Printable View
This image was created on 25th Feb, 2013 in the Botanical Garden at Ooty in South India.Cropped for composition, sharpened and NR applied to BG.
ISO: 1600, 1/320, F: 5.6.Evaluating metering. Exposure Bias: +0.7. 550D, 400mm.
Thanks for viewing and appreciation. C & C are highly appreciated.
Kind Regards.
nice colors and pose, but the bird is quite noisy. the OOF strand in the BG is a bit distracting.
TFS
Arash,Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
Thank you for the feed back.I have applied nr to the bird and removed the OOF strand.
Attachment 126926
Satish.
Hi Satish,
it is still noisy/lacking in IQ. I am not sure if it was a big crop or underexposed. better luck next time :S3:
Thanks for the feed back.I must have done wrong somewhere in PP.Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
Attached the second frame in the series, which is processed by Jonathan Ashton.
I highly appreciate his help in processing this image.
Attachment 126928
Regards,
Satish.
Still not there Satish, last repost is a bit dark and contrasty, the tail highlights are now blown and the noise is still there on the feathers. colors look different too. which one is closer to the real bird?
Can you post the original?
Thanks a lot Arash for your time on this image. Here is the original image, RAW file converted in to JEPG ,NO EDITING,cropped and resized to 1024.Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
Attachment 126931
Regards,
Satish.
just as I guessed, the image is underexposed too much and thus the poor IQ/ high noise levels. I will be difficult to salvage this one given the ISO and the camera body used. Hopefully you will get a better one next time!
It is funny how it is sometimes. I like the first post the best.
The noise won't show on a print and I don't see the noise as presented, so I just enjoy the beuty of the bird.
Nice image, Satish.
WOW, I think the PP is pretty darn good considering how underexposed this shot was. I would have deleted it in camera!!
Gail
Karl, the noise is definitely there and it will show in a print too, unless the print is too small. Since this is a avian critique forum it is best to point out both positives and negatives. Just saying it's a great image will not help anyone improve their photography or learn much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Egressy
There are many other forums that are more towards showcasing, some are free too. What makes BPN unique to our members is honest critique, we need to keep this spirit or it will become just another photo sharing site.
This was actually a good learning example, which shows why we should be careful not to underexpose our images. It is best to get the exposure right in the camera.
keep up the good work.
Hi Arash,Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
I'm not really good at critique therefore I'm hesitant to point out the negative points. (I might not be correct and might hurt people's feelings)
I will bring up the good points of an image, the ones I like and let the people like you and others who have more knowledge,
better at english language (I started learnign it when I was 40 years old) point out the shortcomings.
One more point: I look at the picture and I decide if I like it or not.
If I do, then I tend not to worry too much about the small details.
Havind said that, I really appreciate all the work you guys do, and it helped my and many other people's photography a lot IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Egressy
Hi Karl, that's not a good excuse IMO. You are a good photographer and should not hesitate to point out anything even if you think it's negative. We all make mistakes and that's how we learn new things. No one should take critique personally, it is just to help them improve the quality of their work. I recieve lots of good critique too, things that I overlook or don't get right the first time! If the poster has a different POV, they will share it too and everyone learns in the process!
best
Arash
Thanks Arash and thanks for the compliment.Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
I might try harder in the future but not quite sure right now.
I hope you don't mind too much if I won't.
What a gorgeous bird, Satish. One that I've never seen before. So TFS!
The bird has given you a great head turn yielding excellent eye contact.
The underexposure in the original has indeed caused noise. Always best to get the exposure right in camera. In this case, the correct exposure would have given you a very bright bg.
In such a situation, I would have used a flash to keep the bg in check and yet illuminate the bird.
Speaking of the bg, I've got to say that both you and Jon did a great job clean the bg up.
Jon even made it green! Please share how you did this.
Lots to learn here -- thanks for sharing Satishji.
Excellent comments by Sidharth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidharth Kodikal
He is right on, if you had exposed for the bird BG would be blown, plus you were already at ISO 1600 and 1/320sec so not much room to push. The best choice here was a fill flash which I forgot to mention.
this is an examples of a great critique, thank you Sidharth!
Thank you all for good discussion on this image. I have learnt a lot from our discussion. I have checked the EXIF data and found that I used multi segment focus points, and not the central one, since the bird was hoping here and there very quickly and mainly in shady areas and occasionally in lights. Secondly due to use of multi segment focus points, somebody had parked the motor bike in front me which was giving glaring,(I noticed it later on) which has resulted in underexposing the bird and more of BG.
Sid, I have processed the image in CS5.Selected the bird used the curves, levels, saturation etc. and sharpened it, used slight nr on it, As per the BG is concerned, it was selectively underexposed and applied the nr and removed the vertical strand. Jonathan has used different method for changing the BG.
Arash and Karl:
I am really grateful for your feedback. Your negative feedback will not hurt my feelings, since I am learning through it. I know the limitations of my 550D and that is why trying to use different settings as per light sources available at the spot.
Thank you all once again. I will try to process another frame which is less underexposed.
Regards,
Satish.
Very lovely species & pose Satish.
Hi Satish, great discussion between everyone. Thanks for sharing your original which of course was under exposed. With all the software out there, it not really possible to save many images, and if I see my images on my PC like your original, I try and save it, but most times if I dont get it right, I end up binning it.
