What about this one? C&C

[maka]

no saturation applied and just a little sharpening

 

[Felix0890]

You metered off the bird and the meter was fooled into underexposing the entire shot. Also, the bird's beak is soft.

 

[Plato]

You metered off the bird and the meter was fooled into underexposing the entire shot.

Duh... The bird is the main subject.

 

[Felix0890]

But the subject is white . . . when shooting an all white or all black subject, your meter will always be fooled into underexposing (if white) or overexposing (if black). The use of an 18% gray card or exposure compensation with the other modes would fix this.

Also, he has the bird (which is also underexposed btw) behind a bush of underexposed leaves.

Oh and Plato, I'm all up for you being a douche in your responses (really, I find them entertaining) but at least go back to being a useful douche.

 

[Moe]

Thing is, if maka had metered off the bush, the bird (or at least parts of it) would have been completely blown. Then you or someone else would be pointing out that the bird had blown highlights. Shots like this can be tough. All around, decent job. Composition-wise, I would have liked to see more space in front of the bird. (And if you'd have done that, someone would have liked to have seen a tighter crop .)

 

[Felix0890]

I never said to meter off the bush. I said to make sure he/she didn't trust the meter with these type of shots where the subject is all white, which the person apparently did. It would have been best if the bush wasn't in front of the bird to begin with but obviously we can't always get different angle shots of birds and other wildlife.

 

[manaheim]

Sheesh, just ignore the dude picking nits on the technical bits. You know you did it right. Don't worry about it.

 

[maka]

The use of an 18% gray card or exposure compensation with the other modes would fix this.

can you explain what does it mean?


thank you all, i kinda got lost

 

[TJ K]

Sheesh, just ignore the dude picking nits on the technical bits. You know you did it right. Don't worry about it.

Isn't nit picking what is wanted when someone asks for C&C? The photo overall is underexposed. He told him this and how to compensate and fix it. He didn't just say oh the bird is the main subject or a useless post like that. He helped the guy out by saying what is wrong and something he could do to fix that issue. I agree. Composition isn't bad but if the bush is such an issue than yes going in tighter could have worked but getting the bird exposed is most important.
tj

 

[manaheim]

Sheesh, just ignore the dude picking nits on the technical bits. You know you did it right. Don't worry about it.

Isn't nit picking what is wanted when someone asks for C&C? The photo overall is underexposed. He told him this and how to compensate and fix it. He didn't just say oh the bird is the main subject or a useless post like that. He helped the guy out by saying what is wrong and something he could do to fix that issue. I agree. Composition isn't bad but if the bush is such an issue than yes going in tighter could have worked but getting the bird exposed is most important.
tj

Not that I ever want to get caught in a position of supporting Plato, but he's dead on. The subject is the bird.

Since the bird is white, and since the camera has a limited capability to display a range of light, to properly expose the bird is to underexpose everything else. (unless of course he decides to result to EDR, HDR, or other more extreme methods)

In other words, yes... he was picking nits.

 

[TJ K]

I don't know. In my opinion this shot just didn't work. It's mostly overexposed and the parts that aren't on the bird are blown out while other parts of the bird are pretty dark. I would have just waited and hoped he/she flew somewhere else so we could recompose and get a better exposure for the whole scene.

 

[manaheim]

I don't know. In my opinion this shot just didn't work. It's mostly overexposed and the parts that aren't on the bird are blown out while other parts of the bird are pretty dark. I would have just waited and hoped he/she flew somewhere else so we could recompose and get a better exposure for the whole scene.

So, in other words, if he landed on a polar bear? Or perhaps a snow drift?

 

[TJ K]

I don't know. In my opinion this shot just didn't work. It's mostly overexposed and the parts that aren't on the bird are blown out while other parts of the bird are pretty dark. I would have just waited and hoped he/she flew somewhere else so we could recompose and get a better exposure for the whole scene.

So, in other words, if he landed on a polar bear? Or perhaps a snow drift?

Ok i'm just going to stop here because obviously you find something about this picture that worked out so well. It's under and overexposed. I tried to say how it could have been better but apparently trying to help out the op doesn't matter. Instead you would rather be immature. GL to the original posted. Keep on shooting birds and other things you like.
tj

 

[manaheim]

Sorry, I'm just being a punk. I admit it.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're harping on his exposure, but the exposure is actually about as good as he's going to get it given the circumstances... and typically when you have any subject that is SOLID white like that, you're going to get these kinds of results, unless they are surrounded by other very bright (white) things. Literally unavoidable under normal circumstances.

So my suggestion would be to not worry so much about the exposure and think more about what he's done compositionally.

That's all.

 

[fokker]

I think the photo looks great!