Not a bird

While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>

--
PeterN

 

On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN <> said:

> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>

Nice capture!

However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.
<
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg
>

Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I
cannot deny it is a nice capture.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

PeterN wrote:
> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>

Very nice!
I had to go to a site in northeast Houston Tuesday and there
was a street vendor by the RR tracks selling "COON".
So I had to go look and he had about 10 skinned and butchered
racoons on ice ready for BBQ. No photos though since I doubt he
had a Houston food vendor license and the police were there
talking to him.

 

On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>
>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>>
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>
> Nice capture!
>
> However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
> sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
> compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
> good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
> compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
> serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.

As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself, is
not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast enough for
the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is not fast
enough to capture most birds in flight.
I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.

> <
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg
>
>>
>
> Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I cannot
> deny it is a nice capture.
>

Thanks for your comments.

In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds, many
of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without that I
could not even get shots like this.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg>

--
PeterN

 

On 1/1/2014 3:51 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
> PeterN wrote:
>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>>
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>
> Very nice!
> I had to go to a site in northeast Houston Tuesday and there
> was a street vendor by the RR tracks selling "COON".
> So I had to go look and he had about 10 skinned and butchered
> racoons on ice ready for BBQ. No photos though since I doubt he
> had a Houston food vendor license and the police were there
> talking to him.
Thank you for your comments.

--
PeterN

 

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 12:48:35 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>
>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>>
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>
>Nice capture!
>
>However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
>sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
>compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
>good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
>compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
>serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.
><
>http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg
>>
>
>Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I
>cannot deny it is a nice capture.

I also wonder about colour spaces. See
http://www.fredmiranda.com/testforum/topic/1134507

For what it is worth, I am using Firefox.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

 

On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN <> said:

> On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>>
>>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>>>
>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>>
>> Nice capture!
>>
>> However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
>> sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
>> compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
>> good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
>> compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
>> serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.
>
> As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself,
> is not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast enough
> for the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is not
> fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
> I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.
>
>> <
>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg



Not
>>
>> quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I cannot
>> deny it is a nice capture.
>>
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds,
> many of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without
> that I could not even get shots like this.
>
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg>

I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
could handle a crop with room to spare. I dare say I would have done
better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
performance on the D800.

I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
something better in PP.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

On 2014-01-01 22:11:50 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>>>
>>>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>>>>
>>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>>>
>>> Nice capture!
>>>
>>> However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
>>> sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
>>> compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
>>> good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
>>> compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
>>> serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.
>>
>> As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself,
>> is not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast enough
>> for the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is not
>> fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
>> I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.
>>
>>> <
>>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg



Not
>>>
>>> quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I cannot
>>> deny it is a nice capture.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds,
>> many of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without
>> that I could not even get shots like this.
>>
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg>
>
> I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
> question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
> wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
> bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
> While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
> as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
> the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
> D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
> could handle a crop with room to spare. I dare say I would have done
> better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
> without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
> performance on the D800.
>
> I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
> this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
> choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
> you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
> something better in PP.

I would add, if I can get an image such as this, using a D300 + 70-300mm:
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC_3491-E-1c.jpg >
Then you should be able to get much better detail in your bird shots
with your far superior camera and lens. As I say, you are going about
this the wrong way and you are not actually achieving your goals using
the choices you have made. You have no problem capturing the subject,
but fall down with the quality of RAW captured, you might well have
done better with a 4/3 super-zoom of some type. Your equipment isn't
performing to its full potential, and I don't believe it is a problem
with lens or camera. These might be some hard truths, but you need to
rethink your methods.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>> On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the
>> 200 by itself, is not long enough. The 80-400 is a
>> sharp lens, but is not fast enough for the early
>> morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is
>> not fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
>> I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.

Makes good sense to me...

>>> <
>>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg
>
>>> Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that
>>> image, but I cannot
>>> deny it is a nice capture.
>>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>> In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up
>> is for birds, many of which are completely or partiall
>> white. Hence my EC. Without that I could not even get
>> shots like this.
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg>

I'll grant that when I first looked at the Exif the idea of using spot metering on that
subject raised an eyebrow. Then of course I see what the intended subject matter
was, and can agree totally with Peter on how this configuration makes perfect sense.

>I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
>question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
>wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
>bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
>While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
>as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
>the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
>D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
>could handle a crop with room to spare.

The 70-200mm f/2.8G with a 1.7X TC is an excellent lens. I don't know
where you are coming from with this negativity, but it suggests that you've
never seen what the camera/lens combinations Peter has available can do.

> I dare say I would have done
>better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
>without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
>performance on the D800.

That's a joke. Right?

>I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
>this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
>choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
>you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
>something better in PP.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

PeterN wrote:

> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little
> guy.
>
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>

>>Savageduck wrote:


>> I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented
>>on this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and
>> exposure choices.

Ditto.

The type of images you want to create should firstly determine what
equipment you use and, secondly, the methods you use to utilise said
equipment. What you are currently doing, however, is trying to sqeeze
your ideal image out of what little you have at your disposal (wrong
equipment, questionable technique and the reliance of post production
manipulation) rather than using the correct tools and methods for the
job in the first place.
I am not saying you will not occasionally produce the odd "lucky" image
doing what you do but, more often than not, all you are doing is
spending 99% of your time trying to justify your photography by trying
to create something from nothing, using images which most other
photographers would have discarded. The one good thing about digital
is that it does not matter if you discard 100, 200 or more shots from a
days shoot. In fact, you will probably learn more about your
photography by understanding why an image should be discarded rather
than why it should be kept.

However, unless you start to use the right equipment and methods for
your current projects, you should seriously rethink the type of
photography and subject matter you want to pursue

MC

 

On 2014-01-02 00:14:56 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>>> On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the
>>> 200 by itself, is not long enough. The 80-400 is a
>>> sharp lens, but is not fast enough for the early
>>> morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is
>>> not fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
>>> I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.
>
> Makes good sense to me...
>
>>>> <
>>>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

Not
>>>>
>>>> quite the way I would have gone about PP on that
>>>> image, but I cannot
>>>> deny it is a nice capture.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>> In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up
>>> is for birds, many of which are completely or partiall
>>> white. Hence my EC. Without that I could not even get
>>> shots like this.
>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg>
>
> I'll grant that when I first looked at the Exif the idea of using spot
> metering on that
> subject raised an eyebrow. Then of course I see what the intended
> subject matter
> was, and can agree totally with Peter on how this configuration makes
> perfect sense.
>
>> I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
>> question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
>> wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
>> bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
>> While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
>> as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
>> the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
>> D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
>> could handle a crop with room to spare.
>
> The 70-200mm f/2.8G with a 1.7X TC is an excellent lens. I don't know
> where you are coming from with this negativity, but it suggests that you've
> never seen what the camera/lens combinations Peter has available can do.

I am well aware of what that particular combination can do. However,
Peter is not extracting the full potential of the very good & capable
equipment. That is why am somewhat bewildered at the poor quality of
what we are seeing. The images captured with the equipment he has
should be superb, they are not.

Why do I have the feeling that if you had gone on the same trip as
Peter using your similar equipment, shooting at the same subjects, we
wouldn't be having this discussion regarding image quality? I suspect
you would have given us very good quality images of the same subjects.

>
>> I dare say I would have done
>> better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
>> without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
>> performance on the D800.
>
> That's a joke. Right?

