Not a bird

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

  1. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest


    You might want to tone that sarcasm about the need for an optomerist
    [sic] down a bit and stop to think if I would make a comment like that
    without sufficient reason.

    Here's a screen shot of what the link loaded for me:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8lkmlz5bg3i1xs/Blank.jpg


    As far as I can tell, it's six pure white birds in a heavy fog.

    Dropbox is acting up for me tonight. It doesn't even want to load
    those individual links. It won't connect to any of them. I don't
    know if the problem is at my end or with Dropbox. Maintenance, maybe?
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. You need to get over *yourself*! Peter isn't using his
    equipment to make photographs designed to your likes. That's not
    really here nor there though!

    He does a very good job of producing what he wants to make.
    Technically it is what he wants, whether it looks like art to
    you or not.

    I personally could care less if Peter makes a photograph that is
    what I like. That's what I do, and he need not bother. His
    technical reasons for what he does are valid. His method, as an
    example, for determining the exposure to use, ISO's, and that
    sort of thing are dead on correct.

    It makes no difference at all if *you* happen to like the
    results. For that matter it makes no difference if anyone
    posting here, other than Peter, likes the results.

    The question is only if he is using the correct technical
    configuration for what he wants, and it's rather clear that he
    is.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 3, 2014
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    I should have caught that.
    That is odd. the URL seem to work fine here. I loaded to DB on my
    desktop, and it synced to my iPhone & iPad within seconds.
    In that case the detail is astonishing for snowy owls in a blizzard. ;-)
    I suspect the problem is somewhere downline from me.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
    #43
  4. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    Not sure what that has to do with anything...
     
    Sandman, Jan 3, 2014
    #44
  5. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I just tried it again and got the same blank page. I'll try it in the
    morning.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #45
  6. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    Sandman, Jan 3, 2014
    #46
  7. PeterN

    charles Guest

    I got a delayed load on the page. First blank, then after several
    seconds the photos loaded. Something going on with the site,
    perchance.

    Using Win 7 and Chrome.
     
    charles, Jan 3, 2014
    #47
  8. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    I wasn't answering any question of yours either. The constructive comment
    is "less post". Few photos are perfect without any post, but tryibng to
    save a blurry photo with unsharp mask or crank the contrast up way too high
    rarely makes for a good end result.
    How "wealthy" am I now again?
    I don't have a 500mm lens.
    Whose mocking who, now again?

    The point is that the shot at 300mm with your 70-200 lens would have been
    perfect at 200mm and just some more cropping. Your camera can handle a
    shitload of cropping, and loosing the speed with the TC isn't worth it.
     
    Sandman, Jan 3, 2014
    #48
  9. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    It works OK for me.
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 3, 2014
    #49
  10. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Just an personal opinion from an old fart in California Floyd. I am
    sure you don't mind if I have an opinion. I am not going to say I find
    a particular image pleasing if I don't.
    … and you are correct, it doesn't matter one bit whether I like those
    particular shots, or not as long as Peter is happy with what he is
    doing. Just as it doesn't matter if you or anybody else here finds any
    of my shared images pleasing or interesting. That said, I continue to
    learn when I receive sincere constructive criticism of what I share. It
    is a free World and we have a group of folks in these groups who are
    outspoken, you certainly are, and right or wrong (that happens from
    time to time) I will speak my mind if I am driven to.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
    #50
  11. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    The trick with a hand-held meter is to use it before you want to take
    the photo; discover what the meter readings are in different directions,
    and adjust for 'contre jour' conditions and shade and so on, then all
    you need do as a shot presents itself is to set the aperture (or the
    sensor ISO) accordingly while you're framing and focussing. You can do
    the same trick to get the focussing distances to various spots too - in
    your case, likely perches. Lighting conditions rarely change
    unpredictably and so quickly that such methods let you down - and of
    course, the more you do it the better at it you become.

    Naturally, what makes the 'right' exposure for your purposes won't
    necessarily be the same as what I or anyone else would choose. But
    whatever your style or intentions, a good solid repeatable technical
    foundation will make life easier.
     
    Whiskers, Jan 3, 2014
    #51
  12. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    The clue is probably in that little note about 'dropbox needs
    javascript'. Enable javascript and re-load the page.
     
    Whiskers, Jan 3, 2014
    #52
  13. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    [...]
    Nice neighbours! Number 4 looks as though it has a price tag on the
    right leg.
     
    Whiskers, Jan 3, 2014
    #53
  14. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    The page loads for me OK this morning. #6 looks like the saturation
    was boosted several thousand percent, though. The eye is weird, and
    there's a prominent halo around the beak tip.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #54
  15. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    You would be surprised where you find tagged birds.
    If you take another look you will see that #6 is also tagged with a
    slightly different tag.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
    #55
  16. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    The color is astonishingly correct for the bird, a Scarlet Ibis, no
    enhancement was needed or used for the color which is so vivid it
    obscures detail unless you zoom in on an area of the plumage;
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/S-Ibis-C1.jpg >

    < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_Ibis >
    The eye was caught in mid blink. So what you are seeing is a bit of
    eye, and a bit of lower eyelid.

    I have another shot where the eye is completely closed, this was one of
    my many non-keepers and the reasons are obvious.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC_3472.jpg >

    As to what is at the tip of the beak I have no rational explanation
    other than there seems to be a drop of water at the tip.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/S-Ibis-B1.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
    #56
  17. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Just to give you some idea of just how vivid that plumage on the
    Scarlet Ibis is, here is an NEF of a shot I didn't use, as the bird
    moved its beak over its shoulder. That is the color of the bird.
    Note to those who are concerned over file size, it is a 20MB NEF.
    < https://db.tt/eRVLJcPT >
     
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
    #57
  18. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    True, but still not as good as Perfect Resize.
    Especially for times when I resize from a res of 350 down to 72 or 96.

    To my eye, they look OOF where they shouldn't be.
     
    PeterN, Jan 3, 2014
    #58
  19. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    "Where they shouldn't be"?

    I hate to say this Peter, but let's just compare the focus of your
    D800+70-200mm f/2.8 on the left, and my D300+70-300mm on the right.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_504.jpg >

    It seems that you have some serious vision issues if you believe that
    your capture is finely focused and mine is to your eye OOF.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 3, 2014
    #59
  20. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Head and eyes in both are OOF.
    the dark shadow bewteen the base of the beak and right side f the eye is
    much too dark. The white feathers are a tad blurry.

    Beak is OOF
    the enitre bird is OOF. There is little detail in the feathers.
    Same as above.

    Here is closer to what I am looking for. But the top of his head is
    still lost detail.

    Don't think it's Tony that has vision issues, if you htink those are
    sharp. Again, I am working on a small screen, but they still look as
    described above.
     
    PeterN, Jan 3, 2014
    #60
    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.