Not a bird

Discussion in 'Photography' started by PeterN, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    I hope that you weren't seriously thinking that was in anyway good. It
    is noisy, artifact riddled and could have been done better straight out
    of a $100 P&S with no adjustment of any kind. I know I could have done
    better with my D70, so saying that was just a D200 shot is no excuse.
    That shot has been ruined in post with excessive sharpening, a severe
    crop, and massive JPEG compression.
    ....and here is and example of your abstract frame of mind, again not
    quite the way I would have gone about things. Hey! different strokes...
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Those judges seriously need an appointment with an optometrist at best,
    but probably cataract surgery. That first one, as you have presented to
    us is truly awful. Perhaps as an uncompressed print it might appear
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    What equipment and methods do you suggest.
    my ears are open.
    PeterN, Jan 2, 2014
  4. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Your current attitude puzzles me. Over time, in this newsgroup, you
    have shown yourself to be an excellent photographer on your own and a
    rational and tolerant critic of the output of others. Lately, though,
    you've been brutal and intolerant of Peter's submissions. Unfairly,
    in my opinion.

    Had I been a judge in that competition I would have rated that image
    highly for both the capture and the creative rendering. Remember, I'm
    in Florida where bird pictures are a dime a dozen in every
    competition, and they all begin to look alike after the first six or
    so flash up on the screen. Something different would intrigue me.

    If you look at the capture itself, it's a good'un. What seems to
    bother you is the rendering in that exaggerated spiky style. You're
    not giving credit to Peter for processing his images in the way *he*
    likes them to look. You're using the Leonard Standard for what looks
    good, and we don't all adhere to the Leonard Standard.

    I know I was highly critical of Android's image, but I don't feel I'm
    being hypocritical in saying you are going overboard. I commented on
    one image, and about the choice of scenes...not the presentation. I
    feel that someone with Android's photographic skills could easily come
    up with a more interesting test scene. I don't care what he does with
    it in post. That's personal taste.

    You've commented several times on Peter's use of an excessively high
    ISO setting. Well, that seems to be what Peter wants. The background
    in this shot adds to the interest in my view. The anomaly is that you
    get a bit cranky about my negative attitude about HDR and near-HDR,
    because you like that look, but don't recognize that what Peter's
    doing is exactly the same: exaggeration of the normal.

    If you took this photograph using your camera settings, and processed
    it to the Leonard Standard, it would be a technically strong, finely
    detailed, very OK photograph...but indistinguishable from the hundreds
    of other bird shots equally well done.

    Different is not necessarily bad.
    Tony Cooper, Jan 2, 2014
  5. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Tony, thank you for your understanding. I think that the duck's comments
    are meant to be constructive. As you accurately state, my style is
    somewhat different from other images. I try to abstract the emotion I
    feel when I take, or make an image. One of main the reasons I got the
    D800 is so that i can use the high ISO and its expanded capabilities.

    I also deliberately exaggerate some of the things I shoot. It is rare
    that I do a "realistic" image.


    < creature.jpg>

    PeterN, Jan 2, 2014
  6. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Those are interesting. That last one, the baboon, particularly.
    Tony Cooper, Jan 2, 2014
  7. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Peter, I hate to join all those who are raining on your parade but
    there is something very wrong with this image. It is visually rough.
    It is noisy. There are clear haloes around the margins of the birds.
    The histogram is incredibly rough which is a clear indication of a
    much beaten around image. I would say you had to wrestle with this
    until you fought it into the ground. It shows the scars.

