Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Barn Owl (Tito alba)

  1. #1
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,331
    Threads
    2,663
    Thank You Posts

    Default Barn Owl (Tito alba)

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    This is a file I have revisited, the hand held image was captured in April 2020. I don't know the entire reason why but I think the image looks reasonable on the web but when I look at the web sized image in PSCC it shows much better detail.

    Olympus: E-M1X
    Focal Length : 420.0mm (300mm & MC14)
    Focal length in 35 mm film : 841.0mm
    Exposure mode : Manual exposure
    ISO Sensitivity : 6400
    Exposure compensation : 0.0 EV
    Shutter : 1/1600 sec
    Aperture : F5.6
    Flash : OFF

  2. #2
    Avian Moderator Brian Sump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,665
    Threads
    231
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jon, a sweet subject and one I envy to shoot. Looks like nice even light and pretty setting.

    Looks pretty solid for ISO 6400. Love the fine feathers on the bridge of the beak.

    Perhaps you could deal with the noise on the subject just a bit more, specifically around the eye and neutrals on the near wing. The rest looks pretty decent. A touch more left in frame might be nice too.

  3. #3
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,331
    Threads
    2,663
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Glad you like it Brian - did you notice the difference in PSCC?
    The noise was not really apparent to me - probably because I don't go looking for it, I have stopped pixel peeping I think it is destructive I now look at images purely to enjoy rather than deliberately find fault. If I see something more obvious like colours or composition then of course I would comment. Having said that I must admit to being a little obsessive about detail.

  4. #4
    Avian Moderator Brian Sump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,665
    Threads
    231
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jon, I cannot notice any difference in PS vs here. Would one expect to? Are you using dark mode or light mode? Sometimes it makes a difference when you post on BPN with the bright white margins.

    FWIW, I hear ya. However, first glance usually tells a good bit about what we're seeing and I noticed the graininess in the face pretty quickly. Perhaps pixel peeping is more at the raw/full size TIF level anyway? Hard to pp at 1900 across.

  5. #5
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,331
    Threads
    2,663
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Sump View Post
    Jon, I cannot notice any difference in PS vs here. Would one expect to? Are you using dark mode or light mode? Sometimes it makes a difference when you post on BPN with the bright white margins.

    FWIW, I hear ya. However, first glance usually tells a good bit about what we're seeing and I noticed the graininess in the face pretty quickly. Perhaps pixel peeping is more at the raw/full size TIF level anyway? Hard to pp at 1900 across.
    I am beginning to wonder if 1900 px and 595kb is not a good combination. I see the graininess and probably a reduction in sharpening and maybe a tad less luminosity would improve that.

  6. #6
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,689
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jon, do you think 1900px is actually what you see on screen, or could it actually be a lot smaller????? Have you checked that your screen is displaying the correct size. If not after measuring you may need to adjust based on ‘print’ size in PSCC.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  7. #7
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    7,533
    Threads
    2,043
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Jon, a beautiful bird I have never had the opportunity to photograph. I love the colors and feathers of the bird, perfect background. Really like this image, thank you for sharing.
    Joe Przybyla

    "Sometimes I do get to places just as God is ready to have somebody click the shutter"... Ansel Adams

    www.amazinglight.smugmug.com

  8. Thanks Jonathan Ashton thanked for this post
  9. #8
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,331
    Threads
    2,663
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski View Post
    Jon, do you think 1900px is actually what you see on screen, or could it actually be a lot smaller????? Have you checked that your screen is displaying the correct size. If not after measuring you may need to adjust based on ‘print’ size in PSCC.
    Sorry I don't understand how big should a 1900px be in mm on a 27" screen, it is approx 52.8cm. It certainly changes size when I view in a new window i.e. it goes smaller to fit the screen if there is an image made to a large height (1900px) dimension.

  10. #9
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,689
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Did you do what we discussed earlier today, ie measure a 5x4 and does the screen exactly a 5x4 or is it out?
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  11. #10
    BPN Member Andreas Liedmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dortmund / Germany
    Posts
    11,254
    Threads
    1,271
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Jon ... nice one , just think it would have been a bit nicer with a tighter turn towards the viewer . But this is many times not in our hands ....and you have tried your best I think .
    In terms of tone and color I am fine with the BG , just think the subject could go a bit deeper in the tonal range . The HL do look very flat ?? Have you recovered them ??

    TFS Andreas

  12. #11
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    San Mateo, CA
    Posts
    3,643
    Threads
    398
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    The view of the back plumage is beautiful, but the lack of eye contact smoothed facial details make really hurt. It would also be nice to see more of that far wing. Position in the frame with lots of room to the left is perfect.

  13. #12
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    10,421
    Threads
    1,708
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    My favorite part of this image is that pattern on the owls back.

  14. #13
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,689
    Threads
    1,296
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Hi Jon, I think the overall IQ is lacking sadly, albeit I feel there is more 'clarity' towards the back end rather than the face. Overall it does look flat, and I feel you could just perk it up, how far is personal prefs. The dark blob in the middle of the trim at the foot must go.

    Sorry image still had it in on the RP.

    TFS
    Steve
    Last edited by Steve Kaluski; 08-25-2021 at 11:52 AM.
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  15. Thanks Volkan Akgul thanked for this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics