# Wild Heron



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

I took this image last January at my local park, originally in colour, this is a new BW conversion technique I am trying out.
Comments and critique welcome as always. Hope you guys like it.










Canon EOS 1DMKIII + Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS. 1/1000 sec. - ISO 800 - f/4


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Not really a fan of the conversion TBH, would like to see the colour version though!


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Ok Morgan here you go.










Image data as per previous image


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

I like the picture even though the grain is quite apparent. can you tell us more about the BW conversion?


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Yeah i think i prefer it as a colour image, but as dougie says the noise is quite apparent. Probably due to being quite a close crop. You must have been quite a distance away to have to crop that much i imagine?

500mm lens, 1.3 x crop factor on the 1Dmk3 so that's an effective 650mm!


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

spitfire said:


> I like the picture even though the grain is quite apparent. can you tell us more about the BW conversion?


Sure.
I converted the image to BW through a channel mixer layer, created a gradient map layer at normal blend 100% opacity, selected the background layer and created a hue saturation layer, played with the hue slider until I was happy with the greys, then I sandwiched another gradient map layer but this time at 50% opacity and multiply blending. Then, I painted with a soft brush at 30% opacity on the layer mask until I was happy with the finished product.

@ Morgan.
Yes the bird was quite a distance away this is around 80%crop


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

IGADIZ said:


> Sure.
> I converted the image to BW through a channel mixer layer, created a gradient map layer at normal blend 100% opacity, selected the background layer and created a hue saturation layer, played with the hue slider until I was happy with the greys, then I sandwiched another gradient map layer but this time at 50% opacity and multiply blending. Then, I painted with a soft brush at 30% opacity on the layer mask until I was happy with the finished product.
> 
> @ Morgan.
> Yes the bird was quite a distance away this is around 80%crop


Dont take this the wrong way but I'm sorry I asked:lol:That went over my head quicker than a heron Seems like I have a lot still to learn about layers, channels and the editing side of things. Still at 80% crop and a 500mm lens the noise isn't too bad:thumb:


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

It really isn't that complicated once you get the basics.
As for the noise; I suppose I could run Noise ninja on it. I know some people hates it, but I quite like the grain, it gives it that fast film look of yesteryear. Of course this is just my personal taste, other peoples millage may vary.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

RE: The noise, i think the only solution is to use your 1Ds and buy the 800mm L F/5.6 to make up for the extra reach


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

I love the way it's wing tips bend upwards. Birds are amazing creatures


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Can I use your credit card for the 800mm? 
BTW why do you like the colour image better... personally, I prefer the BW conversion.


----------



## jcmac (Sep 13, 2008)

Color all the way mate


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Aside from the technical debate it is a stunning photo - love it :thumb:

P.S. colour is better


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

The background upper part of the image is quite dark, so i think the wing tip stands out more from the background in colour than in the B&W conversion. If the background was more uniformly light then i think i would have preferred the B&W version. Also the head seems to stand out more against the background in the colour version than the B&W.


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Thanks Morgan.
I think I can cure the BW conversion misgivings with a little dodge and burn... will give a go tomorrow.


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Having studied the two pictures I think I agree with the others. Whilst the b&w is good it's a shame to loose the birds beautiful colouring in the beak and wings. Also the colour on the uppermost wing contrasts better with the background IMHO.

Edit. Seems like I agree with Ryhs on this.


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Thank you guys for the input.
It looks like the BW conversion was a total failure :lol:...I still like it a lot. I think with a little more PP it will work. I shall think about this and give a try tomorrow. (to pi55ed to try it now... hicks!!)


----------



## joe_0_1 (Apr 7, 2007)

Looks cracking to me, I'd be uber proud if I took a pic like that :thumb:


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

IGADIZ said:


> Thank you guys for the input.
> *It looks like the BW conversion was a total failure* :lol:...I still like it a lot. I think with a little more PP it will work. I shall think about this and give a try tomorrow. (to pi55ed to try it now... hicks!!)


