BLACK-WINGED STILT FISHING

[Somdeb Biswas]

BLACK-WINGED STILT FISHING


This subject was shot in Manglajodi, Odissa, India this winter in the morning light. The Stilt quashed the head of that tiny fish with its beak while fishing.


Nikon D500, 500F4 FL, 1.4XTCIII; Exposure Time - 1/4000 seconds, F – 5.60, Exposure Program – Aperture priority, ISO – 640;


I appreciate all the critiques. THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR VIEWING & INPUTS.

[Geoffrey Montagu]

Perfect moment captured, Somdeb. Exposure right on, and wonderful low POV.

Geoffrey




http://500px.com/geoffreymontagu (http://500px.com/geoffreymontagu)

[John Mack]

Pretty sweet frame. The low angle is nice. Like how the water blends right into the background. Prety item is always a plus.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Beautiful eye! Good exposure, and details where within dof. I like the low angle, background, and splashing waterdrops as well. I only wish the food item was sharp, but I understand it was being shaken and/or wriggling rather fast.

[Isaac Grant]

Very nice. Nice low shooting angle. nice details, beautiful water and the prey item is excellent. I also like your chosen crop.

[greg cowle]

Great shot, the water droplets make it a standout for me.

[Jonathan Ashton]

The shallow DOF is OK, having said that I think a little more DOF would have been beneficial. The eye is bright and well focused, the water droplets and fish enhance the image.
My only suggestion to improve would be to take another look at the brightest whites and darkest blacks, I suspect the TIFF was ok but the jpeg is slightly clipped. I would also reduce contrast just a tiny bit.

[Somdeb Biswas]

The shallow DOF is OK, having said that I think a little more DOF would have been beneficial. The eye is bright and well focused, the water droplets and fish enhance the image.
My only suggestion to improve would be to take another look at the brightest whites and darkest blacks, I suspect the TIFF was ok but the jpeg is slightly clipped. I would also reduce contrast just a tiny bit.

Thanks a ton for your input. I will certainly correct it as per your suggestion.

with warm regards,
Somdeb

[Isaac Grant]

Your whites are fine. As are your contrast. You can not judge clipping from down sized and converted jpegs. Ignore what the histogram may show on the jpeg.

[Somdeb Biswas]

Your whites are fine. As are your contrast. You can not judge clipping from down sized and converted jpegs. Ignore what the histogram may show on the jpeg.
Thanks a ton for your input.
I jpeg is not showing any clipping on my monitor. I have to learn a lot from your inputs so please keep teaching me.
Thanks again.
with regards,
Somdeb

[Dorian Anderson]

The eye contact and perfect head focus make this frame crack! Details and feeding action are great. I'm no so concerned with the DOF since the eye is so good and all our attention goes there anyway. A bit more NR might help as wel,, but that's pretty minor.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Somdeb, it is inevitable that you will receive different instructions or guidance, some people think they know more, indeed some do.
Sometimes some folk think it is not considered necessary to comment on a jpeg's shortcomings, I cannot understand why this would be especially when it is the jpg that has been posted and it is the jpeg that is submitted for critique.
I offer my suggestions not instructions on your jpeg, it is your image to handle as you wish. I appreciate your TIFF may indeed not be blown and as such it may well prove fine for printing.
When a jpeg -especially a small compressed jpeg is submitted for viewing on a monitor we see a different image to the large (TIF) file and especially if a photographic monitor as opposed to a general purpose monitor is used any shortcomings become more obvious and the better the monitor often the more obvious minor faults may become apparent. It is no bad thing you get conflicting views - it encourages us to think about our images, we all have our own opinions. The main thing is to enjoy and have fun with your images, the more you appreciate differing views the more you will be able to make informed decisions of our own.

[Somdeb Biswas]

