Theme: Roadrunner Portrait

[Kurt Bowman]

Sony a9ii
200-600mm with 1.4 TC shot at 840mm
1/250 at f/9
ISO 160

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Kurt, sadly it's not working for me, nothing is sharp in the head and the beak being quite central and OOF, just draws the eye. The plumage does show 'sharp' plumage, not that crisp and the HL's & darks overall quite contrasty IMHO with some artifacts on the LHS, bottom LHC. With ISO at 160 you could have afforded to up it to gain more SS. Because of the pose (which I like) and as it's close to the RHS, almost a hard edge, I like to see a bit more to the left, it balances things out then. Killer BKG which does separate the subject nicely.

TFS
Steve

[Kurt Bowman]

Hi Kurt, sadly it's not working for me, nothing is sharp in the head and the beak being quite central and OOF, just draws the eye. The plumage does show 'sharp' plumage, not that crisp and the HL's & darks overall quite contrasty IMHO with some artifacts on the LHS, bottom LHC. With ISO at 160 you could have afforded to up it to gain more SS. Because of the pose (which I like) and as it's close to the RHS, almost a hard edge, I like to see a bit more to the left, it balances things out then. Killer BKG which does separate the subject nicely.

TFS
Steve

Thanks for your well thought out critique Steve. I can see your point on the beak, but these guys have long beaks. Even at f/14, I wouldn't have near enough to get that in focus also. But as far as nothing being sharp, I have to say I disagree....the eyes look sharp to my eye. That is where my focus was. The crispness is probably lost due to this being a crop from full size bird. This was my first weekend using my a9ii, so the ISO was a result of me trying different ISOs so I could see the difference. I am a bit confused by the comment the darks are too contrasty. To achieve contrast it takes darks and lights. So I am not sure what you mean.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Kurt

I can see your point on the beak, but these guys have long beaks. Even at f/14, I wouldn't have near enough to get that in focus also.

Agree, so perhaps you were just too close to the subject, stepping back could have helped.

But as far as nothing being sharp, I have to say I disagree....the eyes look sharp to my eye.

Well I guess we will both have to disagree here Kurt , the contour lines of the pupils to me look/appear soft, not crisp and so to me the eyes are soft. Without seeing the Raw which is the ultimate test, then perhaps some more localised sharpening may help. Remember if the raw is sharp then it's sharp, here when you create an image/output, any sharpening that we apply to the file, (always at 100% of the output size ie 1200px high) this is known as 'perceptual' sharpening.

I am a bit confused by the comment the darks are too contrasty.

To me, the image was shot it quite strong light and therefore has strong blacks & high whites with minimal tonal range in between, therefore because of the high contrast between the two values, the image appears 'contrasty'. I hop that helps to explain my thinking on that.

[Brian Sump]

Kurt, this is a crazy close look at the RR. Very intriguing!

As usual for you, a beautiful background with those desert tones. The contrast looks commensurate with your style and I think on a bird with the darks and lighter neutrals such as this, you did a pretty nice job.

I could see a touch of image quality degradation, but how much overall crop?

Thanks for posting, I will never forget your RR portrait that won the January theme!

[Arthur Morris]

I love this and images like it. Getting the eyes sharp is the trick with these and you did just that. There is great detail in the feathers. It would take f/12800 to get the bill and everything else sharp.

with love, artie

[John Mack]

Nice in your face portrait. The tones in the background are great.