I think it's a reed warbler, but confirmation would be nice. This pair gradually got closer and closer, but very often the grass affected the autofocus. Would this be better with more DOF? Should I attempt to remove the grass stem at the front?
Comments welcome.
Nikon D3, Nikon 300mm/2.8 and 2xTC. 1/4000 ISO 800
A little more depth of field might help, but my first suggestion would be to adjust the levels to give the picture a little more impact. It looks a bit flat on my monitor. I would not worry about the grass stem at the front, only clone things out if you have to.
Very nice shot Mike love the comp. I agree with David only clone things out if you have to.
The bird itself looks to me as if it could be a little bit sharper plus a bit more punch and you have a dust bunnie
Ian
Posted by Mike Andrews on June 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Thanks for the comments guys. This is only the fourth pic I have posted, and I expected lots of crits about exposure, DOF, framing etc. Every crit so far has been about saturation, contrast, curves ..... I think I need a course in Photoshop as well as photo technique.
The pic was taken in landscape and cropped to portrait. It looks a lot sharper at full resolution.
I've tried again, having tweaked the curves and removed the dust bunnie. Thanks for looking, and taking the time to reply.
This is only the fourth pic I have posted, and I expected lots of crits about exposure, DOF, framing etc. Every crit so far has been about saturation, contrast, curves ..... I think I need a course in Photoshop as well as photo technique.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO because it's now such a vital part of photography. After all, someone could have a superb eye for a shot, take wonderful images but without the processing skills the images may never come close to looking their best.
Also, unless someone specifically asks for critique on certain areas (which I noticed you have done) then it's not always clear whether the person that's posting the image is after advice on how they could have taken a better shot in the first place or how they could improve on that particular image.
Regarding your image and the question you asked about whether it needs more depth of field. You don't say what aperture you were using, but personally I don't find the shallow depth of field a problem. It's difficult to say whether it would have benefited from more as this may have had the detremental effect of bringing the background more into focus, thus distracting the viewers eye from the main subject.
Using a 300mm with a 2X extender on I would almost certainly have stopped down a stop or two anyway, not to increase the depth of field but to ensure the higher quality gained from stopping down slightly.
One thing I would have done is drop your ISO down. Going down to ISO 200 would have still given you a shutter speed of 1/1000 sec which should have been more than adequate for this situation, or even ISO 400 if you wanted to be absolutely sure of freezing any movement.
Composition looks great to me, as is the moment of behaviour that's been captured. The inclusion of the top of the reed is a bonus too.
The blade of grass doesn't bother me in the slightest and I wouldn't bother even attempting to clone it out personally. In fact it even looks like the cobweb is partially attached to it.
Before reading your reply I too would have probably only commented on the processing, not because the taking of the image is any less important but I find the moment and subject has been caught very well anyway and can't see much I'd improve on in that area.
Processing wise though, I prefer the brightness of the original but would agree it would perhaps benefit from just a little more contrast. The repost is perhaps just a bit too contrasty though and a bit too dark (at least on my screen).
The image would also benefit from some extra sharpening (again, on my old CRT screen anyway, it may look fine on your's, particularly if it's an LCD)
I still feel that this constant reference to "photoshop" is unfair.
There are other programs out there just as good, and even easier to use.
"LIKE PAINT SHOP PRO "
And by the way - if the inage is not sharp in the first place then sorry- it never will be !
Sorry Justin
JohnR
And by the way - if the inage is not sharp in the first place then sorry- it never will be !
Sorry Justin
I completely agree John, but just to clarify, I was only suggesting it needed sharpening to get the best from the image, not to improve on an out of focus one. If it's out of focus in the first place it gets pride of place in the Recycle bin.
When I first opened this image my first thought was 'shame, gerat picture but too soft, bin it'. Having seen the repost it is clear that the image is sharp but the original post looks as soft as the proverbial so there is something to be said for proper post processing. I too struggle with computer technology and find it very disconcerting to see images looking soft out of the camera. I resent the time spent processing raw images on a computer but have to accept that that is the way of things now.
Robert
Posted by Mike Andrews on June 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Justin. Thank you for the time you spent an your reply - it is all very much appreciated. I have been into wildlife photography for about 15 months now, and every tip is very welcome.
John. I didn't intend to tweak anyones' tail regarding photo-enhancement/processing software. It is simply that I have Photoshop, and I don't have Paintshop. One may very well be better/easier than the other, but that is the one I have.
These are some of the longest and most rewarding replies I have seen on any pics since I have been looking at this website. I hope I haven't upset any one, but will continue to ask questions.
Discussion
10 repliesComments welcome.
Nikon D3, Nikon 300mm/2.8 and 2xTC. 1/4000 ISO 800
David
The bird itself looks to me as if it could be a little bit sharper plus a bit more punch and you have a dust bunnie
Ian
The pic was taken in landscape and cropped to portrait. It looks a lot sharper at full resolution.
I've tried again, having tweaked the curves and removed the dust bunnie. Thanks for looking, and taking the time to reply.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO because it's now such a vital part of photography. After all, someone could have a superb eye for a shot, take wonderful images but without the processing skills the images may never come close to looking their best.
Also, unless someone specifically asks for critique on certain areas (which I noticed you have done) then it's not always clear whether the person that's posting the image is after advice on how they could have taken a better shot in the first place or how they could improve on that particular image.
Regarding your image and the question you asked about whether it needs more depth of field. You don't say what aperture you were using, but personally I don't find the shallow depth of field a problem. It's difficult to say whether it would have benefited from more as this may have had the detremental effect of bringing the background more into focus, thus distracting the viewers eye from the main subject.
Using a 300mm with a 2X extender on I would almost certainly have stopped down a stop or two anyway, not to increase the depth of field but to ensure the higher quality gained from stopping down slightly.
One thing I would have done is drop your ISO down. Going down to ISO 200 would have still given you a shutter speed of 1/1000 sec which should have been more than adequate for this situation, or even ISO 400 if you wanted to be absolutely sure of freezing any movement.
Composition looks great to me, as is the moment of behaviour that's been captured. The inclusion of the top of the reed is a bonus too.
The blade of grass doesn't bother me in the slightest and I wouldn't bother even attempting to clone it out personally. In fact it even looks like the cobweb is partially attached to it.
Before reading your reply I too would have probably only commented on the processing, not because the taking of the image is any less important but I find the moment and subject has been caught very well anyway and can't see much I'd improve on in that area.
Processing wise though, I prefer the brightness of the original but would agree it would perhaps benefit from just a little more contrast. The repost is perhaps just a bit too contrasty though and a bit too dark (at least on my screen).
The image would also benefit from some extra sharpening (again, on my old CRT screen anyway, it may look fine on your's, particularly if it's an LCD)
Hope this helps.
It's very interesting reading the comments and the way you have taken them and really improved this image,the repost is very nice.
Keith.
There are other programs out there just as good, and even easier to use.
"LIKE PAINT SHOP PRO "
And by the way - if the inage is not sharp in the first place then sorry- it never will be !
Sorry Justin
JohnR
I completely agree John, but just to clarify, I was only suggesting it needed sharpening to get the best from the image, not to improve on an out of focus one. If it's out of focus in the first place it gets pride of place in the Recycle bin.
Robert
John. I didn't intend to tweak anyones' tail regarding photo-enhancement/processing software. It is simply that I have Photoshop, and I don't have Paintshop. One may very well be better/easier than the other, but that is the one I have.
These are some of the longest and most rewarding replies I have seen on any pics since I have been looking at this website. I hope I haven't upset any one, but will continue to ask questions.
Thanks againeveryone.