Eagles- Washing Bum? And correcting WB

[NorthernFocus]

More stuff I ran across in the files.

From 2008, D200, Sigma 100-300 w/1.4x TC, f/8 @ 280 mm, 1/1600, ISO 500

1a) I love this shot of an eagle that miscalculated its glide path and came in a bit low on a fishing run. Note the odd bokeh effect in the BG highlights. That was an artifact of using the Sigma 1.4x TC on this lens. It did very odd things with waves or any kind of geometric patterns in the OOF BG.



1b) As originally processed. WB was off as the main difference.



2a) Another shot just to show processing changes. The shot was pretty badly underexposed.



2b) And as originally processed.

[tbob]

You did quite well in recovering this. Quite like the warmer brighter feel. The bokeh is something I would not have even noted unless it was brought to my attention.

Take this for what is worth from someone who is still struggling to visualize an endpoint goal in processing. An aspect you have mastered it seems to me

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[Nicks Pics]

The first one is an awesome eagle image! (And you know we've all seen a lot of eagle images) I really like the spray, the wing position, and how well the head was captured.

Lightroom can do a lot for WB correction and lifting shadows. Looks much better.

I often find myself wanting to re-edit images I've done in the past if I want to use them!

[GBO25]

Great action shots and the white balance correction really improves them.

[ashcroft]

Lovely action shots, especially the first one. Dramatic.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks, guys. Glad you enjoyed the shots. I'm mostly through the eagle files now. Have a few from 2013 that I never processed. A couple potential sequences to stitch into panos if I can find the time and inspiration to do it.

I love these birds...

[kaneohebud]

Hi Dan: Envy your access to the eagles. Nice work!

[NorthernFocus]

Hi Dan: Envy your access to the eagles. Nice work!

Greener grass. This time of year palm trees and sandy beaches seem pretty optimal

[IzzieK]

I am glad that you included the original and the edited versions as it is a sort of learning experience for us too...I love the first ones. I have not seen one landed that short of target. Love the spray of water in both of them...and of course the composition...

[Rita]

Another really nice set of the majestic Eagle. Nice to see the side by side change in the WB.

[Barbara Ponder]

Awesome shots!

[NorthernFocus]

glad you folks enjoyed. I'm flying like eagle tonite. not home till 0200. later...

[Brownbear]

Gorgeous images as always...

I do prefer the golden tones in the edited images but would like to ask how did you determine the correct white balance for these? Their colouring changes with the light/time of day so much (almost black or golden) and I still find choosing the correct WB to be an enigma. If one is trying to portray the golden light seen on the wings and in these images the water, how does one do so with the WB tool?

Thank you.

[NorthernFocus]

...I do prefer the golden tones in the edited images but would like to ask how did you determine the correct white balance for these? Their colouring changes with the light/time of day so much (almost black or golden) and I still find choosing the correct WB to be an enigma. If one is trying to portray the golden light seen on the wings and in these images the water, how does one do so with the WB tool?

Hi, Christina. First, let's call it "preferred" rather than "correct" WB. Of course the challenge to effectively use the WB tool is that you need to have something in the image that is neutral, i.e. balanced saturation in the RGB channels. Since I don't care about definitively "correct" WB, I take some latitude at picking what I consider to be neutral. For example a bit of bleached out wood might do in a pinch. But then I subjectively apply some judgment based on what the tool produces. For example if I know it was warm light and the WB tool picks a 5800k value, then I'll manually tweak it.

With the eagles we have the benefit of the white head and tail. It's doubtful that you ever find one with feathers that qualify as "true" white, but we don't really care. However you have to take a bit of care because their tales are often soiled and their necks can frequently have some staining from blood. So I typically take a sampling from the white feathers in several places and use some judgment. The one thing you can count on is that the white feathers should never have a higher reading in the blue channel than in the red. So at a minimum I typically pick a white balance to bring the bluest feathers at least back to equal in B and R channels. EXCEPT, some localized correction may be needed if there is a true bluish hue to the underside of head/tail due to being shaded and/or reflected light off a blue water surface.

