American Oystercatcher
Canon EOS 3 100-400 IS 1.4x = 560mm handheld
F8 aperture priority fully Open
Provia 100F exposure modification -2 "Virtually 400 ASA with no pushing"
Photoshop CS2 contrasty slide required SHADOWS/HIGHLIGHTS
Sanibel Causeway Beach, Florida
Direct Behind my head Sun at 7:35 AM makes angle of incidence virtually equal to angle of reflection which is about as hot as it gets!
Peter, I just looked at the image and see a noticeable halo around the OC . I also see alot of discoloring on the whites. I am guessing that it is due to a very heavy hand in S/H. Or the burn tool or both. The image presented is not very sharp. May I suggest you start to post in the Eager to Learn Forum. You can get the gentle guidance needed to bring your images up a bit. There are very knowledgeable Moderators including Alfred Forns.
Good-looking specimen, angle and eye contact. I don't know your scanning technique but something went wrong here. The image lacks fine detail and is too contrasty. The whites have a color cast and the use of Shadow/Highlights added a halo around the dark parts of the plumage. To avoid the halo only select the bird, not the background.
I don't think I will leave the room. "If it's too hot in the kitchen, get out," Harry Truman. Good One.
Dismiss techniques without testing them---doesn't seem professional to me.
Did you know movies are always made with color filters on the lights to balance the ambient reflections of the surroundings inside and outdoors.
BTW, if you read the information under the image you see that by using Provia 100F, and exposing under 2 stops to not burn the whites, I have created a contrasty image. I like contrast and what it does with the color saturations. The blacks and the whites have detail here and the whites are white except for a bit of a shadow under the primary folded buldge. It looks as it looked when I took the image and that is what we all aim at.
I do handhold 560mm IS using a 100-400 IS and 1.4x. That is definetly no competitor for sharpness with other more expensive fixed lenses on tripods. However, I enjoy working like that so I can make compositions by moving to coplete a composition I like best. Thanks for not asking me about my artistic intentions as is done in the real art world. See if you can talk like this in person to artists in a coop like Soho Photo Gallery or whether they start to move for the big window as soon as you talk.
Have A good day.
Peter
Peter, I would strongly advise you to have a look at the forum guideline #15. Ad hominem attacks are not welcome here: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/guidelines.aspxOriginally Posted by Peter Wallack
Hello Peter!
One thing that made me want to be part of this big family is that in the very beginning I read the motto ''honest critique done gently'' and that sound good to my ears.
And that's exactly what I am going to do here. I am not a professional on photography or anything like that but sometimes we can see things that others don't.
First, and as mentioned above, the picture lacks fine detail, then is too contrasty. The bird itself is a beautiful one and the head angle seems good. I would just suggest you to consider to go back to your scanner and retry this one. I guess there are a lot of good things that you can do to it.
Hi Peter,
I agree with Axels comments on the image.....and finally we're getting somewhwere. I was primarily a film shooter.....so not only have I used your technique, I fully understand what happens to the blacks in this situation with film and in the scanning process. By underexposing 2 stops to keep the whites.....on film the blacks would be mostly detailess. That explains why you used the S/H tool.......did you turn off the color adjustment setting on that......in CS 2 you have to be careful there as it can quickly over-saturate.
but I guess my biggest question to you is this; Since you areobviously sensitive to critisism and seem quite beligerent to others when they critique......why do you chose to participate? You have the answers to everything already......why ask for an opinion?......or are you just standing on your pulpit trying to justify an inferior image? Now this may not have been the gentle part of the critique......it is definitely honest.
Peter- IMO, the image has some good points such as composition (a bit tight) and head angle, but I agree there is no punch to it mainly because it is so soft. Was the slide soft? If not then there must be some issue with the scanning process. Can't think what though because modern slide scanners are pretty darn good. The idea here at BPN is to learn to help you trouble-shoot images like this. I'm sure we can narrow the problem down if you'll let us help.
BTW the halo around the bird reminds me of what you get with HDR images. I've never seen it with Photoshop Shadows and Highlights, which, incidentally, you need to be very gentle with to be effective.
One afterthought is in the prep for BPN. Images for BPN can be 1024 x 800 max, and 200k or less. This produces a very sharp, pleasing image (just have a look at many of the other posts). Heavily jpeg compressed images can look soft and maybe the problem here is a simple workflow issue.
Last edited by John Chardine; 09-06-2009 at 06:29 PM.
Thanks Juan, Roman and John: You all were right there where the problem is so I think for a while this is the kind of post quality you will be seeing (more like that of 8 years ago on a forum like this). I would have gone Digital for sure 7 years ago but was mostly sidelined for months on end with a bout of carpal tunnel. I had another in January 2008. Thank god I could still ski 46 days with poles and climb. The high peaks have stopped just recently because the pole is even too much. I haven't shot birds with my camera in 2 years. I have been waiting to see if I have enough hands and wrist to invest the money in a canon body with a 1:1 senor and the 300mm F2.8 with 2x. Artie used that and said it was his sharpest lens. My golf game is somewhat of a test but not a real one since the less the grip on the club the better.
I have a ten year old scanner- Nikon Cool Scan IV ED. With its ICE it does much to unfocus scans. I have updated its software but I will not buy a better one because I will be going digital as soon as I know I can work the camera with my hands.
BTW, in 2001 this same post got raves on a forum Artie was then on and over 20 replies which were positive. The quality of cameras. scanners, photo editors and all have all improved so much that this image now might be fair game. I understand that.
Fair game is not being told to go to the beginners room when you have sold fine art photography for 35 years, published in many magazines, and had the cover and 18 full pages in National Geographics Guide to the Birds of Florida (2005).
I did one thing to get people upset here- I felt that with post production guidance 2 fantastic world class images on this page- the other American Oystercatcher and the American Kestral - would easily be in the very top of all photos ever taken for these species. There is an emphasis on the production when in all media there is pre, prduction, and post which all need working on. I thought I took a rant in pretty good humor.
No one is harassing me nor I am I harassing anyone here. But if I get a personal remark like I am a "Bull in A china shop" with the positive and helpful post production ideas I have shared , than I am going to say it fits many less sensitive to others right to respect than me.
By the Way, I have two albums here.
Best,
Peter Wallack
Last edited by Peter Wallack; 09-06-2009 at 07:20 PM.
Hi Peter Just some points to clear
......." 300mm F2.8 with 2x. Artie used that and said it was his sharpest lens."
Artie does not have a 300 2.8 lens and haven't seen him use one for many years.
....... "BTW, in 2001 this same post got raves on a forum Artie was then on and over 20 replies which were positive"
It is best to judge the image for what it is and for what I'm seeing taking processing aside it just an oystercatcher image? It is a good image but would not call great.
......... "Fair game is not being told to go to the beginners room when you have sold fine art photography for 35 years, published in many magazines, and had the cover and 18 full pages in National Geographics Guide to the Birds of Florida (2005)"
I'm sure this one image is not representative of your work
I think some of the fuss here has to do with perception. What is world class image? In your opinion the two cited are and I fully respect your opinion. In my opinion they are not world class images? What would make the oystercatcher a world class image? Maybe if you can explain then we all can understand, perhaps there is something I am missing in the image.
One part of photography today is post processing. For your past images the process stopped when the shutter was pressed but today things have changed. If we like it or not the post processing is an important part of photography. This same image given to a magazine has zero chance of being accepted ... all because of post processing .. no matter how good it is. Don't know if it has been a good or bad thing but it is the way things are today.
We are all just making comments and trying to understand and advance our photography. In your case you are in one level from the image making ability and in another in the processing ... with just a little work you can bring it up and can get excellent help right here.
Peter, I've been observing the conversation today and decided to interject my thoughts. This site is devoted to the education and advancement of photography. It is designed to teach and make folks aware of their strengths and weaknesses so they can be better photographers. The world of photography has gotten more complex due to post processing techniques and all the new technologies.IMO it has also gotten better since the results speak for themselves.
I've observed many sites that sugar coat their critiques(if you want to call them critiques) where the maker is stroked but learns nothing. Since many folks contribute here one will get differing opinions but they should be taken in stride knowing that an unpaid person took the time and concentrated their efforts on your image. You always have the right to accept or reject them but when one becomes defensive it brings it to a different level.
There are numerous highly credentialed people on this site who rarely talk about their credentials.I believe their images speak for themselves and not the other way around. I have often found the most advanced photographer is the one that is most open to new ideas or methods of improving their craft.
You mentioned that you did diplomatic work for the UN. At times one needs to use those skills to their best advantage.
Nice colorful image.
It's very hard to capture Oystercatchers doing anything exciting. At least I haven't seen any images of them at such...That idea and the soft focus was my first impressions of the image.
I've read all the above comments and I can see both sides. What one can do with photography and bird photography in particular today is light years away from what was possible 10 years ago. The types of images--action, flight, closeups, etc taken with digital cameras is astounding and next to impossible to do 10 years ago. Since you are new to digital perhaps you have yet to discover that fact.
Take a look at bird photos 10 years ago and look on the internet at what 1000's of amateurs and pros can take today and it is obvious.
Last edited by Daniel Belasco; 09-08-2009 at 02:12 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote