A little too much of a good thing?
1/2500, f/6.3, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
Four days ago I spotted this male American Kestrel on some rocks at Farmington Bay before the sun came up over the mountains so he was still in shade until just before I pulled up on him in my pickup. So this shot was taken almost immediately after sunrise which is why the light is so incredibly warm. It was fun to catch him on rocks instead of the unnatural perches they usually seem to prefer and it was cold enough that he was “sticky” so he allowed me a close approach. He was also turned nicely into the light.
The sky is the color it is because of all the moisture in the air in the cold temperature (18 degrees F. if I remember correctly) with the sun so low on the horizon.
Lots of things went right for this photo but… I’m undecided about that very warm light. Typically I love warm light when I’m photographing birds unless my subject is black or black and white (for example I don’t think magpies are enhanced by warm light) but the warmth of the light on this occasion might be just a little too intense, especially given the reds and yellows of both the rocks and the kestrel which are warm colors to begin with.
I’m wondering what my readers think. I could play around with color temperature adjustments in Photoshop (which I have no major objection to doing) but these colors were natural so I’d rather leave them be if it’s not necessary. And since I’m undecided – a little help from my friends? Perhaps I’m seeing a potential problem where there isn’t one. It wouldn’t be the first time.
If you’re wondering why I don’t post a color temperature-adjusted version of the image for comparison it’s because I’d prefer to know whether you like the photo or not without the comparison. If it isn’t necessary I’d rather not fiddle-fart around with the image because I’m not very good at that kind of thing since I have very little experience doing it. I almost never do color adjustments – in large part because of my intense aversion to unnaturally oversaturated images which are more common on the internet than mosquitoes on a horse’s belly near a creek on a warm spring evening.
If you decide to tell me what you think about the color temperature in particular, please be perfectly honest. Too warm? Or not? Of course I’d appreciate knowing what you think about the image for reasons unrelated to color temperature too.
Ron
PS – Just prior to publishing this post I’m now wondering if I’m overreacting to the warm light because in my eye it’s been intensified by the contrast of the very cool blues in the background? I dunno, I’m out of my league here and very possibly overthinking the image…
I may like this kestrel picture of yours even better than my other favorite one you know about. Nah, I like the other better because of the coloration and background. In general, in my shooting and post processing I attempt to make the image color and exposure match what my eye saw – or at least what I remember my eye saw when I finally get around to it. Not being there with you my first reaction was that the subject was just a little overexposed. Dropping exposure would change the color some.
On the gripping hand… if you decided to try cooling it up a little I would bet it might improved it. I would start with white balance first though, again to try and match what you saw. This dramatically affects color and you have exported it from RAW I am sure with whatever white balance Canon gave you in the image and whatever probable default setting you left it at. My two cents…
It’s a really nice image. However, I think it is a bit too warm. I often photograph in early morning light and I must deal with the heavy red shift that occurs in the first minutes after sunrise. My philosophy is this: I try to capture the image as my brain perceives it. Our brains compensate for the warm light so we don’t “see” all of that red at sunrise. If it had been me I would have adjusted the color balance just enough so that the heavy red cast is removed. I’d leave some warmth in, however, so as to depict the image as an early morning shot.
Best,
Steve
Hey Ron
I’ve never replied to you before, though I visit your blog daily. I just wanted to thank you for sharing your obvious
gift for photography and your knowledge of what it is you photograph. I love wildlife and the land and space they need.
It’s great to live in a time where gifted people like you can share your gift with the not so gifted people like me.
so thank you, and happy holidays to you and your loved ones
Hi Ron, I’d like to echo Barbara T. I think it’s perfect as is. Without reading anything, I looked at the picture and immediately I knew it was sunrise on a cold winter day, and the kestrel was no doubt happy to get a bit of warmth from the just-risen sun. And that is the story you photo has to tell. The pale sky tells of the cold. I felt the cold and the sudden, warm light almost as if I were there. To me the story is more important and artistic details.
I like and appreciate your perspective on the photo and how it’s interpreted, Betsy. Thanks very much.