Not quite a joke, in the case of Peter's images on this trip I am
perfectly serious. Personally I would prefer to use a D800 and both of
the lenses he has on his current trip. I don't have that luxury.
This is a D300 + 70-300mm shot. Peter should have been able to produce
a far better quality image of the same subject, showing the feather
detail he values so much, with any of his D800 combo choices.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC_3491-E-1c.jpg >

>
>> I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
>> this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
>> choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
>> you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
>> something better in PP.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

On 2014-01-01 23:40:41 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2014-01-01 22:11:50 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>>
>>> On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>>>>
>>>>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> Nice capture!
>>>>
>>>> However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
>>>> sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
>>>> compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
>>>> good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
>>>> compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
>>>> serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.
>>>
>>> As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself,
>>> is not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast enough
>>> for the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is not
>>> fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
>>> I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.
>>>
>>>> <
>>>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg



Not

quite
>>>>
>>>> the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I cannot
>>>> deny it is a nice capture.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>
>>> In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds,
>>> many of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without
>>> that I could not even get shots like this.
>>>
>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg>
>>
>> I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
>> question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
>> wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
>> bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
>> While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
>> as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
>> the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
>> D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
>> could handle a crop with room to spare. I dare say I would have done
>> better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
>> without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
>> performance on the D800.
>>
>> I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
>> this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
>> choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
>> you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
>> something better in PP.
>
> I would add, if I can get an image such as this, using a D300 + 70-300mm:
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC_3491-E-1c.jpg >
> Then you should be able to get much better detail in your bird shots
> with your far superior camera and lens. As I say, you are going about
> this the wrong way and you are not actually achieving your goals using
> the choices you have made. You have no problem capturing the subject,
> but fall down with the quality of RAW captured, you might well have
> done better with a 4/3 super-zoom of some type. Your equipment isn't
> performing to its full potential, and I don't believe it is a problem
> with lens or camera. These might be some hard truths, but you need to
> rethink your methods.

BTW: These examples are the sort of quality images I would expect to
see from your D800 and either of your lenses. I believe that you, your
choice of locations and kit are all capable of producing similar. There
are just some other hurdles to surmount.
< https://db.tt/ehN3rJ0j >
< https://db.tt/klH2MQzQ >
< https://db.tt/rV7Y73ut >
< https://db.tt/5YtfvifQ >
< https://db.tt/ZTtudrts >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

On 2014-01-02 00:37:48 +0000, "MC" <> said:

> PeterN wrote:
>
>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little
>> guy.
>>
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>
>
>>> I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented
>>> on this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and
>>> exposure choices.
>
> Ditto.
>
> The type of images you want to create should firstly determine what
> equipment you use and, secondly, the methods you use to utilise said
> equipment. What you are currently doing, however, is trying to sqeeze
> your ideal image out of what little you have at your disposal (wrong
> equipment, questionable technique and the reliance of post production
> manipulation) rather than using the correct tools and methods for the
> job in the first place.
> I am not saying you will not occasionally produce the odd "lucky" image
> doing what you do but, more often than not, all you are doing is
> spending 99% of your time trying to justify your photography by trying
> to create something from nothing, using images which most other
> photographers would have discarded. The one good thing about digital
> is that it does not matter if you discard 100, 200 or more shots from a
> days shoot. In fact, you will probably learn more about your
> photography by understanding why an image should be discarded rather
> than why it should be kept.
>
> However, unless you start to use the right equipment and methods for
> your current projects, you should seriously rethink the type of
> photography and subject matter you want to pursue
>
> MC

There is nothing wrong with Peter's equipment. He has great equipment
for his current project, and I envy him for that. However, he has just
made some choices I don't agree with, and has combined those choices
with badly planned, and in my opinion not particularly well thought out
exposure settings which are exacerbated by some odd metering, or don't
take into account the use of a TC, particularly with the 80-400mm. He
should be getting better out of what he has, and the experience he has.

