11 replies to this topic

[Carolina]

Both of these were taken 3/11/12 in the area around the same time at the Savannah NWR at the border of SC & GA.

Taken late in the day in a very wet area.

Are they Blue-gray Gnatcatchers?

1. The short looking tail on this first one makes me hesitate in the ID...






2. This one has a very prominent eye ring & the tail seems longer than in the first photo...

[Liam]

Yes, both are Blue-gray Gnatcatchers.

[Grandpa577]

Yes, both are Blue-gray Gnatcatchers.

Why are these Blue-gray Gnatcatchers? I would have thought the upperparts would have been blue-gray and the under parts white.

[Liam]

Why are these Blue-gray Gnatcatchers? I would have thought the upperparts would have been blue-gray and the under parts white.

Given the location, there's not much else it could be with that pinkish coloration and distinct eyering. I think the odd-looking colors are due to white balance.

[Carolina]

Given the location, there's not much else it could be with that pinkish coloration and distinct eyering. I think the odd-looking colors are due to white balance.

Please forgive my photos. Am teaching myself & more often than not the colors & many other things are off. Late in the day is a real challenge for me. I did not want to adjust anything in case it caused confusion.

Is it better to adjust bad photos or leave everything alone?

[Joejr14]

Given the location, there's not much else it could be with that pinkish coloration and distinct eyering. I think the odd-looking colors are due to white balance.

Agree. I think with the 2nd picture, specifically, you're getting a pretty heavy green saturation on the birds' whites from the tree. A little messing around in lightroom or photohshop could probaby wipe that out.

[Liam]

Is it better to adjust bad photos or leave everything alone?

Whatever you think best.

[Carolina]

Given the location, there's not much else it could be with that pinkish coloration and distinct eyering. I think the odd-looking colors are due to white balance.

Thanks for giving me some direction to what the problem might be. Worked with the white balance this afternoon. There was improvement.

As always...thanks to everyone for the help with the ID. This was a lifer.

[mtdavid]

Is it better to adjust bad photos or leave everything alone?

For ID purposes I would rather see the unaltered image first. Any color/brightness/whatever issues would at least be consistent that way where corrections may disrupt that. Editing can definitely help, but without the original it can be confusing imo. There was a recent female Boat-tailed or Great-tailed Grackle thread that threw some people off this way.

[grammarcat]

Also remember that monitors vary in how they display color. A LOT. I'm in the communications business, so that's something I deal with everyday: Is the color I'm seeing on the computer going to look the same on paper? Is it even going to look the same on someone else's computer? The most likely answer to both questions is NO.

[Carolina]

For ID purposes I would rather see the unaltered image first. Any color/brightness/whatever issues would at least be consistent that way where corrections may disrupt that. Editing can definitely help, but without the original it can be confusing imo. There was a recent female Boat-tailed or Great-tailed Grackle thread that threw some people off this way.

This is what I was wondering so this is good to know. My general impression was that it was best to keep the corrections to a minimum after reading a lot of the comments on some of the IDs lately. So I had stopped making any corrections to the shots that I was posting for ID in the past week. Don't want my inexperienced adjusting to hinder getting a solid ID/confirmation.

The unfortunate consequence is that the true state of my lack of photog skillz is revealed...but it does push me to get a better understanding of the photography side of birding. This is a must since the camera is in fact functioning as my eyes.

[cabirds]

White balance issues in the natural world aren't really about "your poor photography skills" - it's a fact of life. You can carry around white and neutral-balance cards, but the light changes so frequently it's hard to keep up. Ultimately, I try to balance my light where possible, and "fix it" in Photoshop if I later desire.

Late afternoon light is the warmest possible light. It's also a "magic hour" because it imparts that same feeling of warmth - it's some of the most desirable light for photographers working in the natural world because, artistically, it yields such gorgeous results. The beauty of digital photography is that now you, the artist, have complete control over what you do with the output from your camera. Are you aiming for a pure documentary? Then white-balance. Are you aiming to impart a feeling of coolness? Then shift your balance towards the blue. A feeling of warmth and depth? Then shift it towards the golden tones.

I calibrate my monitors for print, but my images never look the same when I see them on someone elses monitor. If you can get true white into your photo, then you can always get true white back out in Photoshop, regardless of what our monitors say.

Here's a Blue-gray Gnatcatcher that I chose to cool down just a little. This was actually taken in warm light. I first white-balanced to true white, then shifted just his background just a teensie bit towards cold. His colors are pretty close to true, but his environment looks a little cold, at least on my calibrated monitors. As long as you're making a deliberate decision on why you're doing what you're doing: you can't be doing it "wrong". Just know that doing it may make it harder to ID the specimen. For an ID photo, true white-balance and neutral-balance is always best.