So specifically in these images, I used the described method of sampling several spots and making a judgment call. I also new that the lighting they were shot under was thin overcast so the k value should be slightly higher than "sunshine". In the butt wash shot I also took readings from parts of the water splash that I felt should represent more or less pure white and factored that back into my decision. After I pick a WB value and adjust the image, then I go back to the same sample locations and check the readings again with the WB tool.

Sorry this was so long. Hope it is intelligible. As you can see it is anything but an exact science the way that I do it. But they're my images...

[purplehaze]

Fabulous shots, Dan, and great processing. You bird shooters have me in awe.

[Brownbear]

Hi Dan,

Thank you for a truly wonderful explanation and how-to for setting the WB to suit the scene. It makes sense to me. And truly appreciated!

Hi, Christina. First, let's call it "preferred" rather than "correct" WB. Of course the challenge to effectively use the WB tool is that you need to have something in the image that is neutral, i.e. balanced saturation in the RGB channels. Since I don't care about definitively "correct" WB, I take some latitude at picking what I consider to be neutral. For example a bit of bleached out wood might do in a pinch. But then I subjectively apply some judgment based on what the tool produces. For example if I know it was warm light and the WB tool picks a 5800k value, then I'll manually tweak it.

With the eagles we have the benefit of the white head and tail. It's doubtful that you ever find one with feathers that qualify as "true" white, but we don't really care. However you have to take a bit of care because their tales are often soiled and their necks can frequently have some staining from blood. So I typically take a sampling from the white feathers in several places and use some judgment. The one thing you can count on is that the white feathers should never have a higher reading in the blue channel than in the red. So at a minimum I typically pick a white balance to bring the bluest feathers at least back to equal in B and R channels. EXCEPT, some localized correction may be needed if there is a true bluish hue to the underside of head/tail due to being shaded and/or reflected light off a blue water surface.

So specifically in these images, I used the described method of sampling several spots and making a judgment call. I also new that the lighting they were shot under was thin overcast so the k value should be slightly higher than "sunshine". In the butt wash shot I also took readings from parts of the water splash that I felt should represent more or less pure white and factored that back into my decision. After I pick a WB value and adjust the image, then I go back to the same sample locations and check the readings again with the WB tool.

Sorry this was so long. Hope it is intelligible. As you can see it is anything but an exact science the way that I do it. But they're my images...

[Suzan J]

Hi Dan: I haven't checked in for a while, being busy with a vacation and spending time with my family. What a joy to come back and see so many images of your eagles. They are truly amazing birds and I never tire of looking at them. Thanks for going through your vaults and sharing your techniques.

[Downrigger]

Sorry this was so long. Hope it is intelligible. As you can see it is anything but an exact science the way that I do it. But they're my images...

Thanks for your very helpful abbreviated WB primer, Dan. These are more wonderful images from you. I'll be the lone voice for something closer to the cooler greener version, though.

I love the deep greens-leaning-towards-blue of clear (non-eutrophicate) wild northern waters as opposed to the soupy yellow-greens of typically eutrophic-ruined waters we see a lot of down here. The bluer cooler greens speak to me of remote/northern/unspoiled often emphasized by the deeper green reflections of conifers. Therefore, though I can appreciate the warming up of the birds (maybe not quite so much, though) it would be nice to see the "northern waters" aspect of the water at cooler temps than in your final versions. As you point out and I agree - this is about preferred, not correct, but I thought I'd share my thoughts on another "preferred".

[Nicks Pics]

May I ask a question about the WB topic? You don't necessarily want a white object in a picture to appear pure white, do you? The eagle's head in the first picture has a yellowish tint, to me, which I consider totally acceptable and even desirable for outdoor photography, because with nature photography we generally want to capture the temperature of the natural light at the time, else our photos wouldn't bear the appearance of time of day/environment in which the photo was actually taken. I thought the LR white balance tool was intended to set the WB to make whatever "neutral" thing you base it on look neutral in tone, so I don't usually base my WB on it when I want to preserve a natural lighting look.