I'm learning so please C&C these for me. (Wildlife)

[kc4sox]

1.




2.





3.





4.





5.





6.

 

[CdTSnap]

1 and 4 my favs, I think they are all really good though! 6 perhaps a miss for me

Love the focus on 1 and 3

 

[Raj_55555]

Except #5 love them all, maybe because we've seen far too many ducks .
My fav is #1 & #2, love the way the horses mane is flowing in the wind. You could easily editing out the distracting black branch in #4. One more thing, this is a personal taste but if it was me I'd remove the shadows just a little bit from the eyes of the deer in #4 so the horizontal eyelids are clearly visible and maybe increase the exposure very minutely. Again #1 is a great shot, nice job. Thanks for sharing them

 

[nzmacro]

These are all darn good IMO. You have a good eye for a shot and showing some good sharp details. Nice work. #6 seems to have gone, so I'm not sure on that one. Keep them coming.

Danny.

 

[DLeeT]

Welcome to the forum! Nice shots. I think a couple of them could be brightened up a bit. Using #4 as an example -- and getting rid of the branch. Keep in mind this is just my opinion. Lee


Original:

Edit:

 

[kc4sox]

Welcome to the forum! Nice shots. I think a couple of them could be brightened up a bit. Using #4 as an example -- and getting rid of the branch. Keep in mind this is just my opinion. Lee


Lee,

Thank you for the input. I love they way the eye "Pops" in your edit !

 

[Ysarex]

Auto White Balance is not your friend.

Joe

 

[baturn]

Nice! with #3 being my favorite and the goose 2nd. Lee did a nice job on #4.

 

[kc4sox]

Auto White Balance is not your friend.

Joe

View attachment 71323

Joe,

Please explain ? I'm learning here

 

[Ysarex]

Auto White Balance is not your friend.

Joe

View attachment 71323

Joe,

Please explain ? I'm learning here

Sorry there; I noticed that your photos are off color and predominately too blue. I downloaded the deer photo and looked at the EXIF data and you had the camera set to auto white balance. One of the tasks that needs to be done when a digital photo is created is to establish the color balance. The color of the light is a constantly changing variable. The deer photos you have here were taken in overcast/shade lighting which is much bluer than sunlight.

So to create the final RGB photo and get accurate color the light color has to be either known or measured. In lieu of that our cameras are supplied with software (Auto White Balance) that tries to analyze the photo's content and basically guess. They're guess is often close but always wrong.

Your camera's white balance function will allow you to:

1. Use a preset (daylight, cloudy, incandescent, etc.). Also not too accurate but at least consistent.
2. Use auto and let the camera guess wrong.
3. Set a custom WB by using a reference to take a measurement.

another option:

4. Save raw files and set the WB during raw conversion.

Joe

 

[kc4sox]

Thank you for explaining that in such detail.

 

[DLeeT]

Except #5 love them all, maybe because we've seen far too many ducks .
My fav is #1 & #2, love the way the horses mane is flowing in the wind. You could easily editing out the distracting black branch in #4. One more thing, this is a personal taste but if it was me I'd remove the shadows just a little bit from the eyes of the deer in #4 so the horizontal eyelids are clearly visible and maybe increase the exposure very minutely. Again #1 is a great shot, nice job. Thanks for sharing them

Hey Raj. You might have seen enough ducks, but you haven't seen enough geese! Lee :hail::smileys:

 

[DLeeT]

Auto White Balance is not your friend.

Joe

View attachment 71323

Joe,

Please explain ? I'm learning here

Sorry there; I noticed that your photos are off color and predominately too blue. I downloaded the deer photo and looked at the EXIF data and you had the camera set to auto white balance. One of the tasks that needs to be done when a digital photo is created is to establish the color balance. The color of the light is a constantly changing variable. The deer photos you have here were taken in overcast/shade lighting which is much bluer than sunlight.

So to create the final RGB photo and get accurate color the light color has to be either known or measured. In lieu of that our cameras are supplied with software (Auto White Balance) that tries to analyze the photo's content and basically guess. They're guess is often close but always wrong.

Your camera's white balance function will allow you to:

1. Use a preset (daylight, cloudy, incandescent, etc.). Also not too accurate but at least consistent.
2. Use auto and let the camera guess wrong.
3. Set a custom WB by using a reference to take a measurement.

another option:

4. Save raw files and set the WB during raw conversion.

Joe

Hmm... It's all inter-related of course and I think I do see a hint of blue there, but for the most part, they simply look a little underexposed and in need of a little more contrast to me. I find the AWB on my camera pretty good in most conditions. Usually if I try to play with it in ACR, I end up just about back to the "as shot" setting. But a good explanation of WB. Here is the horsey with simply some brightening, a nudge of contrast, and a tweak down on saturation. Lee

Original

Edit

 

[Ysarex]

Joe,

Please explain ? I'm learning here

Sorry there; I noticed that your photos are off color and predominately too blue. I downloaded the deer photo and looked at the EXIF data and you had the camera set to auto white balance. One of the tasks that needs to be done when a digital photo is created is to establish the color balance. The color of the light is a constantly changing variable. The deer photos you have here were taken in overcast/shade lighting which is much bluer than sunlight.

So to create the final RGB photo and get accurate color the light color has to be either known or measured. In lieu of that our cameras are supplied with software (Auto White Balance) that tries to analyze the photo's content and basically guess. They're guess is often close but always wrong.

Your camera's white balance function will allow you to:

1. Use a preset (daylight, cloudy, incandescent, etc.). Also not too accurate but at least consistent.
2. Use auto and let the camera guess wrong.
3. Set a custom WB by using a reference to take a measurement.

another option:

4. Save raw files and set the WB during raw conversion.

Joe

Hmm... It's all inter-related of course and I think I do see a hint of blue there, but for the most part, they simply look a little underexposed and in need of a little more contrast to me. I find the AWB on my camera pretty good in most conditions. Usually if I try to play with it in ACR, I end up just about back to the "as shot" setting. But a good explanation of WB. Here is the horsey with simply some brightening, a nudge of contrast, and a tweak down on saturation. Lee

Hmm...?
as in you're not very sure, or you're not inclined to agree with my assessment.

You think you do see a hint of blue there; I don't. I know for certain that I see a lot of blue there -- no need to hmm about it and I know for certain what caused it: the AWB function of the camera's image processor failed. Excess blue from the AWB algorithm in overcast and/or shade conditions is very common.

You're right it is all inter-related so that when the camera's AWB function takes a dive it will often take the rest of the processor's functions down with it.

As for your satisfaction with the AWB function on your camera, we probably have different standards. I base my assessment of AWB on the fact that it's a simple matter to take an accurate measurement and come up with accurate WB. The AWB function fails to equal that simply available accuracy. In sunny daylight conditions with average subjects it often comes within a few hundred degrees, but in any other light condition it frequently fails and can fail by 1000 degrees or more -- that's all cameras including yours and mine.

Joe

 

[DLeeT]

"Don't it make your brown eyes bluuuuuuuuuuuue?":violin: I don't think Kelvin sang it though.