle shot, I personally wouldn't touch the saturation at all.

I can play with contrast and highlights a bit........but with the eagles the white feather detail disappears with very little input....anyone else is also to play with my shots....and post up their results and how they got em.......that is how I learn best Thanks guys!

 

[BobH]

Ah yes, those dreaded white feathers. They do blow out at the drop of a (red and white striped) hat...

Sometimes you have to get a bit tricky. I use Photoshop, but I'm sure you can do the same thing in other programs.

You make two layers, and adjust for the white feathers on one, and everything else on the other. Then you combine the two layers, with the white feather one underneath. Using the eraser tool, with feathered edges (how appropriate!) you erase the blown out white and let the proper exposure show throough.

The resulting image will then have the range you're looking for. It's a powerful technique, but it can be tricky, and tough to do with a mouse. It works a lot better with a tablet, and I'm planning on buying one real soon just for that kind of work.

 

[Leia]

You make two layers, and adjust for the white feathers on one, and everything else on the other. Then you combine the two layers, with the white feather one underneath. Using the eraser tool, with feathered edges (how appropriate!) you erase the blown out white and let the proper exposure show through

My thoughts exactly.

Chitobeach, did you send a copy to Nina?

 

[BrianH]

My thoughts exactly.

Chitobeach, did you send a copy to Nina?

no jsut an email LOL I guess I could post up a 1.3 meg version for all to play with

 

[Rascal]

Great shot Chito. You mentioned in an earlier post you were looking for the eagles. Looks like your patience and hunting paid off. What lens were you shooting with and how much did you crop. Appears that he may have been on a lower branch or perhaps you were on a hill, the angle doesn't look too high.

 

[BrianH]

Great shot Chito. You mentioned in an earlier post you were looking for the eagles. Looks like your patience and hunting paid off. What lens were you shooting with and how much did you crop. Appears that he may have been on a lower branch or perhaps you were on a hill, the angle doesn't look too high.

100% crop
sony A100
Tokina 70-400MM zoom 4-5.6
Taken at 400mm (600mm digital)
1/160th second
ISO 100
F 5.6

Eagle was about 70FT up a tree I moved around quietly to get the best vantage point with the light coming from over the eagles shoulder. I was about 80 FT away.

The guy who built my puter is going to do a remote service on my machine tomorrow to get my CS3 working. I have been using Picassa 3 and Paint.net to do my editing. I now have lightbox SR to learn and the CS3 will up and running tomorrow...............He jsut got done fixin the program.............cool

NinaS sent me some great input on editing and maybe she can post it up here too.