I've been photographing redstarts at the nest for nearly 2 months and have had this fallen log in mind as a prop for ages. It's in a gloomy bit of woodland and only now does it get a bit of dappled sunlight, but just 10 minutes a day. I love the light, but I'm not sure I like the blandness of the background and the sideways on pose, so comments welcome. Other images of the bird on my website. Thanks for looking.
EOS 5D, 600mm + 1.4x. 1/60th at F7. Slight fill flash. 500ASA (therefore no USM applied). Slight adjustment of curves. Use of live maggots as bait! Full frame. Forest of Dean.
A very attractive,colourful image with that large log contrasting and working very well with the much smaller bird.
I enjoy seeing both types of images, with the background showing the setting, and with a plain wash of colour,which I feel works well here and shows the bird off very well.
A couple of nits are, the image looks quite a bit over-saturated,particularly the area of green backdrop directly behind the bird,(and this is from someone who likes colourful vibrant images ),although this is more personal preference rather than a critisism.
The second observation is the image would be noticably improved with some sharpening.
I notice you chose not to apply USM as the iso was 500. Why?
Hi Justin and Barrie, thanks for your comments. In reply to Justin:
Even though sharpening web images may give the illusion of a sharper image, images that already have noise in them is made worse after USM when viewed big. I'm not a web-based photographer nor a fan of selective manipulation (or any other manipulation).
Most manipulations are evident at 100% size (ask any forensic copper or even newspaper editor!) and I worry that an editor will crop a shot of mine so as to reveal poor quality or cheating techniques. I honestly prefer to bin images than using a computer to try compensate for bad technique .
This image is certainly at the lowest quality I normally accept in my collection, simply due to the 500asa setting, and is one reason I posted it. Your comment about sharpness now makes me think I'll bin it!!! The RHS of the log is admittedly just out of focus due to the slight angle it was to my plane of focus, but that don't worry me.
I have a lot to learn about the computer side of photography. Much prefer holding a camera outdoors than a mouse indoors!
I honestly prefer to bin images than using a computer to try compensate for bad technique .
I completely agree with you there,but just to clarify,I wasn't suggesting that you should apply USM to compensate for any focus deficiences,but just to compensate for the softness caused by the cameras anti-analising filter.
Whilst I respect your choice to do the bare minimum to your images,I certainly wouldn't regard applying USM as manipulation, but as a crucial part of the photography process in order to get the best out of your camera.
I was going to suggest selectivly applying the USM is you find the noise a problem,but if you prefer not to use that method,I won't elabarate on the technique further,which is probably just as well as that Photoshop feature will probably be obsolete by the time I've finished typing
Hi David,
A good shot in the circumstances.
If you don't want the mushy background get closer and shoot with a wider lens Most would be happy with a blurred bg though.
I honestly prefer to bin images than using a computer to try compensate for bad technique .
Where's the bad technique here?
I have a lot to learn about the computer side of photography.
If you keep binning shots w/o adding USM you won't learn anything!
David you have a lot of talent, but also a lot of misconceptions as to what digital photography can be about.
You misconceive! I DO use USM on all my shots. I just didn't want it on this one cos it had so much noise in it already and USM made it worse. I went back yesterday and got better shots at 250 and 320asa, so this IS in the bin now! Also, digital photography is what you want it to be, from totally fake to totally honest, to not even photography at all but computer simulation. It's about personal ethics (it's been said before so no need to reply!)
Well I like it... it is a shame you have binned it, fully understand your standpoint, but in this case I think careful use of the tools available would have been an aid to an end.....
Careful use of selective NR and sharpening done on layers should not be noticable even at 100%, and to be quite frank viewing at 100% should not be recommended..... to check for halos artifacts etc 50% is more representative and for final examing for the quality of the file in print etc then 25% will suffice, only at web presentation size does 100% make sense...
Discussion
7 repliesEOS 5D, 600mm + 1.4x. 1/60th at F7. Slight fill flash. 500ASA (therefore no USM applied). Slight adjustment of curves. Use of live maggots as bait! Full frame. Forest of Dean.
Barrie
I enjoy seeing both types of images, with the background showing the setting, and with a plain wash of colour,which I feel works well here and shows the bird off very well.
A couple of nits are, the image looks quite a bit over-saturated,particularly the area of green backdrop directly behind the bird,(and this is from someone who likes colourful vibrant images
The second observation is the image would be noticably improved with some sharpening.
I notice you chose not to apply USM as the iso was 500. Why?
Even though sharpening web images may give the illusion of a sharper image, images that already have noise in them is made worse after USM when viewed big. I'm not a web-based photographer nor a fan of selective manipulation (or any other manipulation).
Most manipulations are evident at 100% size (ask any forensic copper or even newspaper editor!) and I worry that an editor will crop a shot of mine so as to reveal poor quality or cheating techniques. I honestly prefer to bin images than using a computer to try compensate for bad technique .
This image is certainly at the lowest quality I normally accept in my collection, simply due to the 500asa setting, and is one reason I posted it. Your comment about sharpness now makes me think I'll bin it!!! The RHS of the log is admittedly just out of focus due to the slight angle it was to my plane of focus, but that don't worry me.
I have a lot to learn about the computer side of photography. Much prefer holding a camera outdoors than a mouse indoors!
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
I completely agree with you there,but just to clarify,I wasn't suggesting that you should apply USM to compensate for any focus deficiences,but just to compensate for the softness caused by the cameras anti-analising filter.
Whilst I respect your choice to do the bare minimum to your images,I certainly wouldn't regard applying USM as manipulation, but as a crucial part of the photography process in order to get the best out of your camera.
I was going to suggest selectivly applying the USM is you find the noise a problem,but if you prefer not to use that method,I won't elabarate on the technique further,which is probably just as well as that Photoshop feature will probably be obsolete by the time I've finished typing
A good shot in the circumstances.
If you don't want the mushy background get closer and shoot with a wider lens
Where's the bad technique here?
If you keep binning shots w/o adding USM you won't learn anything!
David you have a lot of talent, but also a lot of misconceptions as to what digital photography can be about.
Cheers,
John
You misconceive! I DO use USM on all my shots. I just didn't want it on this one cos it had so much noise in it already and USM made it worse. I went back yesterday and got better shots at 250 and 320asa, so this IS in the bin now! Also, digital photography is what you want it to be, from totally fake to totally honest, to not even photography at all but computer simulation. It's about personal ethics (it's been said before so no need to reply!)
Just wanted to clear that up :-).
Dave
Careful use of selective NR and sharpening done on layers should not be noticable even at 100%, and to be quite frank viewing at 100% should not be recommended..... to check for halos artifacts etc 50% is more representative and for final examing for the quality of the file in print etc then 25% will suffice, only at web presentation size does 100% make sense...
All the best and please rescue it from the bin