1D2n, 600mm f4 is, x1.4, 1/320s, f8, iso 400, Fill flash -1.33. Tiny crop from right
I walked for hours, spent one night in a tent in pouring rain and the next night in a bothy being poisoned by a couple smoking dope - and got no shots of the ospreys due to low cloud and midgies! .
At least the blue tits performed reliably. Interested to hear if this is too big in frame, since it's always satisfying to get a full frame image.
Update - I see I have posterisation again in the background on web presentation- it isn't in the original and I don't know why it happens.
I think your flash needs to be higher and possibly further away from the camera as you have little to no shadow in the image, the underside of the blue Tit and the perch are the real give a ways. I always think of it as “Light illuminates, shadows define”, or to put it another way shadows give an image depth.
You ask about image size, I’ll answer it a different way. For me the Blue Tit is too close to the top left corner, so I would have considered adding canvas to both the top and L.H. side, and quite possible from a compositional viewpoint adding back the crop from the R.H. side you mention you did.
Taking two extremes, there i9s a place for both the bird in its environment and small in the frame and the frame filler. With a composition like above you can easily add canvas, and effectively reduce the images size in the frame, but if you have a small subject to start with, you’re on a looser as the detail isn’t there in the first place.
Re polarisation. Do you use £”explorer” or “Firefox”, some sites do prefer one against the other. Basically it could be anything in the chain from when you push the button to start uploading an image, till when it appears at its destination. You might just need a bit of noise reduction software applied, say Neat Image, to smooth out the downloads, always worth a try, be it just on selected areas. When it’s quiet, try downloading this image again after applying “Neat Image” there is a demo version available, but the full version is around $30, so not mega bucks, and it’s an add on to Photoshop, and see if there is any difference.
Sorry to go on, but I hope this helps.
Nice image by the way, the detail, exposure etc. are all exemplary. Lovely shot.
I like full frame frame fillers Ian, so it's fine for me. Love the colours and pose. I don't know about the polarisation. I thought it was just my cruddy monitor and some of my images do it.
Excellent shot! Just right in the frame for me, and very attractive perch. I can see the posterisation in the background, very strange. I imagine it's mostly down to the compression. Does it make a diference whether you use 'save for web' or a normal 'save as'? It's much less on the larger version.
To my eyes the light and flash is fine. The flat light gives plenty of detail and the flash puts a catchlight in the eye.
Lovely bird too, I've never seen one with this kind of facial pattern, very pretty, and posing nicely for you too!
Many thanks for your very detailed comment. I appreciate the advice about fill-flash as I was experimenting with different setting - I haven't tried it often. Perhaps in this example I didn't use enough compensation. Having said that, the light was flat anyway, (so very little if any shadows), and the intention was to give a little boost in contrast.
Interesting point about subject size in frame - I agree that larger subjects give greater detail.
I use internet exposure and the artefacts don't always appear - doesn't appear to be a noise reduction problem.
A lovely young blue, the detail and colour is great! DoF is spot on, its not too large in the frame for me, although I agree that it is just a tad too high. Nice perch!
An excellent example really appeals to me as is just right with great detail. I'm an odd sod that isn't bothered by too high too low syndrome if the birds right that's great.
If the original is OK, then the posterisation is almost certainly an artifact of jpg compression. Very clean and smooth backgrounds are prone to this. Just try using the highest quality compression setting, the file may become too big but the banding should disappear. Adding a small amount of noise to the affected areas before compression can minimise the effect whilst allowing greater compression.
The composition is fine for me with the bird placed correctly given the direction it is looking....
the fill flash also looks fine to me, I'm guessing that as you are using a 600 the flash is on a bracket anyway..... (somebody is pinching someone elses words above)
The posterisation will definately be the compression, that is the area where jpg will be throwing away the most information, all you really can do is save at the highest setting you can and as stated perhaps add a little noise (sounds strange but true)
I think it is a cracking shot.
Perhaps just a little less fill would have helped retain some of the natural shadow areas but you have managed to keep a good amount of feather detail and soft colour in the image.
