Red Wattlebird

[Grumpy John]

All my research is telling me that this is a Red Wattlebird, maybe a juvenile judging by the size of the wattle.

Model: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
Exposure Time: 1/1250 sec
F Number: f/6.3
ISO Speed ratings: ISO 320
Exposure Program: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-segment
Focal Length: 562 mm
35mm Equivalent: 900 mm
Lens Model: Sigma 150-600 f5.0-6.3
GPS: 38.0734833 S , 145.2440033 E

[wigz]

Good shot in what look like difficult conditions with the front of the bird shaded and a bright background. Good eye contact and nice and sharp.

[Grumpy John]

Thanks for commenting Alan. This image almost ended in the recycel bin, but I thought that I'd have a crack at it.

This is why I shoot RAW, I don't think that there would have been enough detail in a JPEG image to recover all the detail.

SOOC

[wigz]

Yep, that's why I shoot raw also. It's amazing what you can do with shadow recovery.

[Isac]

It is a Red Wattle Bird John. Cameras nowadays are really good at converting RAW to JPG in camera and this is what I salvaged from the image above. Just a quick ACR adjustment and into PS for some more adjusting with curves and hue/sat. I think it brought out some good detail for a low res.

[Grumpy John]

You did very well Isac to recover that much detail.

[Isac]

I used to use RAW all the time but was super heavy on storage and as I was only using the images for the web I really didn't need that much data to work with. I know many use it but I'm happy with the JPG conversion I get from the in camera software, it's really very good. When processing JPG images I have them load into ACR and I find the adjustments work well on the JPG file. I do use RAW now and then when I know I will need it, but mostly JPG for me now.

I'm going to set RAW + JPEG highest quality for both and see what the differences are for processing images for web display. I did this a long time ago and RAW was the way to go - but now a RAW file compressed to JPG in camera uses some pretty sophisticated and really clever software which is of a higher quality than it was back then. If I can see major differences between the two formats, maybe I'll go back to RAW. After testing, I'll post some results. If you are in the business of printing large images for large $$ for magazines or advertisements, then RAW is the only option, but for sRGB web display, I'm sure JPG will suffice.