Posted by Danny Green on February 1, 2007 at 5:15 AM
Here is another image that I took of the Golden Eagle in Norway. There was a lot of snow around which was good for photography, as we don't get much in this country I don't have much coverage of birds/mammals in the white stuff. Some people don't like to see dead animals in pictures but because the snow has covered most of this dead Roe Deer and left the hoof showing I think it works.
Canon EOS 1D MKII, 500mm Lens, F4, 1/125, ISO Rating 200.
Danny
Posted by Mike Smith on February 1, 2007 at 5:35 AM
Another cracking shot, but as presented it looks a touch underexposed with a strong blue cast again - depending upon what mood you want from the shot it can clean up quite nicely and very easily taking RGB values from the snow and grey murk behind
Another great Eagle image, it does have a blue cast, but it also looks like a dark winters afternoon, gives a sense of cold to me. so i kind of like it how it is.
Brian
Posted by Danny Green on February 1, 2007 at 5:56 AM
It was a cold winters afternoon and the light was blue so thats how I have presented it, all images can be warmed up I surpose but sometimes we can miss the point in the light we are photographing.
Danny
Posted by David Taylor on February 1, 2007 at 6:29 AM
If that was how the light was then I see no point in altering it. IMHO an excellent representation of a cold winter afternoon with a superb subject.
Hi Danny great image it conveys the coldness and the lack of light you get in winter I wouldn't change the overall tone of the image, as photographers and our own post processors we tend some times to take away some elements of images that actually make the image,
Phillip.
Posted by Rob Fisher on February 1, 2007 at 6:37 AM
Wow,
Danny great shot. How did you get so close. Did you use a hide?
Looks like you had a great trip.
Rob
Posted by Mark Sisson on February 1, 2007 at 7:31 AM
Nice pic Danny - the light is as the light is as you say, and I know you have enough material from here to result in a number of different lokos and feels anyway
Missing him already!!
Mark
Posted by Danny Green on February 1, 2007 at 7:45 AM
Hello Rob
The pictures were taken from a Hide made by a Norwegian Naturalist called Ole Martin Dahl he has been placing food out for two years and as a result it gives you the best possible chance of photographing a Wild Golden Eagle. I know the rules on this forum about promoting these kind of things so if any body is interested you can email me direct and I will gladly give you the information you will need.
Danny
Posted by Rob Fisher on February 1, 2007 at 9:05 AM
Wow,
Danny great shot. How did you get so close. Did you use a hide?
Posted by Sean Bolton on February 1, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Hi Danny
A great subject in a fantastic environment and you have captured it very well. Good pose by the eagle and nicely positioned in the frame which shows the habitat and harsh conditions.
The discussion about the light conditions in this shot are interesting and I would agree that the flat, blue light does give a good sense of the prevailing conditions. However I couldn't resist the temptation to try adjusting the white balance and tweaking about a bit to see how your image would look with a more conventional white balance adjustment.
I don't suggest either version is better than the other, really a matter of personal taste, and for the photographer it depends what they want to convey with the image.
With film there was always a clear cut result, the transparency when it came back from the lab. Now with digital the finished result is not so straightforward and features that were locked into the film emulsion such as white balance, contrast, saturation, etc must now be selected by the photographer, and there are an infinite number of possibilties to choose from.
It certainly looks like you had an a good trip though.
cheers
Sean
Posted by Danny Green on February 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Hello Sean
I really like your conversion, the image just pops out at you, I should imagin that if you had the raw image to play with it would look even better. The problem with me is I spent fifteen years photographing wildlife on slide film and always tried to get it right first time which you had to do, I was very reluctant to turn to digital because I couldn't even work an email and computers just didn't interest me. Since turning I have to spend at least 50% of my time at the computer now and really I would just like to be out there photographing. I know I have so much to learn regarding raw conversion when I see results like this. If you could post what you did that would be great. Thanks everyone for their coments on the images it was a fantastic experience and that first visit really got the adrenilin pumping it was so exciting.
Danny
Posted by Danny Green on February 1, 2007 at 5:58 PM
is this any better
Posted by Paula Graham on February 1, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Super shot.
I think I would lasso the bird and with curves or levels or even shadow highlight work on just the Eagle and leave the rest with the blue cast which gives that realy cold feeling.
Personally I do not like the warmth in your post above.
