A Morning Stroll on the Beach

[Bill Dix]

D90 with 80-400 VR @ 400 mm.
ISO 800. 1/2500 s. @ f/5.6
Matrix metering, 0EV; AF-A; HH

Sunrise on Sunset Beach, with Marbled Godwit. I like the pose, HA, BG and light. This was not a huge crop - maybe 30% off the top; but it doesn't appear quite as sharp as I would like. I've been cautious about oversharpening.

C&C appreciated. Bill

[Thanaboon Jearkjirm]

Love the walking pose, the light, and open beak at the tip. Background color is beautiful. I also like all the horizontal lines in the background, really add to the image for me. Agree about being a bit soft, and might also try CCW rotation and see what happen.

[Cheryl Flory]

agree, beautiful lighting, head angle, and energy in this image. love the low angle. the color of the water compliments this bird very well. if you selectively sharpen the eye only, that would make the entire image seem sharper.

[Ray Rozema]

Agree with the above Nice color, pose, eye contact. Pleasing BG. another vote for slight rotation and little selective sharpening. Well done

[Harold Davis]

nice pose and great light. looks a little contrasty? not sure if you lost some details from adding too much or not. the techs look good to me, but i dont know that lens and wonder if stopping down just a little more might have produced more detail. cheryl had a great idea with sharpening the eye. i dont see where it needs rotation, but then again my head is on crooked! :)

[Lance Peters]

sweet sweet light - love the walking pose - HA is good and techs look solid.
Does look a little soft with some loss of detail on my screen. Might be worth going back to the raw and having another look.
I might crop a tad from the bottom.
Great idea about the eye Cheryl and also true a sharp eye will make the whole image appear sharper.
Keep them coming ;)

[Bill Dix]

Helpful comments everyone. Thank you. I'll definitely sharpen the eye. When I set the levels and black point I may have introduced a bit more contrast than needed. I agree its worth going back to the RAW file and trying again - the image is worth a second try. I liked the soft hint of a reflection in the wet sand, which is why I didn't crop the bottom, but I agree that it will position the subject better if I relinquish a bit of that reflection.

Thanks again.

[Gus Cobos]

Hi Bill,
I like the composition, image and capture...agree on the techs. and good advise given...I too stress the eye being a tad sharper...also might reduce the saturation on your subject just a little...looking forward to the next one...:cool:

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Bill

Might try testing the lens, might find a slight difference at infinity?

Great suggestions, can add I would crop a little from the bottom for proportion, very nice !!!

[Harold Davis]

hey bill, just to follow up on your comment, i usually do not set the black or white point in light that is this nice. it normally destroys the feel and mood set by the light and makes it just another ordinary picture.

[Bill Dix]

Thanks. I have gone back to the RAW file and tried to reprocess. I can't remember everything I did the first time around, but here is the result of the re-try. It has slightly less saturation, slightly less contrast - the latter probably the result of the black point setting I did in the first. I have improved the position of the bird in the frame - thanks Lance and Al for the suggestion - but kept the 2:3 ratio. And I have sharpened the eye - thanks Cheryl. In my mind the repost is better in those respects: contrast, saturation, eye and comp. For some reason the sharpening was better in the first one. I believe in that one I started by using the Low Pass Filter at "Soft Light" followed by minor tweaking with the Unsharp Mask, all on the whole image. In the new one I followed Artie's recommended multiple passes with the Unsharp Mask (125/4/0, 100/2/0 and 100/2/0), only on the bird. The first worked better in this instance. In the repost I also must have done something to the color temperature in the RAW conversion making the water more blue -- I'm not sure it is an improvement and might benefit from de-sat.

I'm curious about testing the lens: are you suggesting (as I think you might have previously) that the specs for this lens show some deterioration at full zoom and that I might be better backing off a bit? Is there a useful protocol for testing this, or just the obvious controlled shots at different focal lengths?

I appreciate all the help. Bill

[Harold Davis]

major improvement on my end. when processing these, sometimes i have to think that less is more. you did really well here!!

[Thanaboon Jearkjirm]

I really like your repost, excellent!

As for the lens testing protocol I can't help you there since I don't know how myself. What I usually do is try to find lens review online. Are you using Nikkor ED 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR? If so here is a review for you, http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm

[Bill Dix]

Thanks. Very helpful. I had read other reviews prior to purchasing, and I knew the lens wasn't the first choice for birding because of the excruciatingly slow AF. What this review also says is that the lens is sharp to 300mm, and "noticeably softer...but serviceable" at wide apertures at 400mm. As BPN has told me before, I need to get closer to the subject!