Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

When I take a photograph of a bird, and I think it is good enough to share, I'll usually place it in the Photo Gallery section, because such a photo would not normally provoke any discussion. It's either a good photo, or not, and people like it, or not, and that's the end of it.

This one turned out a little different. I happened to have very interesting lighting, when I came across this bird. It was very bright, out, and the water looked very blue, at that spot, even to the naked eye. The light is not always perfect, at this place, simply because you are stuck with what you get. The spot that has the best lighting also has the fewest birds. The spots that have the more interesting birds usually leave the photographer looking into the sun.

Pure white birds, in the sun, can be a challenge to photograph, because it is so easy to overexpose the bird, and I like to show some detail, in the bird's feathers. But that isn't why I put this photo in FYC. I'm more interested in the background.

I took the shot in raw, using auto white balance, as I usually do. With no processing, the water looked very, very blue. The bird, however, did not really look blue, but it did look too white, if you can understand what I mean. So, I increased the color temperature -- quite a bit, as it turned out. The bird started looking more natural. The water, however, took on a strange quality. Usually, when I boost the color temp, blue water becomes more and more gray. This time, it really didn't. It revealed some interesting hues, in the water. The water almost looks as if I replaced it with some other texture.

Anyway, I liked how the water background turned out, but I'm quite prepared to be the only one who does. It's really the water background that convinced me to keep this shot. It becomes more of an artist's rendering of a Snowy Egret.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If the water had come out a uniform blue it wouldn't be anything like as interesting as it is. It looks as though the water partially went to grey/brown but a strong blue element remains, and that element consists of light and dark blue. The overall effect is to add depth and visual interest to the water. Perhaps it was the weaker blues that went grey/brown and the stronger blues remained. You can't get that effect by painting in a single colour because you don't get the graduations of hue that are mainly brightness-dependent. If it was mine I'd be curious to find out what a good blast of colour denoise and/or luminosity denoise would do to the water.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Absolutely I know what you mean about the bird initially looking too white because of the blue. I don't know if it is still used, but there used to be a product called laundry bluing, a Prussian blue powder to be added to the whites in your laundry to make them look whiter.

I would have kept this shot if the water had looked pink! But I don't shoot a lot of birds. I think the portrait is stunning, but I guess if you've got what you see as better ones this one is ho-hum, but not to me. I find it clean, simple, balanced, and shaaaaarp (I'm the sharp freak). There's no clipping in the body even in direct sun, and I know how hard that is to do even in raw.

The water IS very compelling! That fact is that, had you not mentioned it, my eye was on the bird. The water to me was just a perfect counterpoint, smooth, elegant, stunning color, not taking attention from the subject. I liked that I can see the current sweeping around the bird's legs. That all said, I am now very impressed with the water. It is almost a secondary subject, and indeed might have been composited in. I've been known to carefully select a background with too much detail, put it on its own layer, and apply blur to it, which could have been done here, but all of that is really and aside: the water helps to make what I see as a gorgeous portrait of one of the most beautiful birds in creation. On the other hand, thanks for telling us what happened because it is interesting in itself!

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thanks for your comments.

R. G. -- An early thought I had was that there might have been some chromatic aberration in the water. The slight purple hues gave me that idea. When I looked at it, at full magnification, I didn't see very much of the digital noise that one usually sees when that is the culprit. Even with that, the shot you see does have some noise reduction.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The high contrast edges seem nice and clean. Perhaps it was a combination of reflected light and light penetrating into the water a bit. The interesting thing about colour denoise is that it can do a nice job of cleaning up stuff that's a bit muddy colour-wise. The luminosity noise isn't so noticeable that it's worth compromising the sharpness of the subject (i.e. not noticeable at normal viewing distance), but if it was applied selectively to the water it might have a pleasant softening effect.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

How stunning! I read your intro before peeking at the photo, so my anticipation kept building...and I wasn't disappointed.

The reason it looks unreal to me is because it's so soft, as if it were long exposure. No matter, it is very beautiful and I like the image a lot.

