-
-
Lifetime Member
Good job on exposing for the blacks, nice pose and on a nice clean BG. Wouldn't mind a lower angle, but understand it may not have been possible. Your image needs quite a bit of CW rotation. If you draw a straight line (use the crop line) next to the right side of your bird, your reflection should line up perfectly with your subject which tells you that your horizon is straight.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
nice clean background. The IQ certainly looks acceptable at least at this size
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Super Moderator
I don't think you can asses sharpness at this small size and when you process your photos with sharpening etc. anything will look great on the web when you downsample and sharpen it. you need to provide a 100% crop to see if the original was sharp or not.
As for as the image, the main issue is the steep angle and the HA which is turned slightly away from us. I like the view of the feet.
-
If you draw a straight line (use the crop line) next to the right side of your bird, your reflection should line up perfectly with your subject which tells you that your horizon is straight.
Marina - thanks for the tip. That is a new one for me. I will use that from now on!
-
the main issue is the steep angle and the HA which is turned slightly away from us.
I'm just beginning to appreciate the value of shooting at eye-level with the bird. I am still struggling with head angle but am beginning to appreciate the subtle difference that 5 or 10-degrees can make.
This website and the people like you and Marina have been a great help to me as I try to take my bird photos up a notch or two. Thank you!
you need to provide a 100% crop to see if the original was sharp or not.
Here is a 100% crop to help assess sharpness.
-
Super Moderator
-
There are no fine feather details in the head. In my book this is a delete
That is a very helpful tip! Sometimes I find myself scratching my head and asking "Is this image tack sharp or not?" Now I know to look for detail in those tiny head feathers.
The 400DO .... is a lens that I would never recommend to anyone.
Can you specifically say why? Have you spent much time with one?
I've attached the MTF Chart for the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM lens.
-
Very nice coot. I can't talk much about the IQ since I am not accuanted with this lens but it looks good on my end.
-
Interesting on the 100% crop examples. Surely though sharpness is also factored to distance to subject.? Or am I wrong. Arash, your image at 100% looks great.
-
Super Moderator
Henry it is obvious, the DO MTF chart is really poor. Just set that side by side to a 500 to see the difference.
I had the lens for a few weeks, I immediately sold it at a loss, IMO it is a waste of money and time for folks who care about sharpness/IQ (not everybody does, some folks are even happy with an iphone). BTW, this was already discussed in another thread.
good luck
-
Super Moderator
Judging form the 100% crop the focus could be off too (the feathers at very bottom left are sharper than the face.) I cannot speak about the lens as I have never used one, but I can tell you that I get sharper files with my trusty 100-400 lens.
As for the image I love the colour and smooth texture of the water, and yes the view of the feet is quite fun. A lower angle would be excellent. As for head angles sometimes only a couple of degrees makes a difference. Have you seen this fun thread linked below before?:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...le-Fine-Points
-
BPN Member
Hi Henry.... won't get into the "sharpness thingy"... just an overall... I really like it.... IMHO it does NOT need CW rotation... if you did that, the water in the back would be "out of whack" as would the bird's legs.... Since the refection is only "half", I would lose part of that so as not to have cut it in "half"....My only comment on the 100% crop is that the whites and yellows overpower the blacks and, so yeah, seem OOF..... but I think that a less than a 100% crop on this one would work well. (just my opinion, but the 400 DO delivers fab shots... it's just that some folks don't agree. Of course, it's old and different and not the "latest and greatest" and some copies are better than others.... it depends on how you work it! ... and Coots are a REAL Challenge!) The rec to delete is out of line..... Keep it.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
Sandy Witvoet
. (just my opinion, but the 400 DO delivers fab shots... it's just that some folks don't agree. Of course, it's old and different and not the "latest and greatest" and some copies are better than others.... it depends on how you work it! ... and Coots are a REAL Challenge!) The rec to delete is out of line..... Keep it.
Sandy thanks for your comments but please be more objective with your comments. It is not that I "just don't agree" because it is old, objective data i.e. MTF chart plus field results clearly show that this lens is poor when compared to say a 500 f/4. If you standards are such that you accept this quality for yourself it is OK, but it doesn't mean the lens is sharp. As I said any lens can make files that look sharp at small size. A standing coot is by no means a challenging subject either if you get the exposure right.
Also this is a critique website, we don't sugar coat images here, there are many other websites that do that, rather, we provide critique for improving an image. If someone doesn't like honest critique this isn't the website for them. We keep the standards high here, and this is best for everyone. That's what keeps the spirit of BPN alive and why this site is respected by many great photographers from around the world.
The image, while looks good at small web presentation, is soft, and the shooting angle is quite steep plus the head is a bit turned away from us. Did you read Artie's article about HA that Dan posted? That's what I said it is a delete given that it doesn't have much going for it AND the original is soft. I could have said "great shot" but what would Henry take from that? We want our readers to know how to improve their work as opposed to just patting them on the back and that means we point out both strengths and weaknesses of an image.
Regards.
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 12-19-2013 at 11:55 PM.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
BPN Member
Thanks, Arash.... I appreciate your feedback to my comments....and also your critique of the image.... which is excellent. I do, however, take exception to you telling me to be more "objective"? How so?
I certainly don't "sugar-coat" my opinions... I simply state them as my opinion...pluses and/or minuses..and Strengths and weaknesses... IN MY OPINION. I believe both are important to a "critique" and important as a learning experience and to improve. I have never said "great shot". Should you feel I am not "qualified" to provide an opinion here, please let me know....
I may not be (and am certainly NOT) a great photographer, but I have spent 30+ years producing/directing brochures, videos and photos for major corporations, as well as a degree in mass media.... it's not all about the HA or other "rules". (which, by the way, I HAVE read and studied here...as well as all the other tutorials.)
I am sorry that you feel I am not up to your standards. I likely just stray from the "fold"! I still think this image has merits.
-Sandy
-
Super Moderator
Hi Sandy,
You are definitely qualified and more than welcome to comment and please do so more often, sorry if my message came across that way. All I was saying is that do also point out the negatives and areas that you feel it might make the image better :)
I agree with you it's not all about HA, but in this case the general rules, HA etc. trump because the image had nothing else going for it. It was not a rare bird or a very interesting interaction or in other words something to make a strong connection to the viewer. Since it was a classic shot, it would be more appealing to most viewers if rules were kept. But there are of course exceptions to any "rule" in arts.
As far objective, keep in mind Henry was comparing the 400 DO with other lenses, i.e. a side by side apple-to-apple comparison, yes the lens is sharp for making web-size presentations or brochures but when you put it side by side with a 500 you can clearly see the difference and for some applications (maybe not yours but Henry's) it does make a visible difference. Somewhat like saying Toyota is not a slow car by itself but it is slow when you put it next to a Porsche 
cheers,
Reply With Quote
