Macaw Headshot

DustinWPhotography · May 31, 2013

This is a picture of a Macaw taken at Lion Country Safari in West Palm Beach, FL. It was taken using a Nikon D5200 with a 55mm/200mm Nikkor Lens.

What are your thoughts?

oldhippy · May 31, 2013

Nice shot, vivid colors.

DustinWPhotography · May 31, 2013

oldhippy said:
Nice shot, vivid colors.

Thank you very much!

SCraig · May 31, 2013

It's just ever so slightly soft, but I had to look hard to see it so it's very minor. Excellent exposure, and the pastels in the background look very nice. If that's cropped so you have some room to maneuver you might try cropping a little higher so there is a bit more room over the bird's head. When I shoot birds I like to put the eye right on the upper 1/3 division line.

Beautiful bird and a great shot though.

DustinWPhotography · May 31, 2013

SCraig said:
It's just ever so slightly soft, but I had to look hard to see it so it's very minor. Excellent exposure, and the pastels in the background look very nice. If that's cropped so you have some room to maneuver you might try cropping a little higher so there is a bit more room over the bird's head. When I shoot birds I like to put the eye right on the upper 1/3 division line.

Beautiful bird and a great shot though.

I agree that it is just a bit soft. It looked really crisp on camera but after seeing it on my computer once I got it back home I do agree with you that it's not quite as crisp as I had hoped it would be. But like you said though, it's not much at all. Unfortunately it's not cropped, that's the way I shot it. So sadly I don't have any room to maneuver it really, but overall I'm satisfied with it. I think it came out nicely.

Thank you for your critique, I really appreciate it!

Heitz · May 31, 2013

Great work. Maybe soft because wide open? Didnt check exif. Love it tho

Ballistics · May 31, 2013

Heitz said:
Great work. Maybe soft because wide open? Didnt check exif. Love it tho

Technically it is wide open @ 5.6, however the 55-200mm will give results like this even closed down.

SCraig · May 31, 2013

DustinWPhotography said:
I agree that it is just a bit soft. It looked really crisp on camera but after seeing it on my computer once I got it back home I do agree with you that it's not quite as crisp as I had hoped it would be. But like you said though, it's not much at all. Unfortunately it's not cropped, that's the way I shot it. So sadly I don't have any room to maneuver it really, but overall I'm satisfied with it. I think it came out nicely.

Thank you for your critique, I really appreciate it!

Do yourself a favor: ALWAYS leave a little bit of room to crop. Your camera has enough resolution that you can do that easily.

I used to do the same thing, but finally learned to leave myself some room. There is absolutely no telling how many times I've seen a better crop when I get home and have time to look at my photographs. Plus, when I was shooting 35mm (which also has a 3:2 aspect ratio) that film size doesn't exactly fit 8x10 or 5x7 or 11x14 or anything else standard except 4x6, so I was always moving my easel around and my enlarger up and down trying to find a place where I didn't lose too much of the shot.

DNK · May 31, 2013

Very nice portrait but in my opinion it looks to be a little over saturated or could be my monitor

DustinWPhotography · May 31, 2013

Heitz said:
Great work. Maybe soft because wide open? Didnt check exif. Love it tho

I did shoot at 5.6. I guess it could be possible that could be the reason, I'm still not sure though.

kathyt · May 31, 2013

I like all the vivid colors. I would just step back just a little bit though. Good job.

Ballistics · May 31, 2013

DustinWPhotography said:
Heitz said:

Great work. Maybe soft because wide open? Didnt check exif. Love it tho

Click to expand...

I did shoot at 5.6. I guess it could be possible that could be the reason, I'm still not sure though.

I used to own this lens. The problem is that this lens suffers from a lack of good microcontrast and CA. So even @ f8 where the lens is at its sharpest, it still looks a little soft. Also depends on the copy you get and how bad or good the lens is, but my lens was extremely bad.

DustinWPhotography · May 31, 2013

SCraig said:
DustinWPhotography said:

I agree that it is just a bit soft. It looked really crisp on camera but after seeing it on my computer once I got it back home I do agree with you that it's not quite as crisp as I had hoped it would be. But like you said though, it's not much at all. Unfortunately it's not cropped, that's the way I shot it. So sadly I don't have any room to maneuver it really, but overall I'm satisfied with it. I think it came out nicely.

Thank you for your critique, I really appreciate it!

Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor: ALWAYS leave a little bit of room to crop. Your camera has enough resolution that you can do that easily.

I used to do the same thing, but finally learned to leave myself some room. There is absolutely no telling how many times I've seen a better crop when I get home and have time to look at my photographs. Plus, when I was shooting 35mm (which also has a 3:2 aspect ratio) that film size doesn't exactly fit 8x10 or 5x7 or 11x14 or anything else standard except 4x6, so I was always moving my easel around and my enlarger up and down trying to find a place where I didn't lose too much of the shot.

Okay, I will try and start doing that. I've never had any kind of photography training at all so I've basically self taught myself everything I know. I am curious though, why do some people like yourself say allow extra room for cropping while others tell you not to crop, that you should always fill up the frame in camera? Is it just personal preference?