He has the experience and knowledge, I just don't buy his rationale for
some of the choices he has made on this trip
--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

On 1/1/2014 5:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 12:48:35 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>>
>>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.
>>>
>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>>
>> Nice capture!
>>
>> However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
>> sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
>> compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
>> good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
>> compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
>> serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.
>> <
>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg
>>>
>>
>> Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I
>> cannot deny it is a nice capture.
>
> I also wonder about colour spaces. See
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/testforum/topic/1134507
>
> For what it is worth, I am using Firefox.
>

That is a very interesting discussion. I suspect that since I do my PP
for printing, and web display, I should convert the profile, and then
export. But, as I said in another thread, these images are getting rough
processing with an uncalibrated 14" monitor.

--
PeterN

 

On 1/1/2014 6:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2014-01-01 22:11:50 +0000, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>>
>>> On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN <>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little
>>>>> guy.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> Nice capture!
>>>>
>>>> However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
>>>> sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
>>>> compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
>>>> good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
>>>> compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
>>>> serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.
>>>
>>> As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself,
>>> is not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast
>>> enough for the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing
>>> is not fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
>>> I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.
>>>
>>>> <
>>>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg
>>>>
>
>
>
> Not
>>>>
>>>> quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I cannot
>>>> deny it is a nice capture.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>
>>> In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds,
>>> many of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without
>>> that I could not even get shots like this.
>>>
>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg>
>>>
>>
>> I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going
>> to question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
>> wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet
>> your bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
>> While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
>> as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the
>> bird, the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using
>> your D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF
>> which could handle a crop with room to spare. I dare say I would have
>> done better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
>> without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
>> performance on the D800.
>>
>> I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
>> this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
>> choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
>> you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
>> something better in PP.
>
> I would add, if I can get an image such as this, using a D300 + 70-300mm:
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC_3491-E-1c.jpg >
> Then you should be able to get much better detail in your bird shots
> with your far superior camera and lens. As I say, you are going about
> this the wrong way and you are not actually achieving your goals using
> the choices you have made. You have no problem capturing the subject,
> but fall down with the quality of RAW captured, you might well have done
> better with a 4/3 super-zoom of some type. Your equipment isn't
> performing to its full potential, and I don't believe it is a problem
> with lens or camera. These might be some hard truths, but you need to
> rethink your methods.
>
I do not take your comments badly. Indeed, you are not wrong. Yes when I
do something intentionally, I say so in no uncertain terms. what bothers
me is that a lot appears to be related to exposure issues, particularly
in high contrast light. I will not comment on the processing issues, as
you and I have different tastes, and that has been discussed ad nauseum.

Here are prior years captures.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Don%27t%20Come%20Back.jpg>

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg>

--
PeterN

 

On 1/1/2014 7:14 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:



>
> I'll grant that when I first looked at the Exif the idea of using spot metering on that
> subject raised an eyebrow. Then of course I see what the intended subject matter
> was, and can agree totally with Peter on how this configuration makes perfect sense.

What do you think my exposure issue is?
Could it be equipment, error, or user error.
If the former, I either need to switch to my D300, or am screwed on this
trip.
If the latter, what would you suggest?

--
PeterN

 

On 2014-01-02, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-02 00:37:48 +0000, "MC" <> said:
>
>> PeterN wrote:
>>
>>> While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little
>>> guy.
>>>
>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg>

[...]

>> However, unless you start to use the right equipment and methods for
>> your current projects, you should seriously rethink the type of
>> photography and subject matter you want to pursue
>>
>> MC
>
> There is nothing wrong with Peter's equipment. He has great equipment
> for his current project, and I envy him for that. However, he has just
> made some choices I don't agree with, and has combined those choices
> with badly planned, and in my opinion not particularly well thought out
> exposure settings which are exacerbated by some odd metering, or don't
> take into account the use of a TC, particularly with the 80-400mm. He
> should be getting better out of what he has, and the experience he has.
>
> He has the experience and knowledge, I just don't buy his rationale for
> some of the choices he has made on this trip

Interesting thread. I'm not familiar with any of the kit being
discussed; my own efforts at wildlife photography were pre-digital, with
little or no automatic anything, and that obviously colours my ideas
about how to do it. But I believe taking a wholly manual approach is
the best way to learn what is possible, and which factors have what
effect on the results. Only the photographer 'knows' what should be in
focus or out of focus, and only the photographer 'knows' which details
in the image 'should' get optimum exposure - and what that exposure is.
Setting these things in advance, by anticipating where the subject will
be and in what sort of light, makes it possible to frame and shoot
instantly with no reliance at all on the electronics guessing what you
want and calculating all the settings for you after you've squeezed the
button.