Posted by Sean Bolton on February 1, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Hi Danny
I will outline my workflow on this image and post a series of screen shots below (if the forum lets me!). All the adjustments can be seasoned to taste and I am sure a proper PhotoShop expert (Phil Hurst, Phil Shaw, etc) could give you some better suggestions.
Yes I agree moving from film to digital is a big step, especially with a difficult image like this one. Shots taken in flat light can often be tricky to get right from the RAW file. I've been at it now for 3 years and still learning.....
Ok my steps as follows ;
1. White Balance adjustment, select levels tool, white dropper and pick a nice white point in the snow.
2. image is still flat so use the curves tool with a gentle S curve to bring some contrast in.
3. still a bit flat, use the levels tool to pull in the black slider a fraction.
4. Add a bit of saturation (+8) to make the orange and yellow have a bit of Velvia umph!
5. lasso the head area and apply a tad more sharpening (120, 0.2, 0 x 2)
6. use the shadow/highlight tool to lift the shadows a little bit. I usually find amount 30, tone 30, radius 30 is a good starting point and adjust amount from there.
7. Last step, not shown in posts below. I then pasted the original image as a new layer onto my new image. I then used the erase tool to rub out the eagle and the snow so that the original blue cast in the sky is preserved, but the new look eagle and snow are blended through.
I hope that helps a bit. Email me if you have any more questions.
cheers
Sean
Posted by Sean Bolton on February 1, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Step 1 - White Balance adjustment
Posted by Sean Bolton on February 1, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Step 2 - Curves
Posted by Sean Bolton on February 1, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Step 3 - Levels
Posted by Sean Bolton on February 1, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Step 4 - Saturation
Posted by Sean Bolton on February 1, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Step 5 - Sharpening, I won't post that screenshot.....
Step 6 - Shadow/Highlight (shown here)
Step 7 - blend original blue sky into new image
Posted by Mark Sisson on February 2, 2007 at 4:38 AM
Good workflow Sean, and one that I'm sure many on here will find helpful.
Mark
Posted by Danny Green on February 2, 2007 at 7:36 AM
Wow Sean many thanks for your time I am sure there are many people on this forum that have the same problems as me. I went step by step of your processing but struggled on the shadow and highlights as I just couldn't get it to look right, I don't think this is as good as yours but I think it looks better than my previous ones. What do you think.
Danny
PS I have put some DVDs in the post containing my raw images, if you have got a chance no rush.
Posted by Sean Bolton on February 2, 2007 at 7:42 AM
Hi Danny
This post is improved, although I would prefer to remove more of blue cast, the snow and the eagle are still a bit too blue for my taste.
It is a little bit trial and error when adjusting this type of image, sometimes I process it in slightly different ways and then look at the variants the following day before deciding which works best. Sometimes your eyes just 'self calibrate' to the image you are manipulating and you need to step away for a while.
I would be happy to try processing one of your eagle RAW files for you. Can you put it on a server somewhere so I can download it? You could email it to me but I am not sure if my yahoo email account will handle 8Meg files. seanbolton (at) yahoo.com
I actually like Danny's latest repost, as the still slight amount of blue colour cast adds to the cold feeling of the shot imho. Must have been a wonderful experience Danny - I'll start saving my pennys now!
Apologies I have not been round much, pressure of work at the moment, smashing image although I too am of the opinion that a touch of PP would certainly improve it no end, appreciate that you wanted to maintain the feel of when you took it and it is always difficult to balance this.
I did have a quick play using curvemeister and will try and post a lnk here to my result....
May not be what you were looking for, all I did was to neutralise the image (perhaps a bit too much), set new white and black points, then used a curve to fix contrast and tonality in the mid tones.
Can't compare to the 'old' version as I never used it.....
It is very good.... gives more control and control of clipping points than the standard CS2 dialogue (essentially does the same thing though) I like it because you can place control points on the image for white/black/midtone points and fine tune that way, also with the option of only adjusting the luminance channel, although that can be achieved by fading to luminosity.
All this may well change when CS3 ships with its improved curves.
All the best
Phil
Posted by Tim Munsey on February 2, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Blimey, so many reposts, I do like Sean's version and Phil's is well impressive, here's mine
Posted by Danny Green on February 2, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Bloody hell Tim you are a brilliant on photoshop, you must have spent hours on this one.
