It Ain't the Camera and it Ain't the Lens PART II

[Arthur Morris]

This young Sandwich Tern was photographed with the handheld 400mm f/4 DO IS lens, the 1.4X II TC, and the EOS-40D while I was laying in the sand getting my elbows raw. Flash mounted on camera; fill flash at -1 stop. ISO 400. Evaluative Metering + 1 1/3 stops: 1/200 sec. at f/10. (I was working wide open but when the bird began to stretch I quickly went to f/10.) One-shot AF on the eye and re-compose.

Don't be shy. All comments welcome.

ps: DeSoto was rocking on Tuesday morning.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Great pose, details and angle. It looks as if it needs a bit CCW rotation and there is a sharpening halo around bill and legs...there he goes again. :)

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Axel. I can even see the halos. (As you know, my JPEGs are generically sharpened via an action...) What exactly are you seeing that indicates that it needs a CCW rotation?

[Axel Hildebrandt]

For some reason I turn my head a bit to the right. I think it is the part of the sand in focus that looks slightly 'downhill' on the right.

[Doug Brown]

I really like this one Artie! Wing position, eye contact, sharpness (way to go with the increased DOF), and color palette. I see the downhill slope, but I wouldn't rotate it.

[Stephen Stephen]

Very nice Artie. I love how this bird still stands out against such pale grey sand. Catchlight in the eye is also great. I'd forget the rotation. Beachs are not perfectly level.

[Raymond Barlow]

the crop looks excellent to me, and the action well captured., a fantastic exposure, and beautifully processed. Looking closely at the dark legs and beak, I do see a slight halo, but not worth mentioning unless I had to find something to pick at., of which I do not.

Fine image Artie, and also, the composition rocks.

As for the camera, and the lens, I would like to see you do this without them! But reading between the lines, and in all honesty, I agree with you 100%, most great images come from talent, and not equipment.

[Jasper Doest]

Wonderful photograph Artie....it ain't the camera...it ain't the lens....it's all about dedication, and that definitely shows!....without that you would never have chosen that low angle and waited long enough for the right pose. I love the muted colourscheme here....well seen!

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Love it as presented - wouldn't change a thing!!

[Aristotle Georgiou]

Great shot Arthur. I really like the angle you've taken it at and pose is superb.

[Manos Papadomanolakis]

I really like the pose,details and wing position!!!

[Arthur Morris]

For some reason I turn my head a bit to the right. I think it is the part of the sand in focus that looks slightly 'downhill' on the right.

I posted this image and withheld some details as I wanted to see if the comments could help my put my finger on the problem... In the original image (see in pane below) there was a feathter covering the rear foot. Using a QM, I took the foot from another image of the same bird, covered the feather with sand, and used the new foot. It was the angle of the new foot that bothered me. After reading Axel's comments, I went back and started from scratch. Objective obtained; I feel that the repost is a huge improvement. I did rotate it 1.5 degrees CCW and most amazingly, I created a new 800 pixel JPEG and sharpened it (rather than using an action as I have always done before). Made a few other small improvements and changes that would need an eagle eye to detect...

[Arthur Morris]

This is the ORIG. I used the Clone Stamp to clean up the left side. I QMed the entire ulc and flipped it HORZ to cover the urc. Then a ton of QM work on the foot/feather. Image optimization took me 45 minutes but was well worth it to me.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Definitely worth the time, it looks even better than before. Thanks for including the original, amazing what the QM technique can accomplish.

[Doug Brown]

Thanks for sharing the original, along with the broad brushstrokes of how you did your post-processing. I don't use QM, but perhaps I should start playing around with it more.

[Bill Jobes]

This to me is an especially challenging image, brought to life with your master's strokes.
I've not had the opportunity to work with an image with so many 'whites' and 'grays.'
But their visual impact is a thing of absolute beauty.
Thanks Artie for sharing it, as well as some of the steps you employ to make it 'sing.'

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for sharing the original, along with the broad brushstrokes of how you did your post-processing. I don't use QM, but perhaps I should start playing around with it more.

Quick Masks are an amazing tool. If you use an 80 pixel brush you get 40 pixels of feathering so when you use a QM to cover large areas the blending is totally seamless. Robert O'Toole taught me the basics and the fine points and his APTATS PDF can teach you the same. I use one or more QMs on 90+ per cent of the images that I optimize.

[Arthur Morris]

This to me is an especially challenging image, brought to life with your master's strokes. I've not had the opportunity to work with an image with so many 'whites' and 'grays.'
But their visual impact is a thing of absolute beauty. Thanks Artie for sharing it, as well as some of the steps you employ to make it 'sing.'

Thanks Bill for your kind words. Ever since I went digital, I have learned to love white skies and cloudy days, especially at the beach. :) And I have always loved gulls and terns (and shorebirds too).

[Ian McHenry]

Hi Artie
IMHO the original has more aesthetic appeal while 2nd post has more grunt.
Both beautiful images but the 2nd gets my vote.
Cheers: Ian Mc