• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Poor light- poor image (1 Viewer)

kim

Well-known member
Is there anything that can be done to improve this type of image when the subject is some distance away and the light poor, in this case, behind the Spoonbill, albeit very weak. , Generally yesterday it was dull and overcast. Iso was 800 Ap 5.6 IC-1/3
 

Attachments

  • spoonbill.jpg
    spoonbill.jpg
    129.3 KB · Views: 234
This is the result of five minutes' tweaking in Photoshop Elements.

Malcolm
 

Attachments

  • spoonbill.jpg
    spoonbill.jpg
    119.5 KB · Views: 204
Thanks guys, it certainly looked better than the original, I wonder though , would you have had the same camera settings, or would you have said in those circumstances not much that one can do and had it just as a record shot.
Thanhks
Kim
 
In tricky, high-contrast lighting situations, it can be a good idea to take your exposure reading from a "neutral" area of the scene (eg grass) and either lock that exposure, if your camera has that feature, or else set it manually. It's also worth bracketing exposures. Some cameras allow this feature to be set automatically. If yours doesn't, you would have to take shots at, say, -? and -½ EV then +? and +½. Of course, this presupposes the bird stays around long enough for you to do so!!

With a big white bird like the spoonbill, you have to guard against burning out feather detail in the highlights. In the "improved" examples of your pic, you can see this starting to happen in the versions posted by myself and TheRaptor because we've brightened the whole image. Rob's version has avoided this, but at the cost of remaining slightly underexposed. Which just goes to show how important it is to try and get the exposure right. There is a limit to what can be done afterwards, especially if you don't want your pic to have that "over processed" look.

Malcolm
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top