Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: button on November 07, 2007, 01:17:21 pm
-
(http://i20.tinypic.com/1179301.jpg)
Enjoy!
John
-
hmm Compared to other shots I ve seen here, it is not so great. The Heron is - as far as I can tell - unsharp and does not combine well with the Background.
Sorry, but in my view not a keeper (even though I never managed to do adecent bird-shot neither)
-
Nice try, but it's out of focus and overexposed. The latter one can deal with, but the former not so much. Try this one:
http://www.chriskaylerphotography.com/GreatBlueHeron.htm (http://www.chriskaylerphotography.com/GreatBlueHeron.htm)
for comparison...
Mike.
-
Nice try, but it's out of focus and overexposed. The latter one can deal with, but the former not so much. Try this one:
http://www.chriskaylerphotography.com/GreatBlueHeron.htm (http://www.chriskaylerphotography.com/GreatBlueHeron.htm)
for comparison...
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mike, in one case the bird´s in flight; in the other, it´s doing the bird equivalent of sitting on its ass. The two different situations do not make for fair comparison of photographic shooting skill. Anyway, I prefer my birds in half-bikinis.
Rob C
-
If it was sharp it would be a very impressive shot. Very nice try, but not quite.
-
I hate to pile on, but I agree. Unsharp "interpretive" works may have their place, but not in a wildlife shot like this. "Delete".
-
Thank you for posting your image.
Sometimes it helps to really detach oneself from the image and view it totally as if someone else had taken it. This then removes the emotional attachment one has with the image.
I suspect that you were rather thrilled with the fact that you had made the composition...with the bird and the water splashes, and this overrode the objective view of the result.
Julie
-
Thanks everyone, for the comments. I agree, after looking at my original post, that image is not very strong. I pretty much just developed the RAW image with no sharpening, and jpeg'd it for the web. Believe it or not, the image was properly exposed, although you'd never know it. Here's a PP'd version, sized at 72 ppi, which I hope will translate better.
(http://i17.tinypic.com/73mb58j.jpg)
Thanks for looking,
John
-
Sorry John, but sharpening doesn't usually fix out-of-focus subjects and I think in this instance it hasn't.
Julie
-
After staring at the RAW original for awhile, I'll have to agree that the image is not as sharp as I think it could have been, especially with respect to the neck feathers. However, I'm not sure that the problem is focus (although I'm certainly not ruling it out): when I look at the leading and trailing wings, they seem equally unsharp, and I can't discern that any of the foreground or background is any more sharp than the heron (which would cofirm front or back focus). The shot was made with a Pentax k10d and an FA* 300mm 4.5 lens, 1/4000 sec, f4.5, ISO 800, handheld with shake reduction on from a slowly moving boat. I don't think motion blur is the issue here, at 1/4000 sec shutter speed. Perhaps ISO 800 noise has obscurred some detail? Maybe the image is as sharp as this lens/camera combo can produce? I know, it's a poor craftsman that blames his tools, and I'm definitely not making excuses. I'm just trying to conclusively identify the root cause of the problem here, so that my next efforts are more successful. If anyone has any further thoughts, I'd very much appreciate the input. Reading what has been written so far has definitely elevated my standards.
Thanks,
John
-
is this the full-frame shot or a part of it?
If it is a part, about what fraction of the original picture is it?
-
Also worth noting - it might just be my eyes, however: are the reeds in the b/ground not a little sharper, indicating, perhaps, that the focus was on something other than the main target? At any rate, finding much DOF wide open is always in conflict with the maximum sharpness of the lens, which is perhaps not found wide open!
I had a Nikkor 300/4.5 IFED for some time; it was nice on a tripod, but that was it. There was no IS on it, of course, but as I have yet to sample the pleasures of any of that, I have to remain sceptical.
Rob C
-
Rob: my wife said the same thing- I think that you are right about the background being a bit more in focus (are the ripples between the bird and the reeds in max focus?). I have a hard time believing that the FA* 300mm/k10d combo is at fault. Looking back, I think I realize the mistake I made to cause the focus miss: I held down the continuous focus button during the shot, which makes for some pretty aggressive corrections. I might have had better luck by simply prefocusing and waiting for the bird to leap.
Mike: the image is a crop, maybe 65-75% of original size.
Thanks,
John
-
To be honest John, I just can't see how this image has a hope of working with the background of reeds being so close to the subject - even if you amend your technique and try a re-shoot in the same location. The shallow depth of field required to keep the background from conflicting with the bird I just don't think is possible in that spot.
You mention pre-focussing and waiting for the bird to leap - are there any other spots where the bird is further from the reeds?
Julie
-
I guess it's my function here to let the others do the thinking and just agree with them--like the guy who shows up at the wedding for hors d'oeuvres and drinks but no gift.
