Messy background to beat 'em all !

[John Robinson]

Starlings in crab apple tree.
Messy background but not a lot you can do. For those who like natural settings this certainly is one and the apples are that colour- honest !
Interested in people's views. Theres oftem mention of natural perches etc- and this is certainly that !
D100
320thsecond @f11
800 ISO
80% 0f frame.
Thanks for coments on last post.

[Karl Egressy]

Nice looking Starlings in beautiful setting, Johnny.

[arash_hazeghi]

I like the pose for both one is even calling! The berries are nice but they look very soft and "paintary" possibly as a result of heavy noise reduction that has been applied to them. Eyes are sharp for both birds, but blacks have started to lose detail, looks like you were really pushing the IQ limits here. Unfortunately BG looks very artificially blurred and thus unnatural to my eye. Blurring the BG is one of those things that never works IMO, that is because the blur that is naturally rendered by aperture blades of a fast lens is not Gaussian which is the type of blur Photoshop applies. IMO it makes it worse so I would leave it as captured in camera, try to use wider aperture or shoot at closer distance to get a natural blurred BG.

[John Robinson]

Thanks both
Interesting comments Arash.
Several points--
The background has no Gausian blur but has had noise reduction(Neat Image )). Don't forget by the way I dont use photo shop either.
Secondly this was done on a fairly entry level D100 with not a particularly large picture count or IQ rating.
I also forgot to mention the lens was the Sigma 50-500 fairly wide open so not much dof anyway And hard to use even on a car window ledge. The backdrop of berries in the tree is actually quite a way back too.
As I said backdrops never suits everyone but I would prefer this to a bland mono colour one which in any case would have been impossible.
Thanks for your input.
Cheers
JR

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks both
Interesting comments Arash.
Several points--
The background has no Gausian blur but has had noise reduction(Neat Image )). Don't forget by the way I dont use photo shop either.
Secondly this was done on a fairly entry level D100 with not a particularly large picture count or IQ rating.
I also forgot to mention the lens was the Sigma 50-500 fairly wide open so not much dof anyway And hard to use even on a car window ledge. The backdrop of berries in the tree is actually quite a way back too.
As I said backdrops never suits everyone but I would prefer this to a bland mono colour one which in any case would have been impossible.
Thanks for your input.
Cheers
JR



Hi Johnny, then maybe your NR was too strong that has caused the paintary look , f/11 is a very small aperture, something like f/5.6 or f/4 (if your lens and dof allows) would render the BG much nicer . anyways, if you want my honest opinion this doesn't work... I hope you can get a better one with good IQ and nice BG blur in the future.



BTW D100 was my first serious digital camera in 2004, I agree the IQ was very poor and it was SLOW.


best

[adrian dancy]

John... you are presenting this image as being over all 'natural'. However there does appear to be some repeats in the perch and the crab apples which may suggest a fair amount of cloning. Of course there is nothing wrong with cloning but I am struggling with what it is I am actually seeing here. I have my view.

I have no problem with images such as this being taken at f11. There is sufficient contrast between the bird and the background detail such that the bird(s) are seen in context. I wish more photographers would follow this line and chance their arm, since to not do so, limits the portfolio.

I think that issue of noise reduction and blur is purely subjective. Presenting images on the web can be problematic, in that, what may be less distracting in print seems to present as some kind of cancer with web presentations. I think the swing to noiseless backgrounds in images has resulted in many images being presented with a polished plastic purity that the work done causes us (or me at any rate) to say in our minds 'NR has clearly been applied here'. We are then replacing one distraction with another. I am a victim to that pressure:Whoa!:

I have looked at some of your previous posts (and most are cracking images) but critiques have sometimes indicated the need for NR where in my view NR or additional NR was not warranted. Indeed the critiques have tended toward progressing you, in other areas, toward a sanitisation which swims against the style and form which I know has been your trade mark long before many on here ever took up a camera.

My advise to you John is try to impress less...your images have the subject content which blows many away.

All the best.
AD.

[Jonathan Ashton]

I like the image but I would have personally gone for a wider aperture. I would suggest lift the darker elements a little bit, the pose and the perch are excellent. It certainly is a very natural and pleasing image to view but I would have preferred the background to have been more out of focus.
Johnny I hope you don't mind my saying but I have seen very few images taken with the Sigma 50 - 500 that are sharp having said that yours are amongst them. Is it possible to micro adjust this lens? My pal had one and his images were always soft, I micro adjusted it for him and it was much better. The reason I suggest this, and you probably have realised, is that if it is focussing optimally you would be able to use a wider aperture.