Somdeb, it is inevitable that you will receive different instructions or guidance, some people think they know more, indeed some do.
Sometimes some folk think it is not considered necessary to comment on a jpeg's shortcomings, I cannot understand why this would be especially when it is the jpg that has been posted and it is the jpeg that is submitted for critique.
I offer my suggestions not instructions on your jpeg, it is your image to handle as you wish. I appreciate your TIFF may indeed not be blown and as such it may well prove fine for printing.
When a jpeg -especially a small compressed jpeg is submitted for viewing on a monitor we see a different image to the large (TIF) file and especially if a photographic monitor as opposed to a general purpose monitor is used any shortcomings become more obvious and the better the monitor often the more obvious minor faults may become apparent. It is no bad thing you get conflicting views - it encourages us to think about our images, we all have our own opinions. The main thing is to enjoy and have fun with your images, the more you appreciate differing views the more you will be able to make informed decisions of our own.
Dear sir, I strongly believe that Photographic perception differs from person to person. So I am not at all confused. I humbly receive your suggestion as a great input which can help me in the long run, not just this shot. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS OTHERWISE. I am using an EIZO CS2730 monitor with XRITE. Though the blacks/ whites were not clipped but I am having tremendous problems during Post Processing and I need to hone my skills in every sphere. Currently, I am learning from Arthur Morris Sir's book I purchased and need practice.
Your comments, all of the stalwarts of BPN, are tremendously helping me to correct my perceptions. Please keep them coming so that I can learn.
with warm regards,
Somdeb

[Isaac Grant]

Here is what is confusing and why you are getting varying opinions. Of course the quality of your monitor will change how the colors and clipping look. But Jonathan is not viewing your images and thinking they are clipped. He is downloading your image and viewing the histogram and basing his opinion on that. We have been through this over and over and yet he still continues to do this and to make what I consider faulty comments. Again he is not viewing the image and thinking it is clipped. The histogram on the downsized and converted jpeg is telling him it is clipped. The problem is that jpeg are digitally more contrasty and will show different information than the TIFF you just converted, yet they will look identical. If you check the levels in your photo just before sharpening and then check them again just after down sizing and sharpening you will see a photo that looks the same but with different histograms. It has to do with digital compression. So like I said, ignore those comments or you will always present dull and lifeless photos. Use your eyes (and hopefully a quality monitor) to judge the merits of a down sized and converted jpeg, not a histogram.

[Somdeb Biswas]

Here is what is confusing and why you are getting varying opinions. Of course the quality of your monitor will change how the colors and clipping look. But Jonathan is not viewing your images and thinking they are clipped. He is downloading your image and viewing the histogram and basing his opinion on that. We have been through this over and over and yet he still continues to do this and to make what I consider faulty comments. Again he is not viewing the image and thinking it is clipped. The histogram on the downsized and converted jpeg is telling him it is clipped. The problem is that jpeg are digitally more contrasty and will show different information than the TIFF you just converted, yet they will look identical. If you check the levels in your photo just before sharpening and then check them again just after down sizing and sharpening you will see a photo that looks the same but with different histograms. It has to do with digital compression. So like I said, ignore those comments or you will always present dull and lifeless photos. Use your eyes (and hopefully a quality monitor) to judge the merits of a down sized and converted jpeg, not a histogram.

Dear Issac Grant Sir, more than often my faulty techniques has resulted in faulty results. Especially working in tiff (Adobe RGB) I resize to 1920px from 3000px (base tiff is always greater than 3800px post-crop for me which I resize to 3000px) add sharpening and save in jpeg (sRGB) within 600kb limit. I feel I lose some look during this process. I use File>Export>Export As... step in Adobe Photoshop CC. I think I am making some mistake which I am failing to identify.
Thanks again for your input.
with warm regards,
Somdeb

[Isaac Grant]

Most people that I know do the following. Save your TIFF that is unsharpened. Then sharpen and save as a jpeg. Then use file > export > save for web and resize and save the file. Typically save to about 540mb. Then open the new downsized file and select the bird again and sharpen it again (typically using smart sharpen at 100 and .5 but depends on file of course) and then again do file > export > save for web. That will be the one you post. As you say, you will lose sharpness when downsizing so you have to sharpen your downsized file again. That will by the way cause the histogram to be even further out of whack which is even more why you ignore it.

[Somdeb Biswas]

Most people that I know do the following. Save your TIFF that is unsharpened. Then sharpen and save as a jpeg. Then use file > export > save for web and resize and save the file. Typically save to about 540mb. Then open the new downsized file and select the bird again and sharpen it again (typically using smart sharpen at 100 and .5 but depends on file of course) and then again do file > export > save for web. That will be the one you post. As you say, you will lose sharpness when downsizing so you have to sharpen your downsized file again. That will by the way cause the histogram to be even further out of whack which is even more why you ignore it.
Dear Issac Grant Sir, thanks a lot for sharing your technique. This is great, just great. Hope my next post will reflect some changes using this technique.
Thanks again,
with warm regards,
Somdeb