    The following link is for a pastiche of histogram displays from
    Paintshop Pro. I haven't yet found anything comparable in Ps.'t Come Back Histogram.jpg

    THis one is much better but there is still something strange in the
    body. Too much blur perhaps?
    Eric Stevens, Jan 2, 2014
  8. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I've always said that that one is exceptional. I've never seen that one before butt it is extraordinary. Now that one is quite different from the other two. I'm not sure that
    I would like to meet him in the dusk.
    Eric Stevens, Jan 2, 2014
  9. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    My criticism of Peter's current submissions has been constructive, and
    brutally so. I am not going to do any gushing praise when to my eye the
    current batch is not worth of such praise
    You are kidding! Right?
    The quality of that image as it has been shown to us is terrible. If
    you are awarding prizes for capture that is one thing, quality of image
    in presentation (in this forum at least) is something else altogether.
    ....and that is certainly different. Not particularly good, but different.
    Yup! There I agree.
    Nope I don't mind the "spiky style" at all.
    I'll give him all the credit he wants for processing the images the way
    *he* likes them. However the noisy, artifact riddled image he has
    shared with us is poorly rendered.
    That's fine, but what am I supposed to say, "It's not the way I would
    do things. I think it is in dire need of remedial therapy, but I better
    not say anything critical because it might be taken the wrong way"?
    However, you basically said something similar to what I said, when you
    wrote; "Surely, there was some interesting photographable scene around
    that day. The camera may have passed your test, but the operator of the
    camera failed."
    That seems as if you questioned Android's photographic skills,
    regardless of praising him for those same skills in later posts.
    I will use HDR when it is appropriate, it is not my standard modus operandi.
    Maybe, maybe not. I have my share of failures. More than I care to admit to.
    In this case, unless we are shown something closer to the quality he
    printed at, I stand by my opinion actual capture aside, that image as
    shared is not particularly good.

    These are good! Personally I think they are easy to distinguish from
    the hundreds of other bird shots, they are certainly better done than
    Peter's past "prize winning" effort and any of his current batch.
    < Images/500px/Photo Dec 22, 9 20 10 PM.png
    Out of Peter's D800 with his new 80-400mm and his 70-00mm f/2.8 I would
    have expected work of a similar quality from this Sanibel excursion.
    However, that was not what we got from him. I will reserve further
    opinion making until he has had an opportunity to work on them in the
    quiet of his home.

    Just my opinion.
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
  10. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    All appropriately, abstractly rendered, without ambiguity, and well done.

    Just don't tell me that you are doing something to "preserve feather
    detail" and claim abstract rendering when in the current batch that you
    have shared with us, you have achieved neither. Perhaps they might be
    savable as abstracts, but in their current state they are neither
    detailed, nor abstract.
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
  11. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Actually, no.
    I don't assume that technical perfection is what we should always go
    for in a photograph. I'm in the "Photography is art" camp, and think
    that art should arouse the senses, not just copy nature.

    If it's clear the photographer is going for the technically correct,
    then I'd rate that photograph accordingly. If it's clear - as in
    Peter's submission - that the photographer is going beyond technical
    correctness, I'd rate that photograph on a different scale.
    There's no "supposed to say". If you don't like it, call it that way.
    What I'm reacting more to is that you want him to change. I fully
    understand that you may not like something, but I don't go along with
    wanting the person who shoots what isn't liked to change to someone
    else's style.
    What I was critical of was Android's judgment in picking this scene
    and presenting it here as a test, not his skills. If I was
    questioning his skills, it would have been with comments about what
    wasn't in focus, what wasn't lighted properly, or the physical
    composition. I didn't bring up any "skill" factors, and didn't see
    any lack of skill in what was shot.
    If I thought for a minute a D800 would improve my photography, I'd be
    on B&H's website right now.
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
  12. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Oh well!
    Well they sure aroused my senses! That said, just calling it art, does
    not make it good art, or good photography. I know taste is everything,
    but they are not technically good photographs, and to my eye, they are
    not particularly pleasing as art.
    I am just calling it the way I see things.
    However, he can't have it both ways, using preserving feather detail as
    a reason for some of the choices he made with the shots on this Sanibel
    trip, but he failed at that. The pelican, the raccoon, and the eagle
    were not presented to us as "abstract". With the claim that he wanted
    to preserve detail it seems to me he was seeking some sort of
    documentary reality. He got neither.