Through-the-lens manual focussing is the most accurate option when using
long lenses, and through-the-lens metering can be useful too as long as
you know exactly what is being metered and how to interpret the reading
to get the result you're after - if your 'spot' covers the whole of the
important part of the subject, it isn't a 'spot' it's in effect a basic
reflected-light averaging meter for that subject; you still have to
decide whether to adjust the reading to give more exposure for the dark
bits or less to stop the bright bits from 'blowing'. This is tricky for
digital sensors as they seem to be much less forgiving than film.
Familiarity with your own kit is what counts here.

Hand-holding a lens longer than (in 35mm camera terms) about 200mm is a
waste of time (although modern anti-shake systems undoubtedly help, if
they don't introduce a delay that makes choosing the moment to squeeze
the button more difficult). From an unstable base such as a boat, all
your difficulties are amplified.

I found using a hand-held incident-light exposure meter to be the
simplest approach; a hand-held 'spot' meter (with a tiny spot) is fine
for static subjects, but takes too long for anything moving, and of
course requires the user to decide where on the dark/light scale the
chosen spot should be in the final image. Bracketing exposures (in
small steps, ideally) takes care of minor light changes - and this is
something electronic cameras are very good (and quick) at.

For speed of action, I still prefer a range-finder camera to an SLR;
that may seem eccentric for shooting wildlife but until you've tried
it ... but I find SLRs difficult to focus, as my eyesight seems to lack
the accuity required for assessing sharpness on the eye-level focussing
screen. The genuine split-image from a real range-finder is much easier
for me. Knowing in advance what distance to set also helps, of course!
(Zoom lenses rarely have distance scales that are much use - another
reason for using prime lenses).

I haven't digitised my film images, otherwise I'd share some of my
own efforts here. So feel free to ignore my unsubstantiated waffle )

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

In article <2014010114115019113-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck wrote:

> > <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg>
>
> I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going
> to question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know
> I wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet
> your bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot. While getting
> that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image as presented
> is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird, the dark
> detail of the bird is lost.

Surely that's Peter mangling his photos in posts, as usual? I'm sure the
halo is from unsharp mask and then he's cranked up the contrast. I'm sure
the original NEF looks quite allright.

> As to the TC, you are using your D800 and with planned exposure you
> should have a quality NEF which could handle a crop with room to spare. I
> dare say I would have done better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using
> the 70-200mm f/2.8 without the TC on the D300S would have given me better
> than TC performance on the D800.

Yeah, why use TC on a D800... Strange.

> I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented
> on this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and
> exposure choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us
> so far. Once you get home and can work on your desktop you might be
> able to do something better in PP.



--
Sandman[.net]

 

In article <>, PeterN wrote:

> Here are prior years captures.

> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Don%27t%20Come%20Back.jpg>

Utterly destroyed in opst, why not show the original capture?

> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg>

Same here, I'm sure the original image looks just fine. This wasn't as
destroyed as the above, though.



--
Sandman[.net]

 

On 1/2/2014 10:22 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <>, PeterN wrote:
>
>> Here are prior years captures.
>
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Don%27t%20Come%20Back.jpg>
>
> Utterly destroyed in opst, why not show the original capture?
>
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg>
>
> Same here, I'm sure the original image looks just fine. This wasn't as
> destroyed as the above, though.
>
>
>

Well, the judges in several competitions decided otherwise. The first
did fairly well, and the second was runner up in several others.

--
PeterN