b2bjacks Loc: Sequim, Washington

This image shot at 5000 ISO at 1/4000 of a second in camera RAW. The orange in the feet and the grayish greenish look in the belly are what I don't like. Am I asking too much from RAW or my Nikon D810??? Is there a term for this that I can research? ~ Thanks ~

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

No image.

b2bjacks Loc: Sequim, Washington

Yup, i keep trying, browse then attach. It just doesn't want to go.

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

x

Geegnome

The colors look very natural to me.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

What's wrong with the colors? Why don't you like them?

b2bjacks Loc: Sequim, Washington

Rufous hummingbirds don't have orange legs. And their belly is either white or orange. No idea where the greyish belly color came from.

RichinSeattle

The colors are fine, but you've got quite a bit of "noise" in the shot. Next time turn the ISO back to a reasonable level and use a flash to enhance resolution and color.

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

My thoughts are the compliment of green is red. Was there green foliage around that would reflect the green tint seen on the body? Since this was a high ISO and maybe cropped the orange might be a result of the green tint. This is just a though.
I agree with richinseattle try a flash with a lower ISO.

Geegnome

I don't think it's a rufous. Maybe an Anna's: "belly is gray with a green tint" from "The Spruce." I could be wrong but that's what I'm seeing. I think it's a great capture.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

That looks a lot more like a female Anna's than a Rufous.

User ID

That is only what you know, only the facts. Those facts are likely correct for a dead bird on a lab slab. Your photo is of a live bird outdoors and I have no doubt that it’s verrrry accurate. IOW it’s a record of a real moment, not a record of some known facts.

A bottle of sky bottled at 10 miles up does not look blue when you bring it indoors. Ergo, fact: Air is not blue. We had a big storm at sunset. Orange clouds rained torrents of water but the water wasn’t orange in the puddles.

If you wanna record facts then just write them down. OTOH, if you wanna make photographs I must say you’re very good at making them ... but better at making them that at evaluating them (for now).

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm with Geegnome. The photograph looks quite alright to me.
--Bob

rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx

The very bright light in the background fools the light meter and caused underexposure. Either add a couple stops of +compensation if in auto mode, or if in manual mode slow the shutter speed or open the aperture more.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This type of photography is series of trade-offs: ISO / noise vs freezing action vs adding artificial light vs soften details with more agressive noise processing in post vs wider apertures and less depth of field.

The magic of RAW is the ability to retain detail in the highlights and recover detail from the shadows. As suggested by RichinSeattle above, shooting at a lower ISO would help. This is done by letting more light to hit the sensor, either by holding the shutter open longer (slower speed speed), or opening the aperture wider, or adding artificial light to the image (or instead shooting with the natural light behind you and shining onto the subject).

It would seem this image was underexposed coming out of the camera. The processed results look great until we look at the pixel-level details of the shadows, that happen to be the bird / subject. You might have tried blowing out the white / brightness of the background, letting the details of the bird be as bright in the original image as possible and then adjusting / lowering the bright background in post. The f/9 decision looks good, so maybe bringing down the shutter, even down to 1/2000, while leaving the ISO-5000. You may give up some of the 'freeze' of the wings, but will get a cleaner image in noise. Trade Offs.