This probably only serves to confuse, but on my Mac the sky is kind of a washed out pastel; on my PC it’s a bit more blue but still mildly pastel. On the Mac the bird “pops” with color; not so much on the PC. The white on the rock is kind of distracting on the Mac but doesn’t stand out on the PC. I guess I would go with everyone who thinks the sky could be more blue (maybe darken the brightest rocks?).
18 degrees? You are so dedicated. I would pull the covers over my head.
“I would pull the covers over my head”
Ha, I had that impulse too, Lyle. But I liked the image well enough that I wanted to work with it even though I didn’t know what to do about the warm colors, if anything. Once the project was in my head I was stuck with it…
The bird blends in with the rocks really well, but the sky is a bit light this time. Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas everyone!
Thanks, Jean. The same to you.
Christmas has landed here. So to you, and all your knowledgeable and witty readers the very best of the season.
My one cent worth? (not worth two).
The Kestrel and the rocks justify the continuing existence of orange.
It is the washed out, featureless sky I have difficulties with.
And how I envy your cool (cold) mornings. It is hot here and the week is going to get hotter. And parts of Oz will reach 47C (118+F)today and for the next few days. Bleah.
Lots of folks mentioning that sky. I’m thinking I should focus there if I decided to play with it for keeps.
Sheesh, almost 120 degrees on Christmas! Hard for me to imagine. Happy Holidays my friend.
I think a bluer sky and less on the rocks? But I’m not a great visual critic. 🙂 The colors of the bird and rocks mingle a bit too much.
Thanks for your suggestion, Arwen.
Wonderful shot. It may seem warm because the sky is pale, but that’s fine. I guess it depends a bit on what your goal is with the photo. Are you looking for the “perfect” Kestrel photo (Is there such aa thing?) or the natural appearance of a Kestrel in first morning light as it warms in the sun ready to face the day? One way places a heavier emphasis on the bird and the other on the bird as part of the environment, including the light. I think you always make good judgements about any adjustments and in this instance, if you adjusted it to be a bit cooler, it would still be an excellent photo and still represent the environment very well. No right or wrong here and I always look forward to an outstanding photo every day. Thanks for sharing and being interested in our comments.
Dan, I’m always interested in comments from my readers and I’m appreciative of the many knowledgeable ones you’ve provided in the past.
No, there isn’t “such a thing”. Thanks for your thoughts on this.
The light doesn’t seem too warm to me, but I’m on my ancient iPad right now and the screen doesn’t always reflect reality very well. The sky seems very pale in contrast to the Kestrel and rocks. If I were to tweak the shot, I’d probably start there to give a little more contrast to draw the eye up from the rocks. Perhaps lessening the saturation a tick of just the dark orange rock under the Kestrel might help with that as well.
What I absolutely LOVE about this shot is the perfect echo by the rocks of the browns, oranges, greys, and creams of the Kestrel. I think the warmth of the light actually helps in that regard. This shot makes me wonder if the Kestrel selected that perch so he could blend in, if feisty Kestrels ever want to blend into the wallpaper, that is. 😉
(Also, your last sentence to Kathy was not lost on me — I can’t bring myself to eat Chee-tos these days. 😈😄)
You’re the third person to recommend playing with the sky, Marty. Worth a shot!
I figured you’d pick up on that last sentence if you read it. Couldn’t help myself.
I’ll throw in here to say it does not need any color adjustments. I covet getting that warm glow in shots and wouldn’t dream of trying to lessen it. This is a real keeper and, like you say, extra points it not been on a post or wire AND letting you get close. Killer shot.
Thanks very much, Dave.
Lovely shot Ron! MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Charlotte
Thanks, Charlotte. You too.
I love it because it’s a Kestral and you got it while I have not had much success with these guys. Others have said it and this is probably repetitive, my monitor is different than your monitor and is different that other’s monitors unless they have all been calibrated the same. So it’s a tough question to answer.
No problem, Frank. Thanks.