Danny
Posted by Kevin Lewis on February 2, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Too much green Tim, I think you overdid the colour balance correction ;)
Posted by John Swift on February 2, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Hi Danny, I think Seans version delivers the powerful image potential present in the initial photograph. Great shot!!
You got golden eagle at last! Maybe more expensive than the captive option we talked about, but the snow scene can't be beaten.
You've created a thread here that speaks volumes about digital. Digital photography commonly allows the photographewr to represent their image in an infinate number of variations. I believe that few of the variations ever posted represent the "true" variation as remembered. As such, digital photography is a fake and a fraud. Does this matter? Probably not, as we know of the arguments that film types changed "reality" as well.
My comment about your image WITHOUT regard to what has already been said would be that it looks too blue and "flat" and looks a bit unrealistic (even if this really was how it was) or should i say unbelievable (initial reaction is to think the photographer has processed this poorly). Blueness is what the film sees and not usually what your eye sees. If this were mine I would have simply adjusted the curves so that the black and white points touch the extremes of the histogram. I would then apply the auto-levels, a smidge of saturation and a smidge of contrast. I did this and it looks similar to Seans variation (which I like). My variation looks quite realistic (believable?) without being punchy (unlike Sean's). PS. this is how I do all my images (not just yours!) and never selectively adjust bits for alteration.
In the end it's up to you, but I would congratulate you and hope you persist in presenting images that look more realistic than the common or garden, processed, dogmatic, strangely fashionable variation we are now used to on this forum and elsewhere (too many images appear to be taken at the same time of day with the same white balance and so on - whites are rarely white in reality but have a slight colour cast according to time of day or degree of sunshine)!
Discussion
32 repliesCanon EOS 1D MKII, 500mm Lens, F4, 1/125, ISO Rating 200.
Danny
Brian
Danny
Phillip.
Danny great shot. How did you get so close. Did you use a hide?
Looks like you had a great trip.
Missing him already!!
Mark
The pictures were taken from a Hide made by a Norwegian Naturalist called Ole Martin Dahl he has been placing food out for two years and as a result it gives you the best possible chance of photographing a Wild Golden Eagle. I know the rules on this forum about promoting these kind of things so if any body is interested you can email me direct and I will gladly give you the information you will need.
Danny
Danny great shot. How did you get so close. Did you use a hide?
Looks like you had a great trip.
A great subject in a fantastic environment and you have captured it very well. Good pose by the eagle and nicely positioned in the frame which shows the habitat and harsh conditions.
The discussion about the light conditions in this shot are interesting and I would agree that the flat, blue light does give a good sense of the prevailing conditions. However I couldn't resist the temptation to try adjusting the white balance and tweaking about a bit to see how your image would look with a more conventional white balance adjustment.
I don't suggest either version is better than the other, really a matter of personal taste, and for the photographer it depends what they want to convey with the image.
With film there was always a clear cut result, the transparency when it came back from the lab. Now with digital the finished result is not so straightforward and features that were locked into the film emulsion such as white balance, contrast, saturation, etc must now be selected by the photographer, and there are an infinite number of possibilties to choose from.
It certainly looks like you had an a good trip though.
cheers
Sean
I really like your conversion, the image just pops out at you, I should imagin that if you had the raw image to play with it would look even better. The problem with me is I spent fifteen years photographing wildlife on slide film and always tried to get it right first time which you had to do, I was very reluctant to turn to digital because I couldn't even work an email and computers just didn't interest me. Since turning I have to spend at least 50% of my time at the computer now and really I would just like to be out there photographing. I know I have so much to learn regarding raw conversion when I see results like this. If you could post what you did that would be great. Thanks everyone for their coments on the images it was a fantastic experience and that first visit really got the adrenilin pumping it was so exciting.
Danny
I think I would lasso the bird and with curves or levels or even shadow highlight work on just the Eagle and leave the rest with the blue cast which gives that realy cold feeling.
Personally I do not like the warmth in your post above.
I will outline my workflow on this image and post a series of screen shots below (if the forum lets me!). All the adjustments can be seasoned to taste and I am sure a proper PhotoShop expert (Phil Hurst, Phil Shaw, etc) could give you some better suggestions.
