Why ducks? - a revelation

[StewartR]

I was never quite sure why it seems traditional for people to post pictures of ducks. But I think I might have discovered.

First of all, I ought to break my duck, so to speak:

http://StewartR.smugmug.com/photos/160091626-L.jpg

I'm fairly happy with this (though I'd be happier if I'd achieved a bit more DOF). The light was glorious and the colours you see here are pretty much straight out of the camera; all I've done is cropped and sharpened.

But the thing that amazed me was how hard it was to get the exposure right in the RAW conversion! It seemed that whatever I did, I was faced with burnt-out highlights and blacked-out shadows. I did the best I could, but then it was very interesting to look at a histogram, derived purely from the ducks themselves:

178875

Bizarre. I don't think I've ever seen a histogram as flat as that. To my mind it confirms that mallards are just very difficult subjects to expose properly. Is that a complete coincidence, or is it a factor that has contributed to the popularity of ducks as subjects? What do you think?

[PhotosGuy]

For that sort of subject, I start by aiming for a properly exposed flat-white & refine from there. The sky, water, reflection, might all throw the histogram off, so I use this to be sure that the bright areas "at the right" are the bright areas I want to keep:
Need an exposure crutch? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89123)


Different ways to "Expose to the right" here:
exposing to the right question. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3068220#post3068220)

[PacAce]

I was never quite sure why it seems traditional for people to post pictures of ducks. But I think I might have discovered.

First of all, I ought to break my duck, so to speak:

http://StewartR.smugmug.com/photos/160091626-L.jpg

I'm fairly happy with this (though I'd be happier if I'd achieved a bit more DOF). The light was glorious and the colours you see here are pretty much straight out of the camera; all I've done is cropped and sharpened.

But the thing that amazed me was how hard it was to get the exposure right in the RAW conversion! It seemed that whatever I did, I was faced with burnt-out highlights and blacked-out shadows. I did the best I could, but then it was very interesting to look at a histogram, derived purely from the ducks themselves:

178875

Bizarre. I don't think I've ever seen a histogram as flat as that. To my mind it confirms that mallards are just very difficult subjects to expose properly. Is that a complete coincidence, or is it a factor that has contributed to the popularity of ducks as subjects? What do you think?
You should have refreshed the histogram first. See that triangle with the exclamation mark in it? That means that the historgram is not accurate as is and needs to be refreshed by clicking on the refresh icon above it.

[StewartR]

You should have refreshed the histogram first. See that triangle with the exclamation mark in it? That means that the historgram is not accurate as is and needs to be refreshed by clicking on the refresh icon above it.Well spotted Leo, but actually it doesn't make any difference. I had done a rough selection of the ducks at 25% magnification, but there were a few bits that I didn't do very well so I zoomed in to about 67% to tweak the selection. The histogram that you can see here is from my first, slightly coarser selection. I've just repeated the exercise and I can confirm that there isn't any material difference - the histogram is still flat.

[StewartR]

For that sort of subject, I start by aiming for a properly exposed flat-white & refine from there. The sky, water, reflection, might all throw the histogram off, so I use this to be sure that the bright areas "at the right" are the bright areas I want to keep:
Need an exposure crutch? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89123)


Different ways to "Expose to the right" here:
exposing to the right question. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3068220#post3068220)Thanks Frank. I know how to expose to the right. I think the issue here is that if I do it strictly - i.e. avoiding all blown highlights - then the dark parts of the mallards are just too dark. My observation is that these ducks have a surprisingly large dynamic range, and to get the best overall exposure I found I had to blow some of the highlights slightly - the female's tail, for example. The challenge was in judging the right balance between blown highlights and blacked-out shadows, because totally avoiding either didn't look good.

[yonni]

Yes the mallards certainly have a wide dynamic range, but shooting them on a bright sunny day only makes the problem worse doesn't it? Would a cloudy day have made it easier?

[Mark_Cohran]

I think you're over analyzing why we shoot ducks, but you've made some interesting observation. Ducks are for luck! :)

Mark