I am a bird watcher and would feel incredibly lucky to catch site of this bird regardless of the light. I love you work and always have to ready your commentary to find what I should look for as far as perceived problems. I wish I had your passion for photography I just love enjoying yours.
Thanks very much, Betty.
Beautifully done, Ron! I agree with Kris- I would love a deeper blue in the background, but a beautiful Kestrel on a natural perch in warm light is hard to beat!
I’ll try it, Diane.
I like it as posted, Ron, But I’d probably like it tweaked as well.
That being said, I have to play devils advocate a bit here. You say that you like things “Natural” and I understand what you mean by that. The reality is that Canon’s natural is different than Nikon’s natural is different than Sony’s natural, etc.,especially if you are shooting on auto white balance. They are all close to the same parameters, but all different and not exactly the way I see the world. Capturing an image, to me at least, is like finding a gem in it’s raw form. It’s beautiful the way it is, but polishing and cutting brings a different beauty to the surface that may or may not appeal to people.
It doesn’t really matter what you tweak, you’ve altered it from Canons idea of how “natural” should look and that’s ok.
Recently, Ive been shooting a lot of Cedar Waxwing that give me processing nightmares. The way the yellow of the tail and the florescent orange of the candles on the wings are captured give me fits and I have to go in the opposite direction of my norms by selectively desaturating both colors. Point being that every image is different and can’t be lumped into a standard process. I know that if I gave 100 photographers one of my images to process, I’d get 100 different images. Some close to how I see things, some quite different. All correct to those 100 individuals view of the Canon captured world, but different from mine.
Your processing is immaculate and shows that you are very accomplished with presenting you images in a pleasing way, but without everyone screens being color corrected to your machine, we all see it differently than you do. Natural is a moving target in my opinion.
Time for another cup. Cheers!
Given your long time experience with professional photography I always appreciate your input, Neil – especially about things like this.
Your primary point is of course valid and well taken. Thanks for providing it. And I loved this sentence – “Natural is a moving target in my opinion”. Perfectly said.
That same slightly yellow hue can be seen on his breast, Nancy. Thanks for the suggestion.
Perfectly honest: The kestrel is interesting, catchlight in the eye, feathers sharp – a picture I might keep, but put into a back file, rather than a front file, unless it is my only kestrel shot. Understand ,we all are different, have different ideas on what is pleasing to our eye, etc., etc. I personally like more in the background than just blue sky. I want to see more of a sense of where this kestrel is living, hunting, etc. So, I am not excited about the background which leaves the foreground sort of out of it. Sorry I can’t be more complementary, but you asked for us to be honest.
Merry Christmas to both you and Mia!
And “honest” is what I really wanted, Dick. Thanks for maintaining the standard!
Merry Christmas to you and yours also.
I am not sure I have articulated what I love about your photography. You are an honest photographer who does not manipulate his shots to the determint of wildlife nor to artificiality. If you have to make adjustments you are up front about it. That is what I believe in and that is what I appreciate about you. Man can be very critical about something even though he/she really likes it. Just had to say it!
And I’m glad you did – including the critique.
I agree with all the people who say this is a matter of personal preference. It’s a wonderful photo! Despite that, I might have adjusted the hue enough to make the normally white part of the kestrel’s face closer to white, as I think our brain and eyes would have work together so that’s what we would have seen. The camera’s interpretation may more accurately represent what was actually reflected by the feathers. As you well know, different wavelengths get through the atmosphere depending on the angle to and amount of atmosphere it travels through.
That same slightly yellow hue can be seen on his breast, Nancy. Thanks for the suggestion.
May be pushing it a bit but I LOVE it – bird/rocks just “glow” sky a bit pale, I tend to more intense colors so may just be me……. 😉
All of us are “just me” so what you prefer matters too, Judy. Thanks for providing your opinion.
Ron, I love the profile image of this little guy on the rock, especially the head slightly angled. The warm light also appeals to me but if I had taken this shot I would have adjusted shutter or aperture one stop, since I shoot manual mode, to reduce exposure. Exposure, as well as color saturation, is a personal preference and I often wrestle with decisions in this area. Your exposure is almost always where I like it but my feeling about this shot is it might be off by one stop. I generally check the histogram when I am not sure, curious how your Canon read the highlights on this one.
