Another baby blue

[Diane_Miller]

Critique Style: Standard

The photographer is looking for thoughtful feedback on the image as a whole, especially around the areas noted below.

Feedback Focus: Artistic + Technical

About This Image

I can’t resist these little guys! And can’t resist playing with a new lens. Shot yesterday evening an hour before sunset but already in open shade.

Feedback Requested

All comments welcome!

Technical Details

Camera: Canon EOS R5
Lens: RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM
Focal length: 800mm
Shutter speed: 1/250s
Aperture: f/9.5
ISO: 3200

Processing software: LR
Major adjustments: See screenshot below.
Blending/stacking:
Other notes: Cropped to 12% (sic) of original shot.

[Diane_Miller]

Here’s the only processing done:

And here’s the original:

[Steve_Kennedy]

Wow Diane! Both are beautiful portraits of the baby blue. And your processing is exquisite. I have no nits at all. Well done!

[santhru (Santhru Natarajan)]

Hi Diane,
Fine details and color reproduction of this small bird Baby Blue. As Steve also mentioned, processing is done in a way one doesnt know that its been processed.

[Diane_Miller]

Thanks, @Steve_Kennedy and @santhru ! A decently-focused image in the right light is easy to process.

[Kris_Smith (Kristen M Smith)]

Baby birds are so unfinished looking, yet they are ready for the big time. We don’t have bluebirds here (well in the yard, I assume there are some in the state), so I have to live through your documentation. Such soft light and background, it makes the soft floofiness look even more incongruous with the crisp definition in the primaries and tail. Super.

[Dennis_Plank]

The first image is perfect to show off the back plumage at its best, Daine, and that little head turn is just perfectly endearing.

[Allen_Sparks]

Nice images Diane which to me have a bit of a pensive mood to them given the partial head turns of the bird. Nicely composed. At large size, I think I can see the effects of the large crop to a minor degree (slight noise in body feathers). Still, terrific images of such a cutie.

[Diane_Miller]

Thanks, @Kris_Smith , @Dennis_Plank and @Allen_Sparks ! Yes, there is a bit of fine noise left here. On occasion I’ve done a second denoise with Topaz in PS. That would probably work here, but maybe at the expense of starting to look a bit plastic. I’ll try it later – it’s looking clear tonight and tomorrow night so I’m off to astro-land.

[Jim_Zablotny]

I think that this is your best baby bluebird shot. Processing this raw file, produced an excellent image. The blues show up well against the overall color of the BG–Awesome…Jim

[alice (ALICE WILSON)]

Just WOW, such a sharp capture and perfect background. You are going to have some fun with that lens!!
Alice

[Youssef_Ismail]

Diane,

Both are wonderful, but I like the first photo best. I think it has to do with the catch light in the eye. At the same time I get the feeling of having to go out into the world alone and I’m not to happy about it.

[Glenys_Passier]

Wow Diane! I am so behind. Late to the party always lately.

I love these bluebird images. You can certainly get the most out of a file. The original doesn’t look that spectacular…until you’ve done your magic!

Just beautiful.

[Diny_Jones]

Hi Diane,
I just love the detail in the feathers, the turn of the head and the soft background. All combine to create a beautiful image. The tones all work so well together. The bird looks pensive, maybe even a bit sad.
I’m just curious as to the actual size of these birds as we don’t have them in Australia (that I’m aware of)?

[Diane_Miller]

Thanks, @alice , @Youssef_Ismail , @Glenys_Passier and @Diny_Jones ! The reason I posted the original frame along with the processing steps was to show how simple the necessary processing was. Of course, that was helped by the stability of a tripod for optimum AF and soft light, although it could have been a little brighter.

Diny, I don’t know what birds of yours would be comparable, but these guys are 16-19 cm long, 29-34 cm wingspan and weigh about 24-31 gm.