Had my eyes examined today so maybe I'm still not seeing clearly--but you are right, it's not motion blur; the autofocus seems to have locked on the background. Note the water drops raised by the heron's legs--they are slightly soft, but not motion-blurred. i think Julie summed up your conundrum nicely--lens wide open, bird very close to a busy background that wants to grab the autofocus's attention. If you can maybe hold up a nice big fish so the heron will consider your plea to move away from the reeds, you'll be just fine!
As an aside, where in Louisiana was this taken? I was born in New Orleans, grew up in Baton Rouge, but haven't lived there since the 80's. The state is not called "the Sportsman's Paradise" for nothing. Amazing array of wildlife there, especially in the wetlands along the coast and in the Atchafalaya basin farther inland. The state is also along a major waterfowl migratory route.
The shot reminds me of the work of C.C. Lockwood, a documentary film and stills photographer who did some amazing work in the Atchafalaya in the 60's onward. i think he's still at it. If you can ever find "Atchafalaya" on video, it's a worthwhile watch.
-
Unrelated to the discussion of the merits of this image. I find that this image does pretty well with the "Surreal edgy effect" mentioned at Lightroom killer tips. (http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/2007/video-surreal-edgy-effect/)
-
Taking a trip back to the lens: it might be the case that even a 300mm needs f2.8 to get itself into a sufficiently shallow DOF mode; my own 4.5/300 was never fast enough to provide the shallow depth I wanted when I first bought the damn thing; but that´s the price you can pay for living in a backwater - no way of testing by yourself. Since the 2.8 was and is still so expensive, there was only slight justification then and certainly none now for that sort of outgoing.
I wonder how many more units the makers could shift if they priced with less venom. Perhaps they´d surprise their accountants and sell even more. I simply won´t accept that the difference in price for going up a stop or two is fair reflection of production costs. It´s like badge engineering in cars: Plymouth came at the lower end, Dodge, De Soto and Chrysler padding out the bank books; was the Plymouth that inferior? (I might well have confused my brands here - my experienc of American cars goes back to the time when Hudson Hornets were doing okay in stock car races and Studebaker were making their two-way cars - you couldn´t tell if it was coming or going, needed navigation lights, red and green.)
Rob C
-
... Hudson Hornets ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow, does that bring back memories! In my mind's eye, I can still see that junked Hudson Hornet in my friend's yard. At age 15, the Hudson was our only hope for wheels but, alas, with no money, no tools and no skills we were doomed to walk a while longer (bicycles not being considered to be babe magnets).
Sorry for getting off topic but I couldn't resist.
-
Wow, does that bring back memories! In my mind's eye, I can still see that junked Hudson Hornet in my friend's yard. At age 15, the Hudson was our only hope for wheels but, alas, with no money, no tools and no skills we were doomed to walk a while longer (bicycles not being considered to be babe magnets).
Sorry for getting off topic but I couldn't resist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151544\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Gordon
Yes, those were the days. You know, there was a majesty about US cars of that period. We lived in India for a few years, going back to the UK in ´53. Most of the cars out there were American - we had a shiny black ´49 V8 Ford (last of a line, before the rocket nose motif started) - and I remember seeing a lovely Lincoln Capri in red - I swear it was metallic paint, but time could have fooled me again - and years later, when Ford produced the Capri in Britain, a stupid little thing built out of a Ford Cortina to what they considered utilitarian UK tastes and standards, I knew we were doomed. The bit that hurt most, was reading American price lists for US machines and then translating that sum into pounds and realising the crap we were buying for more money still! Yep, we were all getting effed big-time in Blighty!
Why you guys allowed the car industry to go all sloppy shapes and no glamour I´ll never understand. A car is nothing if not an expression of glamour, desire, sex-appeal and, of course, a mover from A to B. Okay, nobody needs eight cylinders and Dodge Ram power, but style, surely, could be maintained?
Still enjoying KLRZFM.com as I write; you must be able to get it on your computer! However, I´ll be happier when the elections are past: to foreign ears it all sounds so, well, provincial! Much like our own elections, in fact.
By the way, to you non- Cajun fans: one politico in Louisiana is disparaging another by saying that the other one is not worthy of the vote because he would back the Sierra Club (!) and has doubts about the right to carry hardware and blow each away in true Sergio Leone style. I thought the folks down there were very environment-conscious, what with all that water just lurking about...
Oh well, past my bedtime - off to dream about Dorothy and the Wizard of O. or maybe just about Dorothy?
Rob C
-
(http://i16.tinypic.com/7yprle1.jpg)
Here's a similar shot, taken just a few minutes after the blue heron. Comments?
Thanks,
John
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=151139\")
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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).