Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: seamus finn on March 16, 2011, 02:01:28 pm
-
..... Plaça de Catalunya, Barcelona.
-
She has obviously never seen the Hitchcock film "The Birds."
-
I hadn't the heart to tell her how that worked out, Eric.
-
Nicely done, Seamus!
Mike.
-
Very nice street shot!
Good work!
But I believe I see some film development artifacts in the left part of the image. Do I ?
-
Very nice street shot!
Good work!
But I believe I see some film development artifacts in the left part of the image. Do I ?
No, I think it's reflection on the window.
Rob C
-
Ah ... taken from the bus or from inside a café?
-
Guys: no film, no windows, no bus, no flash. Camera: Canon EOS 20D. I thought it was slight shadows hitting that part of the street but on second thoughts and after a quick inspection of the original, I'm not too sure now.
Anyway, many thanks for your comments.
-
Guys: no film, no windows, no bus, no flash. Camera: Canon EOS 20D. I thought it was slight shadows hitting that part of the street but on second thoughts and after a quick inspection of the original, I'm not too sure now.
Anyway, many thanks for your comments.
My guess would be dust and/or residue on the sensor.
-
Great picture, Seamus. I tried downloading the picture and bringing it into CS5 for closer examination and from the look of the pixels on my screen I'd guess it's a pretty extreme crop. But it looks to me as if the problem, if it is a problem, is from shadows cast on the pond and the pond's concrete edges. The interference isn't just at the left edge. It's there in the center and also, to very small extent, on the right. At first glance it looks as if there's an artifact that merges into the bird on the far left, but if you look closer you realize the shadow in the background just happens to fit with the bird's coloring. What does a look at the original in color show?
-
A few frames before and after show identical or different? I see the diffractions across the entire image. What is hyperfocal distance and aperture. Looks suspiciously like my droplets on the lens shots...
-
Although I do remember some of the sensor"dust"on previous posts but you should see it identically almost on the images before and after this one.If on your lens you'll probably see some variation.
-
Forgot to say I like the moment you saw and captured!
-
Anyway, I'm sure the birds enjoyed the view.
Rob C
-
Russ, the original shot is 25.2m. For the image posted above, I drew on a much slimmed down Jpeg - hence the pixels you mentioned. There wasn't any extreme crop (you'll be glad to know!). I think you are correct. The problem is part of the scene's 'infrastructure'. Here's a colour version:
Here's possibly (I''m not sure) the next shot taken on the day:
-
There you go! Not on lens, not on sensor...just the flight of birds. If you look closely you can see wings , head and body parts. The lights and darks match those of the birds caught in focus. The color version shows it in a way the B& W didn't. Like the second shot too. What a nice day and joy filled subjects!
-
But what appear to be shadows aren't moving wings. If Seamus keeps the date/time info on his camera up to date the shot was made at about 8:30 p.m. Looking at the long shadows cast by the birds on the ground and considering Seamus's latitude I'd guess the shot was earlier than that, but still late afternoon. Shutter speed was 1/1600 sec, so the most you'd get from a flapping wing would be a bit of blur at the edges. The shadows pretty much have to be actual shadows -- probably from birds flying somewhere above and to the left of the scene.
Whew... Glad to hear you didn't crop (much) Seamus.
-
Yes, I see your point.. The other thing that crosses my mind is momentary hand direction from camera falling across lens though seems unlikely at 1600 th. Well clean sensor ...I'm way too A R when it comes to trying to figure out things like this...I guess so that I could replicate the effect if desired somewhere down the road.
-
Thanks for your interest everybody - you folk are as sharp as a tack.
-
But what appear to be shadows aren't moving wings. If Seamus keeps the date/time info on his camera up to date the shot was made at about 8:30 p.m. Looking at the long shadows cast by the birds on the ground and considering Seamus's latitude I'd guess the shot was earlier than that, but still late afternoon. Shutter speed was 1/1600 sec, so the most you'd get from a flapping wing would be a bit of blur at the edges. The shadows pretty much have to be actual shadows -- probably from birds flying somewhere above and to the left of the scene.
Whew... Glad to hear you didn't crop (much) Seamus.
Don't think shadows, Russ; they look parallel and that is never the case - they always have perspective when on the horizontal. Also, they look equally sharp/soft in the further away lighter band of background; the impression, to me, is of something vertical.
Could it be a ghost image from less than total formatting out of a previous image?
Rob C
-
Could it be a ghost image from less than total formatting out of a previous image?
It doesn't work that way. A partially erased digital image file can't appear as a ghost in another image.
I was convinced that it was crud on the sensor, but now I'm leaning towards shadows. But it wouldn't hurt to get a sensor scope and check out the sensor anyway. In my opinion, a sensor scope and a good sensor brush, such as the Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly, should be standard equipment for every serious DSLR user--if you don't already have them.
-
The surface on that square is quite reflective, and there are trees and tall buildings around that area; I am more inclined to think in an optical effect than a defect in the capture.
-
So am I, Edu - there is no sign of a technical/sensor flaw on any of the pictures taken either side of this one. The camera, a 20D, is long departed the scene of the crime and with it goes the mystery.