Lookin' at me

[wendell westfall]

D90 70-200VR+2X@400 1/250 f5.6 !SO400 0EV handheld

I've been trying to get a good picture of one of these little guys "in the field" (no feeder, etc.) for quite awhile. I lucked out on this one but am not entirely happy with the image. What's wrong with it? I'm sure a 50% crop didn't help. It looks a little blurry to me. But maybe it is better than I think? Would appreciate criticism . . .

Thanks,
Wendell

[Ben Harris]

Too bad the tail is a little out of the DoF. Great color, detail on the face and breast is very nice. Great reflection in the eye.

I like it a lot overall.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Hey Wendell, there are a few things that may contribute to your un-happiness with the image. First, the contour of the bird and perch are not sharply defined anywhere - did you do some masking to work on the BG (e.g. additional blurring)? Second, the perch is blown with almost no detail visible on it. Third, the sharpening looks a little funky - perhaps due to the large crop and/or a combination of aggressive noise reduction/sharpening/other PP work. You should also work on the eye to reduce the excessive reflections there.

On the flip side, the composition is perfect, and the BG quite pleasing. You also have some good colours throughout, and although the perch is blown it does look great as far as shape and size go. Keep at it, there is some strong potential here...:cool:

[wendell westfall]

Really appreciates the critiques! Yes, Daniel, I did some masking and ran noise reduction on the background, then inverted the mask and sharpened the bird. I'm thinking, also, that my use of 2X contributes to the problem in this instance. I'm determined to get this thing right, so when I can I'll be going back in the field for a better chance, then hopefully I'll have a better basic image to start with . . .

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Good head angle and iridescence. Another vote for toning down the perch. Did you use flash?

[wendell westfall]

Nope, no flash, Axel . . .