|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
You and your egg jokes, Michael. You crack me up! :-) |
Jul 3rd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Thanks, Larry.
I think I am going to rely more on revewing the photos in-camera rather than waiting to see them on the larger screen of the computer. All of my Nikons have touch screen so I can easily enlarge them. . . I just hate not being able to see the whole thing on the teeny tiny back screen. I agree, mine is a bit too light, so I had plenty of room to adjust the exposure.
That's good to know about Topaz. I think I'll just spring for the AI program, hoping it won't be too difficult to decipher. . .I have sooooo much to learn elsewhere!
|
Jul 3rd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Thank you! I might get the Topaz program just to see how it works.
|
Jul 3rd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Thank you both for your suggestions. I really do see a difference, Cindy, so I am going to put yours and mine in a file so I can compare it more easily.
We were at a lunch placed called Marion's. All of the little roadside restaurants had an outside area with feeders to attract the various birds. (Thanks for the correct identification!) We did see quetzals on the next day but they were on private property. Our guide got permission for us to head up the mountainside to find them -- maybe it was a hill, but to me it was a mountainside!!
Michael, I use ACR (minimally). My hope is to get these things correctly in-camera, but I have a long way to go til them. Reducing the background highlights I can do rather easily, but it's the sharpening/grain reduction that troubles me. ACR has recently added an AI-based denoise feature, and I was wondering, Cindy, if or how the Topaz product differs. I do see a big different on the head feathers in your rendering.
To increase the depth of field, I would need a smaller aperture (larger F number)? If I closed it by 2 stops (f16), my ISO should be increased by 2 stops (6400), but as it was a bit on the light side I could probably go around 3200 or 4000. . .?
Thank you both very much! |
Jul 2nd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Reply |
Yeah, landscapes should be "natural," and people are generally considered an intrusion. But in this case, with those giant trees. . .either way, a wonderful image! |
Jul 2nd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water <<insert suspenseful music here>> With the blurred vegetation behind the fish, it looks like (s)he is emerging from the scary deep!
I do not know *anything* about photographing a subject in water, so I will await the comments of more those more knowledgable to explain things. Given that, I probably would have declined getting that image. . .but I would have regretted it. I'm glad you posted it.
|
Jul 2nd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Hi, David: I'n a real noob, so my comments won't mean as much as the others you will get. I was in a similar environment this past January, going up and down the Mississippi in Iowa and Missouri to see the eagles and osprey. Unfortunately, it was very cold. too cold to see much activity, but I did manage to get a few shots.
I see what Bud means about extending the lens (and perhaps next time using a 1.4 teleconverter to get the most reach from your lens). I don't know of a single nature photographer, including those with really long lenses, who doesn't yearn for more reach!
Another factor I question is, how was the light? To my uneducated eyes it looks like you were shooting on a cloudy day without much contrast with gray sky and a mostly brown bird flying over grayish water. From what I've read, lack of contrast will reduce sharpness, even in a camera with phase detection AF. I don't know if there are settings that would boost the contrast, but I look forward to the advice that I am sure the gurus in this group will provide.
It's always exciting to capture that moment when the eagle (or osprey) grasp that fish and fly upwards and away. I love how the water trails backwards from the eagle's talons, leading our eye to the site of the plunge. :-) |
Jul 2nd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Pelicans are such odd birds. This one looks intent on getting to his (or her) destination. The "layered" background (water, land mass, and sky) gives depth (to me, anyway) to what could have been a flat image.
I'm glad you kept the shadow. That way we get to see exactly what you saw. |
Jul 2nd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
As you probably know by now, I am partial to "awwww. . .!" photos :-) Love these little babies taking care of each other. Nature can be cruel, so these tender moments are especially appreciated (at least by me).
Bud's changes really emphasize the sharpness of your image, as the black background makes the little hairs at the edges of the fur really stand out. But there is something appealing (to me, at least) about viewing these little ones smack dab in the middle of their environment.
I've been thinking a lot lately about what makes a photo "good" or "memorable." Not sure how a "contest-worthy" photo differs from a print-worthy one, but I suppose this will come the longer I play with the camera. |
Jul 2nd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
PS I commend you for getting that turtle off the hot hardtop and into a safer spot. Certainly it was a thoughtful and empathetic thing to do, which in my mind should silence any criticism about "interference" with nature. |
Jul 2nd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Blackbirds, ugh. No wonder four-and-twenty were baked in a pie!
This is a common-yet-uncommon sight -- turtles lay eggs all spring long, but getting it caught on camera is rare. So glad you posted this.
I'm taking note of how much the image is improved when you get down to the level (or at least very near the level) of the subject and keeping that camera very, very still -- hard to do when balancing on one (in my case, cartilage-shredded) knee. AND in the Florida heat! Your sacrifices are miuch appreciated :-)
|
Jul 2nd |
| 67 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Wow, I hope I live long enough to visit some of these amazing and enchanting places!
While your image is tack sharp, the sunset light and colors gorgeous, and the reflections perfect, I kinda prefer the wrong original, where the gentleman on the far bank gives us a sense of just how massive the trees are. I know the evergreens do the same thing, but that man standing in the shade of that huge tree is much more definitive (to me). And with the larger photo, I get more of a sense of depth, especially on the right. But I'm a newbie who doesn't know much. . .I just know what I like. And, guy or no guy, I do like this photo! |
Jul 2nd |
11 comments - 1 reply for Group 67
|
11 comments - 1 reply Total
|
