Theme: Worn Adult Semipalmated Plover With a Snack

[Paul Guris]

I took this on a beach in NJ with a bit of overcast. Shooting was challenging as the beach goers were out in force.

118194
Nikon D7000, Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED w/ TC-14E II
ISO 800, f/7.1, 1/2000, 420mm (630mm FX equivalent)

[Arthur Morris]

Nice wiggly one and a good job with the EXP. The bird's head is angled a bit away from the viewer.... Feather detail on the back and folded wings seems to be somewhat lacking; was this a big crop? I'd try for a little less boxy crop.

[Karl Egressy]

Nice shorebird to have. Nice shot, Paul. I like the food item in the beak. You might want to take off from the top.
I was just wondering if doing some linear dodge on the face would bring out more details and more definition of the eye.

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Good looking bird, especially since it has its meal on beak! I agree with Arthur that this looks very square but that is just a matter of tastes I know. I would tone down the whole picture.

[Gary Esman]

Nice catch with the meal in beak. Agree with Karl on a crop suggestion. This may be a time when the subject looks great in the top portion of the shot. I might remove that bubble looking thing on the left my eye keeps moving toward it.

Gary.

[gail bisson]

Hi Paul,
I like how his head is turned towards the viewer. Great worm position. I have so many shots with a limp straight worm...
Is this a big crop? I find the feather detail in the back lacking.
I would evict the little splotch of water foam on the left.
Gail

[Paul Guris]

Two of you mentioned crop factor. It wasn't too large and while the amount of detail in the original isn't great, it's not bad either. I seem to have lost a lot of detail in two steps. The first was going to JPEG. I've seen this a lot and sometimes have to sharpen my originals beyond where I'm comfortable just to get a JPEG I like. I'm not sure if there's a better way to approach this. The second loss of detail was in the display that JPEG on BPN. I've seen this multiple times on multiple web sites when images get displayed, and I can't explain why a JPEG looks sharper when I use Apple's Preview than it does when viewed on a web site. Is there a difference in rendering by the browser or do the sites have display parameters specified in the page's HTML that force an actual recreation of the JPEG on the fly? Any insight into either of these issues would be really appreciated.

On the composition, struggle with it in general and with reflection shots a lot more. Several of you mention a different crop. Arty said "less boxy", Karl would shave the top, and so on. I'm afraid that if I take much more off the top the bird will appear crowded, but if I extend to the sides I'll have too much "whitespace". If it's not too much to ask, does anybody have a semi-similar reflection shot they can point me to so I can see how it should be done?

Sorry about all the questions. Maybe I should have posted that one to ETL. Thanks in advance.

[Arthur Morris]

Two of you mentioned crop factor. It wasn't too large and while the amount of detail in the original isn't great, it's not bad either. I seem to have lost a lot of detail in two steps. The first was going to JPEG. I've seen this a lot and sometimes have to sharpen my originals beyond where I'm comfortable just to get a JPEG I like. I'm not sure if there's a better way to approach this. The second loss of detail was in the display that JPEG on BPN. I've seen this multiple times on multiple web sites when images get displayed, and I can't explain why a JPEG looks sharper when I use Apple's Preview than it does when viewed on a web site. Is there a difference in rendering by the browser or do the sites have display parameters specified in the page's HTML that force an actual recreation of the JPEG on the fly? Any insight into either of these issues would be really appreciated.

On the composition, struggle with it in general and with reflection shots a lot more. Several of you mention a different crop. Arty said "less boxy", Karl would shave the top, and so on. I'm afraid that if I take much more off the top the bird will appear crowded, but if I extend to the sides I'll have too much "whitespace". If it's not too much to ask, does anybody have a semi-similar reflection shot they can point me to so I can see how it should be done?

Sorry about all the questions. Maybe I should have posted that one to ETL. Thanks in advance.

Paul. From what I read above one glaring error jumps out at me. You wrote: "I've seen this a lot and sometimes have to sharpen my originals beyond where I'm comfortable just to get a JPEG I like." If I am understanding you correctly you are sharpening your master file TIFFs. Is that correct? Let me know and I will go on.

[Paul Guris]

Paul. From what I read above one glaring error jumps out at me. You wrote: "I've seen this a lot and sometimes have to sharpen my originals beyond where I'm comfortable just to get a JPEG I like." If I am understanding you correctly you are sharpening your master file TIFFs. Is that correct? Let me know and I will go on.

Hi, Artie. Actually, I'm using Aperture and not Photoshop. Edits are non-destructive and layered onto the internally converted NEF, so I do not create a distinct TIFF for editing. I am processing my image, sharpening as the last step, and then exporting to JPEG.

[Arthur Morris]

Sharpening at what size?

[Paul Guris]

The cropped image is 2400 x 1800.

[Arthur Morris]

Assuming that you are sharpening a 2400 wide TIFF or PSD at 300 dpi and then reducing that in size to 1024 wide for the web, you are making a huge mistake. I am not sure if it is what is causing the problems but it is not the way to go about things. When sharpening any image it should not be sharpened until it is sized for final usage. In other words, you should NEVER sharpen your master file (except for tiny amounts of in-camera sharpening).

For my 1024 wide JPEGs I have gone to using Unsharp Mask at settings of 120-150 at 0.3. It has been working great with the images looking great with lots of fine detail.

I am sorry that I know nothing about either Aperture or Lightroom and have no idea at all why they are used by anyone but professionals who need the key-wording options.

[Paul Guris]

Thanks, Artie. I'll play with my workflow a bit and see if I can improve my final results.

[Arthur Morris]

All good. We look forward to a repost. Hope that things improve with the workflow change. The above advice and tons more including my complete digital workflow and dozens of great Photoshop tips are from our Digital Basics File (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=252), a PDF that is sent via e-mail.