Last try

So this is my last try with the hummingbird outing. I have to honestly admit I am getting frustrated. When I first started posting, I was told on a pretty regular basis I was using too much contrast, so I backed off a bit. Now I am being told my images look flat. I hope some can see how this can be a bit frustrating. While I appreciate the honest feedback, it gets frustrating when I feel I am being pulled in opposite directions. So, I thought I give the hummers one last try. However, I know this one is not looking back at the viewer so I am sure I will hear about that. But I think it's still acceptable because it is feeding and is mostly parallel to the viewer (which I thought the last two were basically parallel to the viewer and still heard they were looking away). Anyway sorry for the rant, just trying to improve and I feel like I am spinning my wheels right now.

I increased the contrast like I used too and added more saturation to some of the green shades and the blues. I added. some NR to the BG. The last one did have some posterization which I seem to get when using Topaz DeNoise. Maybe I am not using it properly???

A1, 200-600mm, 1.4 TC
1/3200 at f/9
ISO 1600

It's sharper than the previous one. Killer background as well.

Good morning Kurt,

Lots to say here, for what it's worth.

On Contrast. The contrast on your hummingbird images (and on the rest of your images as well), has looked fine to me. Do understand that different folks have different tastes and opinions. Understand also that folks are viewing the images on a wide variety of laptop screens or computer monitors (often un-calibrated), and that the viewing conditions/ambient light will also effect the look of a given image. During the raw conversion, I adjust the color temperature first, and then set the white point and the black points.Do you know the best way to do that? I rarely if ever touch the Contrast slider either during the raw conversion or afterwards (in Photoshop). I too am frustrated at times here by the folks who use phrases like "a tiny bit more" or "perhaps you might ..." Such ambiguous comments have been diminishing here over the past few months; I guess some folks got tired of my b---ing their b --- s. IAC, adjust the contrast so that it look good to your eye on your screen.

You wrote above:

"However, I know this one is not looking back at the viewer so I am sure I will hear about that. But I think it's still acceptable because it is feeding and is mostly parallel to the viewer (which I thought the last two were basically parallel to the viewer and still heard they were looking away)."

"Mostly parallel" and "basically parallel" does not cut it. A subject is either parallel to the sensor or it is not. I call that subject-to-film-plane orientation. Notice in this image that the we can see the far wing behind the near wing. That proves that the birds' body is angled away from us (as was the case with your two previous hummers that I commented on). This bird's head is lined up perfectly with its body, but because the body is angled away from us about one to two degrees, the viewer is not engaged. In such situations, the "look-back" head turn can save the day. If this was a set-up, it might have helped to adjust the angle of the flower. Or to move to your right to better parallel the subject.

On sharpness. The head here is fairly sharp, but not eyelashes-sharp. To my eye, the feathers on the flanks look sharper. Do you know where the AF point was? What AF method were you using?

On Sun Angle. The sun was not coming over the top of your head. It was coming from your right. You were perhaps 10 degrees off of sun angle. That does not seem like, much, So what's the big deal?

Plenty.

1- The hummer's bill is in the shadow of one of the petals.
2- The underwing coverts (if I am correct) of the near wing are in the shade. Great images that show underwing detail are best when they are evenly lit. That is not the case here, in part because you were working off light angle.
3- I use Topaz DeNoise on every image that I process. 99% of the time I run Standard for images made in sunny conditions, and Low Light for images made in low light. Go figure on that. I never see any posterization in my JPEGs. The problem might be the result of your JPEG creation workflow. It is not caused by Topaz DeNoise (assuming that you are not messing with the sliders).

On Saturation. I rarely touch the Saturation slider. When I do, it is during the raw conversion via the fancy color adjustment tab where you can work with the Saturation and the Luminance. I almost never touch the Hue slider.

Overall, this is a good solid image. It would make most folks happy and will receive complimentary critiques most of the time. The points I raise above are all small ones. But learning to deal with the very fine points will help you to improve your images from very good to great.

As I said, "For what it's worth."

with love, artie

Kurt, pretty comprehensive critique in the previous pane - with which I agree. The contrast is something that will frequently come up - too much and you lose detail in lights and darks. The best way forward is to see the comments for what they are, then determine if your monitor is ideally set up and if so make the contrast to best suit your eye, you can spend years trying to make contrast adjustments and still someone will see it slightly differently to yourself - for the reasons Artie gave. I think you have to reach a point where you have sufficient self confidence post to what you like and if someone makes a suggestion just try it and if you like it you may have learned something and if you didn't well hey maybe yours was fine after all!
BTW I think it is a good shot sharpness good but not quite perfect, I like the colours maybe just a tad oversaturated in the reds??

One trick with REDs is to add 50-80 points of CYNA to them in Selective Color. I takes the edge off w=of them without losing the brilliance (for lack of a better word) as de-saturating them would ...

with llove, artie

Hi Kurt, FWIW my monitors are calibrated every month, or... when the allotted hours are up and the monitors inform me. When I review images it is always within a very dark room (almost black), and so the only light stems from the monitor screens themselves, albeit both have hoods, so the light isn't cast onto either screen.

If you use say... Contrast or Levels adjustments within PS, they are a both forms of Contrast sharpening, this is why if you add it to an image it may 'appear' sharper, but it can also kill or reduce Mid tone, this is where your lovely detail is and so you want to retain that, so just be aware of your actions within PP, as they all have a cause & effect.

If the Raw is critically sharp then bingo the image is sharp the camera has delivered, however you always have to sharpen a digital file within PP and some may need more, some may need less, so it's never 'hit the Auto button' and the script runs,job done, you have to take each file at face value. If we just take Web or PI images you have to apply sharpening and this is known as 'perceptual sharpening' (it appears sharp to the eye) and this is down to when the authors sharpens the file at output size ie 1900px, not at the original size, or before any other manipulation (some may add a small amount at the RAW stage, this is known as input sharpening, and so perceptual sharpening is always the last operation in the chain prior to outputting for web.

So may disagree in the above, that's fine, this just based on my own experience and background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Good morning Kurt,


On sharpness. The head here is fairly sharp, but not eyelashes-sharp. To my eye, the feathers on the flanks look sharper. Do you know where the AF point was? What AF method were you using?

On Sun Angle. The sun was not coming over the top of your head. It was coming from your right. You were perhaps 10 degrees off of sun angle. That does not seem like, much, So what's the big deal?

Plenty.

1- The hummer's bill is in the shadow of one of the petals.
2- The underwing coverts (if I am correct) of the near wing are in the shade. Great images that show underwing detail are best when they are evenly lit. That is not the case here, in part because you were working off light angle.
3- I use Topaz DeNoise on every image that I process. 99% of the time I run Standard for images made in sunny conditions, and Low Light for images made in low light. Go figure on that. I never see any posterization in my JPEGs. The problem might be the result of your JPEG creation workflow. It is not caused by Topaz DeNoise (assuming that you are not messing with the sliders).

with love, artie

---

Hi Artie, thanks for the insightful critique, I appreciate it.

I used zone AF with bird eye on. The AF point was supposedly in the eye, but I seem to be not getting images as sharp as with my A9ii. Not sure why? I have good technique and have not had this issue with any other camera I’ve owned in the past. I need to study the camera menu better and see if there is a micro adjustment I can make with the lens I’ve been using..maybe that can help.

as far as the DeNoise: I export from LR into DeNoise, then bring back into LR. I am seeing the posterization even before I export to JPEG, which I also use LR for.

Thanks again,
Kurt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurt Bowman

Hi Artie, thanks for the insightful critique, I appreciate it.

I used zone AF with bird eye on. The AF point was supposedly in the eye, but I seem to be not getting images as sharp as with my A9ii. Not sure why? I have good technique and have not had this issue with any other camera I’ve owned in the past. I need to study the camera menu better and see if there is a micro adjustment I can make with the lens I’ve been using..maybe that can help.

as far as the DeNoise: I export from LR into DeNoise, then bring back into LR. I am seeing the posterization even before I export to JPEG, which I also use LR for.

Thanks again,
Kurt

---

Hi Kurt,

You are most welcome. I would not recommend either Zone -- did you know that there are two types of Zone? I would recommend joining my a1 group. In recent e-mails I have detailed recent changes to my AF Method approach and they would have helped you in this and similar situations. I never use LR. I used to create my JPEGs via a Photoshop action but more recently, a friend showed me an even better (though a bit more time-consuming) method that I love. No posterization ever :)

with love, a

ps: see the a1 Group info in the next pane.

SONY Alpha a1 Set-up and Info Group

The SONY Alpha a1 Set-up and Info Group is going great guns as more and more folks chime in with thoughtful questions and experience-based answers. As the a1 is becoming more readily available, more and more folks are getting their hands on this amazing body. With two folks joining yesterday, we are now up to an astounding 79 lucky and blessed photographers! Early on, we discussed the myriad AF options. I gave my opinion as to the best one for flight and general bird photography. More recently, we have been in contact with folks at SONY sharing our thoughts, experiences, and frustrations with the EVF blackout problem.
All who purchased their Alpha a1 bodies via a BAA affiliate link will receive a free subscription to the Sony Alpha a1 Set-Up and Info Updates after shooting me their receipts via e-mail. (Note: it may take me several days to confirm B&H orders.) This same service may be purchased by anyone with an a1 body via a $150.00 PayPal sent to birdsasart@verizon.net indicating payment for Alpha a1 Info Updates. Alternatively, folks can call Jim weekdays at 1-863-692-0906 to pay via credit card. New members will receive composite e-mails that summarize all previous discussions.

Kurt, looks great, I meant to say on the other one that it was NOT flat looking.. Arties comments are good, it is not a perfect image but
It is a very good one.
There are critics here I would not listen to...

Kurt, sorry for not posting as I've been traveling.

Sad to hear you're so frustrated. As I told you, you are a very very good photographer. Now you're using and getting familiar with brand new gear and it may take a bit of time.

I think the execution of the shot was well done. Gorgeous iridescence on the breast and tail, the flowers really pop and you did great to get the rich, green bkg.

My encouragement is to keep working and get back in your old flow. Sometimes when we try new techniques it can make us feel like we're going backward. Practice little things like using masks and watching some of the videos we discussed and over time, it will really help.

Keep em coming my friend!

Hi Kurt ... i shared my thoughts with you about your intro , so no need to repeat .
Well this frame does look the best , out of the three Hummer frames .
Purely as my personal preference :w3 .... I might try to open the shadows a " tiny bit " , regardless what other folks think :w3. As I feel there is some detail to show up .... but your call if you want to try that option .
The rest of the color and tonal front is looking well .... but always room to play with and give the image a different look .

I am fully ok with the wing and head position and the angle of light is fully ok with me .

TFS Andreas

Artie gave the best critique. I think the main issue here is the off angle light otherwise a solid frame.

as for processing, send me the RAW I'll take a look at what you have done

cheers