[gail bisson]

I love the colors in this one. The blacks against the orange and yellow are wonderful and powerful.
Both starlings are in focus which is great. I, too, would have gone with a higher aperture to make sure both birds were sharp.I am OK with the BG.
It looks to me like you applied NR to the perch which gives it a funny look so I would revisit that.
An image I enjoyed seing,
Gail

[John Robinson]

Jon
Interesting comments. Yes it is possible to micro adjust but not on th D100 I think. The lens was actually sent away and tested by Nikon when the af motor went. If it is not sharp then I am stuck with it as I can't afford anything else. This picture was taken a long time ago and in fact I can hardly remember what I did to it . I just liked it. I have had some pin sharp stuff with the 50-500 - which you will see later.- But as to expected it needs a good tripod and good weather conditions. I was always told it was the i50-500 which was the bad one of the two. I did put it on for interest more than anything. As I think I have said- my interest is more in natural history than photography but not a good situation on critique forums I fear !
Adrian
The cloning if I remember correctly would have been to get rid of one or two very white bright patches of sky in the background.
Cheers
JR

[christopher galeski]

nice and colourful Johnny,like how the starlings stand out against the BG.TFS.

[Holger Leyrer]

I am agree with Gail in all points.

[John Robinson]

Thanks all
Interesting comments. I would like to describe the events of this picture being taken. I was photographing starlings drinking in a water trough with the 300mm Sigma through the car window. These two starlings landed in the apple tree to my left. I took offf the 300 put the 500 mm on and wound down the passenger side window. I managed to get off one shot with the lens resting on my arm holding the steering wheel. All in a space of about10 seconds. Its very different from doing a bird sat on a perch for an hour in front of a hide. I didn't have any time to worry about f stops- etc,etc. Sometimes you take what you can get with the gear you have got,
Cheers
JR

[adrian dancy]

John

I stand by what I say...and I have held back in doing so. I am of the opinion, based on the evidence in front of my eyes, that the degree of cloning is substantial. The detail around the foot of the bird on the right in your image has some striking similarity to the detail around the foot for the bird on the left (in respect of the perch itself and the crab apples). I find the manner in which the circumference of the twig between the two birds suddenly diminishes then increases again at the precise point where the foot of the bird on the right contacts the perch to be odd in the extreme. The perch/twig between the two birds looks disturbingly disjointed and unnatural in my opinion. This now leaves me wondering if there were two birds present made in the original exposure.

[Steve Kaluski]

based on the evidence in front of my eyes, that the degree of cloning is substantial.

Adrain, looking at the image your thoughts/impressions I feel are justified, ie looking at the branch on the LHS part of it does look like there has been work done on it, as it badly butts up towards the third, plus there appears to be an additional claw on the LHS bird attached to the branch, John perhaps you can clarify please.

In addition you may wish to check your set up for web images, as your images do not carry an embedded profile sRGB and therefore may not be displayed to their full potential and may look rather saturated.

cheers
Steve

[John Robinson]

Just been allerted to this post by some posters and advised not to reply. Don't see why. But anyway. have sent out some PM,s

don’t have much idea about em-bedding etc and am not that bothered really. All my digital pictures using Nikon cameras for the past 12 years have been done on the sRGB setting and saved as such. The exif settings as well the profiles are never saved as in Paint Shop pro as they are deleted if I do the slightest thing to a picture, apart from just opening it. As far as saturation goes – I like them colourful like that in the same way some folks like high key, low key, arty, mushy, etc ,etc. No two monitors are the same anyway.</SPAN>
This picture was done a long time ago and I am still trying to find the original. In those days I had little disc space and kept as few as possible. If I find it you will see what I mean about the cloning out of the very bright small circles of white sky showing through., in the background which I mentioned above. In those days my cloning skills were about as bad as they are now and I can see one or two terrible ones now they have been pointed out.. Strange how this shot has always been accepted with no problems on other sites I certainly cannot see why I would put a third claw in and certainly can’t see one. Branches ,rocks,birds and other things are cloned out by many posters etc and no one says a word.</SPAN>
I would assume by the way, that everyone’s pics are downloaded and get the same microscopic attention. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes.</SPAN>

[adrian dancy]

John
Your image did not require microscopic examination for me to see that there was something awry and you are correct in saying that other images have work done on them that attract no attention. Sometimes the work done, is done so well, that it is not possible to tell, but that does not make it right, it just means they have got away with it. However, with the present image, you had gone to great pains to emphasise the natural elements of your image and I felt compelled to raise it as a possible issue. Why others have not raised the issue here or in the past I cannot know. Maybe they do not wish to offend or lack the confidence and fear the repercussions.

I have enjoyed your photography for many years. Your field skills, obvious patience in the field (a fact which often cannot be credited), a very deep knowledge of wildlife and eye for a good image put you above most. You should be credited above the 'general bird photographer' looking for instant results and often obsessing over equipment. If you read my critique again you will note that I made some very positive assertions regarding your photography skills in the hope that my critique was balanced. I still stand by those comments too.

Best regards

AD