Yes I agree moving from film to digital is a big step, especially with a difficult image like this one. Shots taken in flat light can often be tricky to get right from the RAW file. I've been at it now for 3 years and still learning.....
Ok my steps as follows ;
1. White Balance adjustment, select levels tool, white dropper and pick a nice white point in the snow.
2. image is still flat so use the curves tool with a gentle S curve to bring some contrast in.
3. still a bit flat, use the levels tool to pull in the black slider a fraction.
4. Add a bit of saturation (+8) to make the orange and yellow have a bit of Velvia umph!
5. lasso the head area and apply a tad more sharpening (120, 0.2, 0 x 2)
6. use the shadow/highlight tool to lift the shadows a little bit. I usually find amount 30, tone 30, radius 30 is a good starting point and adjust amount from there.
7. Last step, not shown in posts below. I then pasted the original image as a new layer onto my new image. I then used the erase tool to rub out the eagle and the snow so that the original blue cast in the sky is preserved, but the new look eagle and snow are blended through.
I hope that helps a bit. Email me if you have any more questions.
cheers
Sean
Step 6 - Shadow/Highlight (shown here)
Step 7 - blend original blue sky into new image
Mark
Danny
PS I have put some DVDs in the post containing my raw images, if you have got a chance no rush.
This post is improved, although I would prefer to remove more of blue cast, the snow and the eagle are still a bit too blue for my taste.
It is a little bit trial and error when adjusting this type of image, sometimes I process it in slightly different ways and then look at the variants the following day before deciding which works best. Sometimes your eyes just 'self calibrate' to the image you are manipulating and you need to step away for a while.
I would be happy to try processing one of your eagle RAW files for you. Can you put it on a server somewhere so I can download it? You could email it to me but I am not sure if my yahoo email account will handle 8Meg files. seanbolton (at) yahoo.com
cheers
Sean
I actually like Danny's latest repost, as the still slight amount of blue colour cast adds to the cold feeling of the shot imho. Must have been a wonderful experience Danny - I'll start saving my pennys now!
Apologies I have not been round much, pressure of work at the moment, smashing image although I too am of the opinion that a touch of PP would certainly improve it no end, appreciate that you wanted to maintain the feel of when you took it and it is always difficult to balance this.
I did have a quick play using curvemeister and will try and post a lnk here to my result....
http://www.philhurst.co.uk/Posting/15029-2.jpg
May not be what you were looking for, all I did was to neutralise the image (perhaps a bit too much), set new white and black points, then used a curve to fix contrast and tonality in the mid tones.
All the best
Phil
For all the link is here
Can't compare to the 'old' version as I never used it.....
It is very good.... gives more control and control of clipping points than the standard CS2 dialogue (essentially does the same thing though) I like it because you can place control points on the image for white/black/midtone points and fine tune that way, also with the option of only adjusting the luminance channel, although that can be achieved by fading to luminosity.
All this may well change when CS3 ships with its improved curves.
All the best
Phil
Danny
Regards
JohnS
You got golden eagle at last! Maybe more expensive than the captive option we talked about, but the snow scene can't be beaten.
You've created a thread here that speaks volumes about digital. Digital photography commonly allows the photographewr to represent their image in an infinate number of variations. I believe that few of the variations ever posted represent the "true" variation as remembered. As such, digital photography is a fake and a fraud. Does this matter? Probably not, as we know of the arguments that film types changed "reality" as well.
My comment about your image WITHOUT regard to what has already been said would be that it looks too blue and "flat" and looks a bit unrealistic (even if this really was how it was) or should i say unbelievable (initial reaction is to think the photographer has processed this poorly). Blueness is what the film sees and not usually what your eye sees. If this were mine I would have simply adjusted the curves so that the black and white points touch the extremes of the histogram. I would then apply the auto-levels, a smidge of saturation and a smidge of contrast. I did this and it looks similar to Seans variation (which I like). My variation looks quite realistic (believable?) without being punchy (unlike Sean's). PS. this is how I do all my images (not just yours!) and never selectively adjust bits for alteration.
In the end it's up to you, but I would congratulate you and hope you persist in presenting images that look more realistic than the common or garden, processed, dogmatic, strangely fashionable variation we are now used to on this forum and elsewhere (too many images appear to be taken at the same time of day with the same white balance and so on - whites are rarely white in reality but have a slight colour cast according to time of day or degree of sunshine)!
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK