|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Thank you, David. All the advice I get here really helps!
I should leave the bridge camera at home unless there is bright, even light predominating. They are nice to have in an emergency (such as seeing a falcon while driving to Buffalo!) but in real life, where the light is ever changing, they are just too limited. Even the Sony Rx10iv.
I have the zebra lines activated, now I will find out how to show the historgram in the viewfinder. My next set should be spectacular!
Thanks again. |
Jun 23rd |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Thank you, Cindy!
Your advice about manual-everything echoes what my friend, Andy (who is also my mentor), tells me every time we get together. If I get caught trying to cheat with auto ISO, he gets so mad at me! Sometimes it's just easier to use auto ISO but in this case, trying to balance the black without blowing out the whites, I see that manual ISO is really the only way.
Now I remember, back in the olden days when telephones were stuck to walls and cameras used film, placing an 18% gray card in front of the sensor on my old Minolta and then reproducing the settings That's the only way I could get pictures of my kids playing in the snow. . .
Thanks again! One of these days I am going to post a photo that will be as good as one of yours! (well, almost as good).
:-) |
Jun 21st |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
I'm not skilled enough to make comments like Larry's or Michael's, but I do see what they are referring to. All I can say is that there is a lot of depth in that photo, with the foreground trees and then the layers of dark and white mountains, which I find impressive. And the peek-of-the-peak adds drama.
I can only imagine how striking it will be when you implement the changes suggested by Larry and Michael! |
Jun 16th |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Hi, Richard, and many thanks for your commentary, especially this one: "But we will take the problems and learn from them because we like the uncontrolled fact of nature." So true!
I don't think this is a problem with all Sony cameras. I think the limitations are due to its being a bridge camera. It is probably the best of the bridge cameras (this one has a full 1" sensor, the others are 1 x 2/3"). But a small sensor is still a small sensor, and they tend to do poorly in all the things that push us towards full frame and APS-C.
Oh, and the other problem is the newbie behind the camera. . .I still don't really know what I am doing until after I get the shot. :-(
I knew better when I took it with me -- but I used it anyway :-) My intent was to get some cool images of fledging great blues in the rookery nearby, but when I saw this swan and her family, I couldn't resist. They were too close for me to use the 200-500 on my Nikon.
I took Larry's advice and now have the "zebra" settings activated. Hopefully I can properly adjust exposure next time. Like you say, we learn from out problems. :-)
Thanks again. |
Jun 16th |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
reallyreallyREALLY nice! Something for me to aim for, so thanks for the data ("test shots taken to set exposure to avoid blowing out the bright blooms" -- will have to do that next time I have lots of white mixed in with the colors) |
Jun 11th |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Thank you! (relieved that nobody here is rolling their eyes every time I post. . . !)
Those three factors you mention -- I need to work on all of them. I do notice my still photos are a lot sharper, so I am thinking handholding at long lengths is my biggest problem. Hopefully next month will show an improvement, especially if I keep my moving bird shutter speed at 1/2000 or even 1/3200 (depending on light conditions).
Thank you again! |
Jun 11th |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Reply |
Wow, thanks!
Yes, my poor snail kite is fuzzy, probably because I reallyreallyREALLY cropped it. (The photo below is the .nef file -- small subject, a bit dark, and a little grainy.) So I knew that was going to happen (sigh). Using the d500 and the 200-500mm lens fully extended. 1/1600 (so it was probably operator shake!!) Compared to your owl and GBH, it's even fuzzier now. :-(
I think I was using 3D. I thought about switching over to d9, but the 3D was working so well in the blue sky -- nothing to compete for focus. With a cluttered background (the snail kite doing nothing but showing off his eyes) I switched the focus mode to d9. Still a bit fuzzy but focus was locked on the eye and not on any of the reeds.
I know I should have used a tripod with a gimbal head or maybe a monopod, but Andy (my mentor) would have dope-slapped me sometime into next week :-)
I do see a difference, after your explanation, in your photo of the snail kite and the one of the GBH. In comparison,
I can see those black lines on the forward wing edges of the snail kite much more clearly without enlarging anything.
The kites weren't at the Stick Marsh but somewhere within driving distance of it. It was essentially a roadside stop, and I really had no idea where we were.
Thank you for all your advice and explanations. I sure don't want to impinge upon others by turning this into Sue's Private Photography Lessons, so my apologies if that is the way it comes across. |
Jun 10th |
 |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Thank you, Michael!
That contrasty-thing is fairly standard with that camera. I guess I'm just used to it.
Cropped further -- check (which eliminates the green patch in the upper left corner, which was distracting)
Lowered contrast -- check
Lowered highlights -- check
Lightened shadows -- check
The only part that continues to bother me is Mama's very white blown-out back. I don't know how to avoid that, either in or out of the camera. :-( |
Jun 10th |
 |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Here's a (not much) better one. He's doing nothing interesting, but at least he has eyes! :-)
|
Jun 10th |
 |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Larry, we were somewhere in central Florida, I'm not exactly sure of the town. But it was a lightly wooded area alongside a canal. Within driving distance was something called Stick Marsh (lots of spoonbills there!).
Larry, I know I'm an abject newbie, but I am trying my best to learn. From what I've studied on photokonnection.com and lightstalking.com, your image doesn't have the white outlining found on (what they identify as) oversharpened images. There is just a hint of black outline in the forward part of the wings, but I had to enlarge the photo to see it. In any event, it's certainly not enough to tempt these unschooled eyes from appreciating the subject in your photo.
If I am misunderstanding what oversharpening is, please let me know! Otherwise, I guess that's something I will learn as I go along. . . |
Jun 10th |
 |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Well, I didn't notice half the "flaws" you mentioned -- all I saw was the pellet (as the subject) and the part-of-the-owl as its very interesting producer. When I enlarge the photo, I could clearly see the pellet-parts you cited. Yeah, I suppose it's a little shallow, which limits the amount of detail that's in focus, but that doesn't really bother me -- the important parts (the eye and the entire pellet) are sharp and serve to tell the story. Maybe the extensive out-of-focus background eliminates any distractions and directs our attention solely to the owl and its product? Which I think can be a good thing.
The tilt is cool! Not the typical head-on shot -- unexpected can be good (at least in my uneducated, newbie opinion). Looks like you were shooting up at him. Or her.
In any event, I'm glad you posted it. Your photographic gymnastics are much appreciated -- without them, there would be no photo!
|
Jun 7th |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
Yikes! Beautiful light and the frigatebird gives a nice, live perspective (are we looking at his butt? hard to tell!) :-) The contrast between the sharpness of the dark trees and things in the foreground and the less-sharp but color-dense sky give it a nice third dimension. I like that cactus-looking plant right in the center.
Lucky you to visit the Galapagos! I don't think I will ever get there. . .which makes your photo all that more appealing. I think I will travel vicariously through your photos! :-) |
Jun 7th |
| 67 |
Jun 23 |
Comment |
I saw those when I was in Florida! Amazing birds! And amazing photo of one of those amazing birds! I didn't know how rare they are, so I am grateful that I got some fairly decent photos of them.
I don't use Lightroom, so I can't comment on the new version, but I can say that sharpening and denoise were also added to Camera Raw, which I do use. I do like the new denoise feature because you can adjust a slider to intensify/deintensify the noise reduction. . .(is that actually sharpening?) Comforting to know that if I mess up with too much or too little reduction, I can always <<reset to default>> and start over. A little time-consuming, yes, but definitely worth it if you on a learning curve (that would be me) :-) |
Jun 7th |
12 comments - 1 reply for Group 67
|
12 comments - 1 reply Total
|
