1 st image - Back headed Gull (Winter plumage)

[Luis Patacao]

Hi there, i`ve been tracking this forum for a while but only now decided to put one image for review. I haven`t yet made my official presentation for the forum, so i`ll do a short preview. I`m from Portugal, and a passionate for nature photography. Birds are becoming a important and challengin part of my photography and as a need for grow i joined this forum, hopping to get so real critiques! :D

This was shot a few weeks ago, near my home close to Lisbon. Shot at 300mm f5.6 and cropped.


Looking at the mirror por Patacão, no Flickr

[Iain Barker]

Hi Luis and welcome to the forum

I think this is a good first photo.
I really like the pose of the bird and the exposure looks ok to me. Just not sure if is burning out slightly just below the wing?
How much have you cropped the image? I think you should crop more if the IQ allows as I think there is too much space on the left and think the background would be better without the slightly grey band at the top.

It is always better to give as much information as possible such as which camera you are using and what adjustments have been made in which program. Other members can then give you more personal critique based on what you are using.

Great first image and thanks for showing.
Iain

[Diane Miller]

Welcome, Luis! A very nice catch!! You don't say how much of a crop, or what lens, but it looks like there isn't a lot of detail in the bird. It would have been nice to have a longer lens or be closer to the bird -- so easy to say!!

As is, I would suggest a little more crop from the top and left. With a small in the frame bird, it's nice to have some subtle detail in the BG, to give a sense of the location.

We look forward to more posts, with more detailed camera and processing information, and don't forget to comment on other people's posts.

[Luis Patacao]

Hi Luis and welcome to the forum

I think this is a good first photo.
I really like the pose of the bird and the exposure looks ok to me. Just not sure if is burning out slightly just below the wing?
How much have you cropped the image? I think you should crop more if the IQ allows as I think there is too much space on the left and think the background would be better without the slightly grey band at the top.

It is always better to give as much information as possible such as which camera you are using and what adjustments have been made in which program. Other members can then give you more personal critique based on what you are using.

Great first image and thanks for showing.
Iain

Thanks Iain and apologies for the lack of information, i will fix this right away. Its close but its not burning underneath the wing, as for the cropping the IQ doesn`t allow me to crop more.

CM: Nikon D7000
Lens: Nikkor 70-300mm VR
Post Processing: typical adjustments in Photshop, curves, contrast and saturation.
Crop %: I can`t precise this, but around 50% of the original frame.

Thanks for the help.

[Luis Patacao]

Welcome, Luis! A very nice catch!! You don't say how much of a crop, or what lens, but it looks like there isn't a lot of detail in the bird. It would have been nice to have a longer lens or be closer to the bird -- so easy to say!!

As is, I would suggest a little more crop from the top and left. With a small in the frame bird, it's nice to have some subtle detail in the BG, to give a sense of the location.

We look forward to more posts, with more detailed camera and processing information, and don't forget to comment on other people's posts.

Thank you for the comment Diane, as far as the crop % its not possible, i really need a longer lens witch is on the top of my shopping list.

[Diane Miller]

Hi Luis,

You mention processing in PS. Was the original capture a JPEG? If it was RAW, what was the processing there? The reason I ask is that the things you mention doing in PS -- curves, contrast, saturation and cropping, are best done in RAW processing, and non-destructively, with sometimes just a tweak in PS.

Best wishes for getting the longer lens! With shots as nice as this, it will be a great investment.

[Luis Patacao]

Hi Luis,

You mention processing in PS. Was the original capture a JPEG? If it was RAW, what was the processing there? The reason I ask is that the things you mention doing in PS -- curves, contrast, saturation and cropping, are best done in RAW processing, and non-destructively, with sometimes just a tweak in PS.

Best wishes for getting the longer lens! With shots as nice as this, it will be a great investment.

Hi Diane, the original capture was RAW, i do not shoot jpeg. The RAW processing was my normal "setup", wich includes - lens correcction, wb adjustment (if necessary), denoise and a 1st level of sharpening. The remaining processing is done in photosop.

Thank you for the comment.

[Diane Miller]

Shooting RAW is excellent, but which version of PS are you using, and which RAW processor? And are you using any sort of Auto adjustments?

RAW converters, especially ACR that accompanies PS, and especially the significantly improved version in PS 6, has major powers to bring out shadow and highlight detail. (Once you are into PS, you have"frozen" the information in the tonalities and only slight corrections can be made in the darks and lights.) Using the RAW adjustment sliders manually is usually a great improvement over auto, although auto WB can be good. You have great control over color in the HSL panel, and there are curves. Much other good stuff. PS has become less important for the major global corrections, although it is powerful for local (masked) adjustments and many specialized things.

ACR offers noise reduction, but it can only be used to a small extent before it will damage detail. More significant improvement can be done in PS with plugins such as Neat Image or Nik Dfine.

Likewise sharpening is best left for PS after resizing for output (or even on the output JPEG), although a slight amount can be done carefully in RAW.

Going from the RAW converter to PS, it's best to bring the image in in 16 bits, for more leeway for smooth tonal transitions.

[Luis Patacao]

Shooting RAW is excellent, but which version of PS are you using, and which RAW processor? And are you using any sort of Auto adjustments?

RAW converters, especially ACR that accompanies PS, and especially the significantly improved version in PS 6, has major powers to bring out shadow and highlight detail. (Once you are into PS, you have"frozen" the information in the tonalities and only slight corrections can be made in the darks and lights.) Using the RAW adjustment sliders manually is usually a great improvement over auto, although auto WB can be good. You have great control over color in the HSL panel, and there are curves. Much other good stuff. PS has become less important for the major global corrections, although it is powerful for local (masked) adjustments and many specialized things.

ACR offers noise reduction, but it can only be used to a small extent before it will damage detail. More significant improvement can be done in PS with plugins such as Neat Image or Nik Dfine.

Likewise sharpening is best left for PS after resizing for output (or even on the output JPEG), although a slight amount can be done carefully in RAW.

Going from the RAW converter to PS, it's best to bring the image in in 16 bits, for more leeway for smooth tonal transitions.

Hi Diane, i really apreciate your advices on the workflow, i will explain my actual workflow and join your precious advices for the future.

I use LR for the raw processing with a custom preset. This preset basiclly does the lens correction, denoise and 1st level of sharpening, some clarity and a bit of saturation. After this if something elese is needed such as fill light, spot healing... i will do it in LR. Then i export the image to PSD and continue in PS, usually only so curves, contrast, resize for output and sharpening. i also don`t use auto wb, usually use cloudy as it pumps a bit the colors and then adjust if necessary.

Think i will try some of the plugins you mention and leave the denoise and sharpening for PS.

Thanks.