    The "competition winning shot" from 2007, taken with a D200 might have
    been presented as an abstract, but in my opinion it fails as an
    abstract, and it certainly fails as a technically good photograph. It
    is a mess, and just saying it is something other than a poorly
    processed and presented photograph, does not not make it a good
    photograph, or a good work of art. Just screwing about with photoshop
    and presenting the result as art is insulting to the viewer who
    believes otherwise.
    I did. I don't like what I have seen and I have said so. However, his
    good abstracts are different and interesting. Those look as if they
    were deliberately produced and not accidental. It is easy to accept
    them as intentional art.
    Nope! I am trying to provide some constructive criticism so he can meet
    the potential of his very good equipment. I am not the only one here
    who finds something "wrong" with what we have been shown.
    Then why the remark "…but the operator of the camera failed"? That
    seems to be directly questioning his skills.
    …and how is telling him he failed as the operator of the camera, not
    bringing up any "skill" factor?
    Agreed, My D300S is as much as I need right now. However, Peter has
    some of the best equipment available and he is not using it to its full
    potential. One of these days I might consider a FF camera, but for now
    my D300S will do just fine, especially because if I had to go by the
    D800 results Peter has shown us I am not encouraged to upgrade.
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
  13. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    If you have any constructive comments I am receptive.
    I am not asking whether you like or dislike my images.

    I am not as wealthy as you, and cannot afford a 500mm lens. I also
    cannot had carry a heavy lens, so I make do with what I can handle, and
    don't mock others.
    PeterN, Jan 3, 2014
  14. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    What you are saying makes eminent sense. However, shake induced blurring
    at high shutter speeds isn't too much of an issue. There would be more
    of a delay in shooting moving wildlife using the exposure measurement
    system that you suggest. I ry to use my variation of your method when
    possible. With birds, when I meter for white birds, it's almost a
    guaranty that a gray or blue ones will show up. (and visa versa.)
    I I was doing portraits, then I would definitely do what you suggest.
    However, my goal is to create an impression of wildlife doing its thing.
    I am NOT doing a Nat Geo, or catalog image. Simply doing what I like to
    do. If you do not receive my impression, then I have failed to properly
    convey it. If I merly copy anothers style, I am not true to myslef, but
    PeterN, Jan 3, 2014
  15. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Jan 3, 2014
  16. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    He failed to point the camera in the right direction. That's
    judgment, not skill.

    You could say that spotting a photographable scene is a skill, but
    this is one instance where he didn't look for something interesting.
    Any judgment about his overall skill in spotting the photographable
    would have be based on a larger sample.

    Remember John Sisker? He couldn't spot a good photograph if Matthew
    Brady's ghost was whispering in his ear. That's a judgment made about
    a series of photos, not just one.
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
  17. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    I admit frustration with whit on my birds, and that to me it is
    important to show feather detail on birds. It is not easy, which is why
    I am obsessed with that. My obsession with feathers is certainly not
    incompatible with my passion for the impression. I would like to please
    you and others, but not at the expense of not pleasing myself.
    As to the poor quality, there are several reasons, that are not being
    offered as excuses.

    1. Extreme crops.
    2. User error. (my screw ups.)
    3. I am having exposure issues.
    4. I am presenting highly condensed jpegs.

    I use high ISO and most noise doesn't bother me. At least not even a
    fraction of how it seems to bother you. There are artifacts in the high
    compression, and I am not optimally rezixing. Just using the basic
    resize in Photoshop. for presentations and competitions, I use Perfect
    PeterN, Jan 3, 2014
  18. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    …and OK.
    That is also OK.
    It bothers me when it is unnecessary. Noise is not grain. Especially
    color noise, luminance noise can be passed off as grain with a B&W
    Why not? It is simple enough. Particularly with the "Image Size" tool
    in PS CC, that is a vast improvement over all that came before in other
    "Image Size" in PS CC is more than adequate for upward
    resizing/extrapolation, including upsizing crops by as much as
    Any larger than 120% I go to Perfect Resize.

    As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I managed to get what seems to
    me to be reasonable feather detail & image quality out of my D300 +
    70-300mm, a combination which shouldn't come close to the potential of
    your D800 kit.

    < Images/SA-Images/SA Birds
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
  19. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    You've gone to the opposite extreme. No detail at all. No images, in
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
  20. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.