Pacific Wren.
Shot taken 4/7/20 at Fort Worden St Park in WA.
This was my first (and so far only) attempt to use two-flash technique. Having watched 1 day prior, I knew this guy was on territory and this was one of several favorite perches. Bird came in to perch slightly above eye level. Flash #1 at bird level from about 3:00; flash #2 below bird level at about 8:00 (and 3x more distant from bird).
This sort of thing was pretty finicky…but you can’t really control much in this sort of setting. I let myself have only two “arrivals” of the bird so as not to hassle him too much.
Adjustments in LR: cropped, exposure, clarity, dehaze; Topaz DN for noise and sharpening.
Is this shot too obviously “flashed”? Is lack of obvious shadow a problem?
Is the thorny vertical stick too distracting?
Any/all thoughts welcome!
Sony a7Riv, Sony 100-400 (at 400mm), ISO 1000, 1/800, f/5.6
Flash #1: Godox V860ii; Flash #2: Yongnuo YN568EXIII
Thanks!
Barry
What technical feedback would you like if any?
What artistic feedback would you like if any?
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
(If backgrounds have been removed, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)
If you would like your image to be eligible for a feature on the NPN Instagram (@NaturePhotoNet), add the tag ‘ig’ and leave your Instagram username below.
Barry: You asked specifically about the “flashed” look. No, it doesn’t look flashed to me, but I don’t think it helped the image by having the second flash below the bird to eliminate the shadows that would be there naturally. Even if the shadows were subtle, they would be there.
I’m seeing noise even though you indicated you ran NR on the image. Not sure what’s happening.
Good job on figuring out the wrens pattern of movement. I know very little about flash but it does not look flashed to me. I live in metro Vancouver BC and get lots of soft box days, no shadows. Crop does look tight to me. Nice focus on the eye. And I can also notice the noise. It is nice that you only cycled through the process twice out of respect for the bird. Well done.
Nice look at the wren. It doesn’t look flashed and there’s what looks like natural catchlight in the eye. You also caught a nice pose and it’s nicely framed between the branches. Not sure what to make of the noise and not even sure it’s noise-looks more like a processing artifact. Was this a large crop? Impressed you’re taking more than one flash out into the wilds!
I am also enjoying this look at this wren. Compositionally effective. Does not look flashed at all so your processing worked in that respect. But I also see significant image quality and noise issues. I also shoot an A7r4 and I have a 100-400. One thing that would be very helpful in your shooting data would be the size of the crop. If this is a very large crop, that could explain some of the image quality issues. For noise reduction, I am currently using DxO photo lab 4 which does an excellent job even at large crops.
Nice to catch one of these at all, Barry. I also live in the PNW and I’ve yet to get a shot of one of these. I’ll have to borrow your scouting technique, though I always have trouble spotting them even when they’re singing their heads off. I agree that the flash isn’t obvious, but the image quality does suffer from something which looks like a combination of crop and processing.
Ack! I inadvertantly posted the DNG file that had not been denoised (which comes out of Topaz as TIF)! No wonder several people commented on the noise. Thanks for your comments.
Ack! I inadvertantly posted the DNG file that had not been denoised (which comes out of Topaz as TIF)! No wonder several people commented on the noise. Thanks for your comments.
Ack! I inadvertantly posted the DNG file that had not been denoised (which comes out of Topaz as TIF)! No wonder several people commented on the noise. Thanks for your comments.
Ack! I inadvertantly posted the DNG file that had not been denoised (which comes out of Topaz as TIF)! No wonder several people commented on the noise. Thanks for your comments.
I like the pose and setting. It doesn’t look flashed to me – the underside of the limb and the bird are a little darker. Two (or more) flashes is the way to go – kudos for going to the trouble.
The “noise” here is very strange looking. I’m curious to find out more about what had been done to the image as it was posted. I’m also curious if Topaz DeNoise dealt with it well. I’d love to see your final version and have more details about the processing.
Several people have noted the odd-looking noise or processing artifact in the background. I think I inadvertently posted an image that had not yet been denoised.
Here’s a re-post of the same image, but one that was processed through Topaz DN.
Looking at both Pacific Wren images, I don’t see much difference. There really is a substantial difference when viewed directly at home. Perhaps there is an artifact introduced in the transmission and posting process?
I see some difference between the original and your second post, but the second still does not look right. I took the second image to PS, applied Topaz Denoise AI to the background and this is the result. No, there is no artifact in transmission, and assuming your workflow is correct, the jpeg loaded here should be visually the same as what you have at home.
When I get a chance, I’ll try and dig into this problem. Not sure I’m savvy enough to figure it out, but will take a shot. If I can find something, will re-post. Thanks for the feedback.