I’ll play with exposure while I’m playing around with it, Reid. I probably adjusted it slightly already (can’t remember) but I don’t always get it right or best the first time around. Thanks.
Reid, with all due respect I disagree. One stop is a boatload of light. If I was going to make an edit with that in mind I’d be inclined to knock down the highlights a tick in post. There really is not ‘wrong’ here it’s a personal preference.
Definitely not too warm. Not even close in my opinion. I tend to look at these things from the position of; what did the scene look like when I took the shot? If you’ve got incredibly warm light when the picture was taken, then *that* is the edit. (Within reason of course) Subject matter can also be a factor. For example, people WANT to see a white head on a Bald Eagle. It’s a characteristic of the bird. As a result, I have to be mindful during the editing process and not get too carried away with the temp slider and negate the reason I was out there at sunrise to begin with.
Some good points, Thomas. Thanks.
It is a lovely portrait but I think I might like it a little cooler. Not a lot but just enough to take the edgo off the saturated oranges on the rocks and Kestrel.
Thank you, Wendy.
I think the intuition in your “p.s.” is dead on– that’s exactly what I was thinking as I scrolled thru your commentary–not only is the blue of the sky very light in value ( compared to the
deeper values in the lovely bird ), but the saturation of the blue is on the weak side, compared to the very intense saturation of the warm colors in the bird. I wondered what the effect would be
if you could tweak the blue to a deeper value and a more intense saturation to balance all the wonderful “fire” in the bird and rocks ?
That might be a good option, Kris. I’ll try it. Thank you for suggesting it.
I like the warmth of the photo, and I like natural wildlife photos. And a little warmth at 18 degrees in the morning is a good thing. My eye is on the kestrel – my favorites – and not on the rocks. Good photo warm or not. Thanks for sharing Ron.
Everett Sanborn, Prescott AZ
Thank you for your input, Everett. Good point about warm colors in cold temps… 🙂
Well, Ron – I’m a pure amateur when it comes to working with photos (no Photoshop, etc. just crop) so others with that experience will be better for input. For me as a bird lover and a big admirer of your work, I love it!! The strength of the Sun’s light on the Kestrel makes me feel the warmth of that light which is what you were capturing. How can you mess with Nature, right?
“How can you mess with Nature, right?”
That’s always a valid point in regard to my photos. Thanks, Jo Ann.
Spectacular as is. The lighting tells the story – almost enough that a reader might guess at the details (time of day, temps, dewpoint) w/o your explanation (as fun as those are to read:) I like it as is/ au naturel.
I appreciate your “au naturel” point, Barbara – it’s always my instinct to go with natural. But my instinct isn’t always best so I decided to ask for input. Thanks for yours!
Personally, I think the image is fine as is, but if it were toned down a bit it would still be fine. To me at least, good wildlife photos nearly always have some flaws hidden behind the scenes, like a slower shutter speed than usual or a strange perch or background, and in this case the lighting is a little too strong. That’s not such a bad thing, as the good outweighs the bad in this image, but feel free to change the temperature if you feel like it! If you haven’t done it much before it would also serve as great practice too! And if I don’t say it enough, love that shot Ron!
Thanks for providing your take on this, Xavier. And you’re right, no photo is perfect.
I probably will play around with it a little just to see what I can do. And as you said, for the practice. But I’m not really sure I want to get good at it… 🙂
I love the bird! To have a kestrel on a natural perch in my mind is always a winner. My only quibble would be the orange of the rock…orange has never been a color that I’ve been in awe of. If the orange is cooled in tone the photo overall is near perfect…in my humble opinion. Laying my hand across the computer screen blocking it out changes everything for me…even the lightness of the sky. Just my thoughts… 🙂
Hey, that might be a very good idea, Kathy! Never thought of it. That orange rock is what grabbed my eye most too. And these days in particular I have a bit of an orange aversion…