More herons, Comments appreciated

benlonghair · Sep 17, 2009

Posted in a few of these beginners forum, here's a few more that I think I like even better. As always comments appreciated.

EXIF

Nick09 · Sep 17, 2009

The two heron pictures seem to be a little soft. I like the first one though because of the island in the back with the birds on it.

However, the second photo is my favorite of the three. I like the way the bird and whatever it is standing on stands out from the water.

Randall Ellis · Sep 18, 2009

It's unfortunate that the background on all of these is so close in value to the subjects. Some contrast would great add to the impact of all of these. Of the three, the second one looks the strongest to my eye for this reason. I like the colors in the little green and the rock it is standing on, but it would probably be stronger if there were less detail in the background. That's hard to do without risking getting a soft subject, but as long as you focus on the eye it won't matter so much if some of the body goes a bit soft...

- Randy

robertwsimpson · Sep 18, 2009

I recropped, sharpened, adjusted the tone curve, and added a bit of saturation.

What are you using for post processing?

benlonghair · Sep 18, 2009

Randall Ellis said:
It's unfortunate that the background on all of these is so close in value to the subjects. Some contrast would great add to the impact of all of these. Of the three, the second one looks the strongest to my eye for this reason. I like the colors in the little green and the rock it is standing on, but it would probably be stronger if there were less detail in the background. That's hard to do without risking getting a soft subject, but as long as you focus on the eye it won't matter so much if some of the body goes a bit soft...

- Randy

I was shooting wide open on the last one. there was nothing I could do about the sharpness of the background due to distance from me to the bird and from the bird to the background.

robertwsimpson said:
I recropped, sharpened, adjusted the tone curve, and added a bit of saturation.

What are you using for post processing?

Doing curves, exposure and overall saturation in UFRaw. Did some selective (red because the rocks were ugly and blue for the horrible CA from this lens) desaturation and cropping in Gimp.

robertwsimpson · Sep 18, 2009

one thing I notice about most of your photos is that they could use sharpening. consider making that part of your PP routine. Also, when you're working the curve and exposure, make sure you're watching the histogram. Try to make the curve of the photo take up the whole graph. Then your exposures will be a little brighter, which I think they could use also. These pictures are much better than your last ones though you're improving your shots nicely!

benlonghair · Sep 18, 2009

robertwsimpson said:
one thing I notice about most of your photos is that they could use sharpening. consider making that part of your PP routine. Also, when you're working the curve and exposure, make sure you're watching the histogram. Try to make the curve of the photo take up the whole graph. Then your exposures will be a little brighter, which I think they could use also. These pictures are much better than your last ones though you're improving your shots nicely!

I'm leery of over sharpening. These are all sharpened. GIMP tends to give a bad halo especially if there's not a lot of contrast.

I'm still learning how to use curves. I have no knowledge of what I'm actually doing, I'm just going by what looks good. I kinda know what it does to the histogram, but not enough to really do it right.

I have, however, found my new inspiration. Mr. Unterthiner is nothing short of jaw dropping.

robertwsimpson · Sep 18, 2009

I used to be leery of over sharpening too... it's just a transition I've made, and I think your pics look like they could use a bit more sharpening action. good to see you have some inspiration. that's always nice to have.

benlonghair · Sep 18, 2009

robertwsimpson said:
I used to be leery of over sharpening too... it's just a transition I've made, and I think your pics look like they could use a bit more sharpening action. good to see you have some inspiration. that's always nice to have.

The photographer I linked has a shot in his Penguin set that's just thousands of penguins shot with a wide angle. The version that shows up in NG this month is amazingly sharp. I assume this is a question of using quality glass.

I'm trying to determine how much of the softness in my images are due to poor focusing and lack of a tripod and how much is due to running a cheap 300mm.

Thank you for your critiques.

robertwsimpson · Sep 18, 2009

well, clearly, he's using much better equipment than you or I am. We have to make the best with what we have.

That being said, I used to be the same as you, thinking that I could improve my photos with technique while capturing, and not worry about anything in PP. The bottom line is that if you want to have a great picture, you have to do both. Especially with "enthusiast" gear rather than professional.

benlonghair · Sep 18, 2009

Here's a reprocessed version. Makes the heron stand out a little better. A lot more sharpening on it too.

kundalini · Sep 18, 2009

I would clone out the circular highlights on #1. Shame it wasn't facing the other direction.

Diggin' #2.

#3 :meh: Background's too busy.

Thanks for sharing.

Randall Ellis · Sep 18, 2009

benlonghair said:
robertwsimpson said:

I used to be leery of over sharpening too... it's just a transition I've made, and I think your pics look like they could use a bit more sharpening action. good to see you have some inspiration. that's always nice to have.

Click to expand...

The photographer I linked has a shot in his Penguin set that's just thousands of penguins shot with a wide angle. The version that shows up in NG this month is amazingly sharp. I assume this is a question of using quality glass.

I'm trying to determine how much of the softness in my images are due to poor focusing and lack of a tripod and how much is due to running a cheap 300mm.

Thank you for your critiques.

Shorter focal length lenses (a.k.a. wide angle lenses) have a much greater depth of field compared to longer focal length lenses (a.k.a. telephoto lenses) using the same format recording medium. Play with this online calculator to see for yourself by changing just the focal length and noting the near and far focus distances.

Using a tripod also helps, even at high shutter speeds (more than many people realize), and of course, using high quality lenses doesn't hurt any, especially with that long of a lens. Try holding the camera pointed at something and pay close attention to how far the object moves as the end of the lens moves slightly as you hold it. That's awfully long for hand holding... Still, I've seen breathtaking images taken with cameras that many would consider average, or even poor, quality. If you know how to use the tool to it's best advantage you'll be able to get the best results that it can provide...

- Randy

Derrel · Sep 18, 2009

I downloaded the original full-sized images of the herons, and thought that both of them were under-sharpened and also lacking in contrast, and seeing the reprocessed version of the hero standing on the red rock, I was greatly impressed with how well the second poster re-worked the first image!

I don't own the 70-300 zoom lens, and so I can't comment on how good it is optically, or what its chromatic aberration profile is, but if the user thinks that zoom is holding his image making back, I think the only solution is to look for a better long focal length lens--probably a used 300mm f/4.5 or 300mm f/4 from Nikon making the most sense.