Blue heron, Louisiana delta

[bjanes]

Nice try, but it's out of focus and overexposed.  The latter one can deal with, but the former not so much.
Mike.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not true that you can not improve the focus. If you use a deconvolution restoration algorithm such as Focus Magic, you may be able to restore the focus of the bird. To do this, one would need the image at full resolution. Look at the [a href=\"http://www.focusmagic.com/tutorials/eye.htm]Focus Magic Tutorial[/url] for an example. You need to find a point source in the image and use it to make a point spread function describing the blur, and then you can remove some of it. It's worth a try. There is a demo that allows several uses before it expires.

Bill

[Gordon Buck]

Here's a similar shot, taken just a few minutes after the blue heron.  Comments?

Thanks,
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John, you're asking for critiques in a tough crowd here!  You've seen that the expectations from such bird shots are:  extremely sharp focus on the eyes, frozen motion, good feather detail and some isolation from the background.  Tough to get it all and I'm not saying that I've done it.

You can probably, rightly blame some of the softness on the focus technique and the lens.  Might have to stop down a bit next time - of course, that won't help with isolating the background.

For the images that you have, since they were shot in RAW, there are probably some improvements that can be made.  I certainly wouldn't toss them until I had something better!

I'd like to think that some "capture sharpening" with software like Pixel Genius's PhotoKit Sharpener would help; follow that up with some high pass sharpening or edge sharpening to try to bring out the feather detail.

In fact, typing as I think about it, it is said by some that the sharpening tools in ACR and the PS "Smart Sharpen" are supposed to help with lens or motion problems.  I'd sure try those as well before giving up on the picture.  (Watch now, several people will jump all over me for saying those words about ACR sharpen, smart sharpen, lens correction, etc -- and they're probably right but by the time I read the replies you'll know for yourself.)

These being nature shots, you don't want to tinker with blurring the background, etc. in Photoshop.  (Well, I would do it except that I can't do a very good job of it.)  You might have more success with getting two RAW developments, "underexposing" one of them and blending the two.

Seems like you've increased the contrast.  Be careful to use "curves" for contrast and do that carefully because contrast tends to wipe out feather detail.

I hope you make a large print, at least 8x10 or so, and show your pictures to family and friends.  The prints might come out better if printed on matte paper as that might hide the softness.  Remember that sharpening for matte paper is different from glossy paper and both are different from sharpening for a web display.

[button]

John, you're asking for critiques in a tough crowd here! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, this is a tough group, and that's what I need.  This is my first foray into any kind of wildlife photography, and first efforts are just that: first efforts.  I took about 9 gb worth of RAW images in 2 days, and quickly whittled that down to 2 (and really need to chop that down to about 10-20 choice images).  What I've shown here are 2 of my best.  It's now obvious to me that my best can be much better, and I have some ideas on how to get there:  shoot earlier in the morning and later in the evening, stalk the birds, and choose some different angles with less distracting backgrounds.  Critique, no matter how well intentioned, is always at least a little bit of a bitter pill to swallow.  However, no pain, no gain.  Everyone's comments have been most helpful- thanks to you all.

John

[Kagetsu]

I quite like the second one. Though have to lean with the others on the first. It just isn't working on that one.

On the second one though, I think the colouring is a little on the warm side... I also think it'd look good cropped a little more on the bird. A little more depth on the legs would bring it out nicely I feel, and a little more variation on the neck and back.

[button]

I'd like to think that some "capture sharpening" with software like Pixel Genius's PhotoKit Sharpener would help; follow that up with some high pass sharpening or edge sharpening to try to bring out the feather detail.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really hope that PhotoKit Sharpener is a "sharpening kit for dummies," because that's what I need.  I know practically nothing about sharpening, and I'm sure that this lack of knowledge is hurting me.

John

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I really hope that PhotoKit Sharpener is a "sharpening kit for dummies," because that's what I need.  I know practically nothing about sharpening, and I'm sure that this lack of knowledge is hurting me.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151699\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

PKS is both a "sharpening kit for dummies" and a kit for adanced users once you get more familiar with it. At the most basic level you can use stages one and three without much sophistication.

To start, use the "Capture sharpening" routine with defaults (ignore the "advanced" version or whatever it's called) as soon as you bring your file into Photoshop (and don't do any sharpening in your RAW converter).

You can completely ignore the second stage, "Creative Sharpening" for now.

After prettying up your image until you like it, save it (tiff format) as a "master file" with no further sharpening. Then, when you are going to make a print of a given size, apply "Output Sharpening" with the appropriate settings, and print.

Spending about ten minutes skimming the manual will give you the basic settings, and you can ignore any of the fancy stuff until you become more sophisticated and obsessive.

Good luck!

[Tam]

John, thanks for posting your image.

I have been paddling around after our Great Blue Heron in the bird sanctuary in town for a few years. I think it is our single Great Blue. I am sure it has taken a distinct dislike to red canoes.

She/he is a nervous little fisher and mostly I see her/him doing that lovely leap that you have captured, the wings down and pushing air for all she's worth. I have a nice Canon lens with IS and all that, not so fast, but okay, and I have quite a few shots of reeds and bird, partly in focus and some parts not in focus. Auto focus is the culprit quite often, I suspect. The focus is off, because I have chosen a continuous focus mode and taken the shot at the moment when the camera had decided that the reeds were the subject ... Best to turn off auto-focus altogether when dealing with birds. At least you're in control, if you aren't more accurate.

I don't agree that every feather of a bird must be in focus for the picture to be legitimate. The eye must be in focus. Unless you are a member of the f64 lot. Which I'm not.

Keep shooting. Again, thanks for posting. It helps everyone.

[Rob C]

John, thanks for posting your image.

I have been paddling around after our Great Blue Heron in the bird sanctuary in town for a few years. I think it is our single Great Blue. I am sure it has taken a distinct dislike to red canoes.

She/he is a nervous little fisher and mostly I see her/him doing that lovely leap that you have captured, the wings down and pushing air for all she's worth. I have a nice Canon lens with IS and all that, not so fast, but okay, and I have quite a few shots of reeds and bird, partly in focus and some parts not in focus. Auto focus is the culprit quite often, I suspect. The focus is off, because I have chosen a continuous focus mode and taken the shot at the moment when the camera had decided that the reeds were the subject ... Best to turn off auto-focus altogether when dealing with birds. At least you're in control, if you aren't more accurate.

I don't agree that every feather of a bird must be in focus for the picture to be legitimate. The eye must be in focus. Unless you are a member of the f64 lot. Which I'm not.

Keep shooting. Again, thanks for posting. It helps everyone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Couldn´t agree more: sharpness has become an obsession in some quarters and heaven only knows where the world´s photographic history would be today if only the totally sharp ones had been kept!

It´s a funny thing: in advertising photography and the movies, much use is made of out of focus motifs in the foreground lending impact to whatever lies in the important plane behind - think in terms of the cycle ride in Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid - why should the tyranny of toe-nail to horizon sharpness be considered the ultimate prize? To me, it smacks more of stunted imagination than anything else, a fear of going against the accepted grain, as it were, a make-no-waves attitude that ensures everybody goes home with second prize. (In retrospect, it might not even have been BC & TSK at all - but the visual memory survives and that sort of prove the point, regardless of the context in this case.)

As somebody once said: it´s the journey that matters, not the arrival. This is sometimes true, particularly if somebody else is driving, but in general, just do what you enjoy and that´s justification/pleasure enow.

Rob C

[peter.doerrie]

much better in my view. but still, not sharp enough for an "outstanding".


also, I like the background a lot better. (At least it is not halfway between sharp and unsharp).