When I shoot American white pelicans in the Yakima River, I end up with black water because of under-exposing to keep details in the birds. I've always used burst mode jpg on my bridge camera because they are so far away. Intriguing to think "what if" had conditions allowed closer shots and raw.

Anvil, thanks so much for your detailed information and this wonderful photo.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thanks for your comments.

I also always use burst mode, just to increase the chances of getting a keeper. The bird might also decide to take off, and burst mode helps me get some interesting motion shots. Sometimes, that is. Yesterday, a Great Blue Heron was fishing while standing on a concrete block. While I was changing settings, the bird decided to take off, but I was too late to get the takeoff shots. Getting a big bird, like that, while taking off, can produce some very interesting shots. Those big birds have to do a lot, in order to get airborne.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I like the shot very much for several reasons. You got the eye sharp and there is detail in almost all of the bird. The water, of course, makes the shot. Love that it is that deep blue and not all grey or black. I might try to tone down the highlights on the neck and back; but that might made the bird to grey. It is a very good shot and the processing is also very good.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Ebrunner -- thanks for your comments. Before I posted that shot, I did tone down the highlights on parts of the bird, but just a little. It seemed that if I did it any more, the bird started to look "dirty". I tried it again, after your suggestion, using a couple methods (Lightroom and On1). In order to reveal any feather detail on the bird's back, the bird still ended up looking a bit dirty. I succeeded in making the photo look more like an artist's rendering than I really wanted. (The back feather detail began to look like artist's brush strokes.)

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I was afraid that the feathers would look "dirty". No matter. You have a fine photo just the way it is.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thanks!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I'm guessing that those who have issues with the details on this egret have never taken a picture of an egret. It turns out that I took one just last week.

According to the EXIF, you used a lens at 400mm and a shutter speed of 1/1000. If you lack any detail at those settings, I'm guessing the details just weren't there to be gotten. In my picture, I used the "curves" tool to increase contrast just at the very bright end of the spectrum, the place where you find the egret, but there is only so much detail there. These birds always look "soft" to my eyes, and not just because they're covered with feathers.

I think this is a fine picture that you should be pleased with. If you want to "tweak" parameters a bit, maybe you can improve it slightly, but it is supposed to look like a white object with little definition - that is what I see when I look at them in the flesh. Personally, I think the water looks "cool" also.

BTW - getting all this with a 400mm lens is an accomplishment of its own. I took mine with a 200mm lens on a Pentax Q-7 {crop factor= 4.65) and it didn't come anywhere near to filling the frame. He was watching me so carefully that I was reluctant to get much closer, because I didn't want to upset the flock {egret + ducks + geese + seagulls all mingled together}

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thanks for your comments. I was at a wildlife refuge area right next to the SF Bay. At this place, finding Snowy Egrets and Great Egrets close enough to the shore to fill the frame isn't that rare, but one does have to act fast, because those birds will move on, pretty quickly. The other all white bird that can be found at this place is the American White Pelican. These birds are rarely near the shore, but they are not all that difficult to catch, in flight. The problem is that an all white pelican against a cloudless, bright blue sky is often not the most interesting of shots. That bird needs an interesting background.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I'm so glad you shared him here! I am currently obsessed with a set of egrets and herons who live beneath the local dam, and I'm very familiar with the challenges of their feathers against any background light or dark in terrible light. This image seems well within acceptable sharpness to me, the eye is wonderfully clear. The feathers are not very detailed, and it is conceivable that you might find more detail in his back with local adjustments in ACR or similar if you wanted to, especially since you captured it in raw. Feather retrieval in the whites might be particularly important if you want to print it - that's where my egrets often give me a headache. But as is, it is an "art-ly" and lovely image that renders beautifully on the monitor in thumbnail and download, and the undulating blues of the water give a really first class backdrop.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thank you! I've tried a couple of different approaches to wring more feather detail out of the bird's back, but I just can't seem to do it without making the bird look dirty. I did manage to get a bit more detail using On1, and, even though I only touched the bird, the overall feel of the shot changed too much, so I left it alone.