I think the size in the frame is good for web presentation (limitations on image size mean compromises on how to show the details captured) but might like to see more canvas if it were a print.
Discussion
16 repliesI walked for hours, spent one night in a tent in pouring rain and the next night in a bothy being poisoned by a couple smoking dope - and got no shots of the ospreys due to low cloud and midgies!
At least the blue tits performed reliably. Interested to hear if this is too big in frame, since it's always satisfying to get a full frame image.
Update - I see I have posterisation again in the background on web presentation- it isn't in the original and I don't know why it happens.
LARGE VERSION HERE
I think your flash needs to be higher and possibly further away from the camera as you have little to no shadow in the image, the underside of the blue Tit and the perch are the real give a ways. I always think of it as “Light illuminates, shadows define”, or to put it another way shadows give an image depth.
You ask about image size, I’ll answer it a different way. For me the Blue Tit is too close to the top left corner, so I would have considered adding canvas to both the top and L.H. side, and quite possible from a compositional viewpoint adding back the crop from the R.H. side you mention you did.
Taking two extremes, there i9s a place for both the bird in its environment and small in the frame and the frame filler. With a composition like above you can easily add canvas, and effectively reduce the images size in the frame, but if you have a small subject to start with, you’re on a looser as the detail isn’t there in the first place.
Re polarisation. Do you use £”explorer” or “Firefox”, some sites do prefer one against the other. Basically it could be anything in the chain from when you push the button to start uploading an image, till when it appears at its destination. You might just need a bit of noise reduction software applied, say Neat Image, to smooth out the downloads, always worth a try, be it just on selected areas. When it’s quiet, try downloading this image again after applying “Neat Image” there is a demo version available, but the full version is around $30, so not mega bucks, and it’s an add on to Photoshop, and see if there is any difference.
Sorry to go on, but I hope this helps.
Nice image by the way, the detail, exposure etc. are all exemplary. Lovely shot.
Nice image all round
To my eyes the light and flash is fine. The flat light gives plenty of detail and the flash puts a catchlight in the eye.
Lovely bird too, I've never seen one with this kind of facial pattern, very pretty, and posing nicely for you too!
Nice work!
Many thanks for your very detailed comment. I appreciate the advice about fill-flash as I was experimenting with different setting - I haven't tried it often. Perhaps in this example I didn't use enough compensation. Having said that, the light was flat anyway, (so very little if any shadows), and the intention was to give a little boost in contrast.
Interesting point about subject size in frame - I agree that larger subjects give greater detail.
I use internet exposure and the artefacts don't always appear - doesn't appear to be a noise reduction problem.
Thanks again!
A lovely young blue, the detail and colour is great! DoF is spot on, its not too large in the frame for me, although I agree that it is just a tad too high. Nice perch!
Lewis.
An excellent example really appeals to me as is just right with great detail. I'm an odd sod that isn't bothered by too high too low syndrome if the birds right that's great.
Sorry forgot to mention.
Eat plenty of garlic keeps the midgies at bay. Works well over here.
If the original is OK, then the posterisation is almost certainly an artifact of jpg compression. Very clean and smooth backgrounds are prone to this. Just try using the highest quality compression setting, the file may become too big but the banding should disappear. Adding a small amount of noise to the affected areas before compression can minimise the effect whilst allowing greater compression.
John
I really like the "guts" in the bird detail in this one. The position looks ok to me.
Excellent detail too.
John
the fill flash also looks fine to me, I'm guessing that as you are using a 600 the flash is on a bracket anyway..... (somebody is pinching someone elses words above)
The posterisation will definately be the compression, that is the area where jpg will be throwing away the most information, all you really can do is save at the highest setting you can and as stated perhaps add a little noise (sounds strange but true)
Lovely looking image BTW
Perhaps just a little less fill would have helped retain some of the natural shadow areas but you have managed to keep a good amount of feather detail and soft colour in the image.
I think the size in the frame is good for web presentation (limitations on image size mean compromises on how to show the details captured) but might like to see more canvas if it were a print.
Ian
the larger version is fantastic,
I would set it a little bit lower.
really beautiful shot
Bertl