I wouldn't say that at all, mate. Putting my professional designer/artist hat on here for a second, I do like the Mono version - I think it stands up as a great shot in its own right (with all the minor critiques already mentioned taken into account). It's only when you see the colour original that you then tend to prefer it.


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

I think its great, better in B&W tbh. 

For all the people moaning about 'grain' have you never used a 'proper/traditional' camera - grain is a most marvelous effect especially in B&W


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Pit Viper said:


> I wouldn't say that at all, mate. Putting my professional designer/artist hat on here for a second, I do like the Mono version - I think it stands up as a great shot in its own right (with all the minor critiques already mentioned taken into account). It's only when you see the colour original that you then tend to prefer it.


I said that in reference to the people who had commented so far... for them, it is a failure.
I took all that was said last night into consideration, but after sleeping on it, I have decided I like it like it is. No further PP will be applied to the image other than rezzing it up for printing at a reasonable size.
I thank you all for the kind input and positive feedback on the image.


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Brazo said:


> I think its great, better in B&W tbh.
> 
> For all the people moaning about 'grain' have you never used a 'proper/traditional' camera - grain is a most marvelous effect especially in B&W


I don't think anyone' s moaning about grain Brazo.

IGADIZ I don't think it's a failure whatsoever.


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Spitfire.
I said that with no offence intended... When I said the BW image is a failure, I didn't mean it in the purest sense of the word, but in the meaning that some prefer the colour image better. 
As always, I am thankful for all the kind input.


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

IGADIZ said:


> Spitfire.
> *I said that with no offence intended*... When I said the BW image is a failure, I didn't mean it in the purest sense of the word, but in the meaning that some prefer the colour image better.
> As always, I am thankful for all the kind input.


I know that m8:thumb: I just wanted to reiterate that I liked the B&W. I think that photographing birds though and showing their beautiful colours is the best reason for shooting them in that medium. Not many people get close enough to appreciate how absolutely beautiful they are. You can tell I love birds:lolof both varieties) The picture of the Kestrel is brilliant BTW:thumb:


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Thank you mate, glad you like birds too!
I am sure you already own a few books, but if you don't, I recommend you buy these ones.
"The complete illustrated Encyclopedia of British and European Birds"... a wonderful book covering spices form the common wood pigeon to the very rare Little Stint and loaded with some 1000 illustrations. I bought mine from borders for £ 9... a bargain.
The other book is the classic Collins Complete Guide to British Birds. Again this book covers every single common species, a great pocket reference guide to take with you on your spotting walks... £ 15 from borders.
I don't think I need to advise you on where to find books for the other variety of birds.


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

Brazo said:


> I think its great, better in B&W tbh.
> 
> For all the people moaning about 'grain' have you never used a 'proper/traditional' camera - *grain is a most marvelous effect especially in B&W*


Agreed there. I occasionally add Filter > Texture > Intensity (15>25ish), Contrast (15>25ish), type 'Regular' on a seperate 'overlay' layer, desaturated (if it's a B&W image) and maybe a tiny hint of blur, to replicate the grain on a specific grade of Ilford B&W 35mm film (but I can't recall which it is off the top of my head)


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

IGADIZ said:


> Thank you mate, glad you like birds too!
> I am sure you already own a few books, but if you don't, I recommend you buy these ones.
> "The complete illustrated Encyclopedia of British and European Birds"... a wonderful book covering spices form the common wood pigeon to the very rare Little Stint and loaded with some 1000 illustrations. I bought mine from borders for £ 9... a bargain.
> The other book is the classic Collins Complete Guide to British Birds. Again this book covers every single common species, a great pocket reference guide to take with you on your spotting walks... £ 15 from borders.
> I don't think I need to advise you on where to find books for the other variety of birds.


Ha ha, I keep a book up at the allotment for identification purposes. I can't recall what it's called though


----------



## CK888 (Apr 23, 2006)

Prefer the B&W, nice tones and composition too:thumb:


----------

