- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Goldfinch, nothing special..added pic
- Thread starter fracster
- Start date
Goldfinch 2
- Messages
- 4,341
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fark me, this must be some crap photo.................
Ok Ade it is not crap, exposure looks good and sharp, not so sure about composition though
- Messages
- 12,658
- Edit My Images
- No
For some, I suppose the "space to the right" is not ideal
As I have been told "think about it when you take the shot"
If it was intentioned, which I would suspect it was, then it is just a matter of preference
Then there is 16 x 9 versus 2 x 3 - again the composition may dictate this - and you do not get that much time anyway, especially if you are very near and the bird almost fills the frame.
Typical Goldfinch "look" - the colours are good, the blacks are dominant but then they are on the bird in nature - maybe a little too much in the tail if you want to bring out some feather detail
It looks as if it was taken in a low light situation - but it can not have been looking at the camera settings - did you use an off camera fill in flash? - also maybe indicated by the flat edge of the trunk, rather than a "roundness"
There is a small piece of something on the birds beak which could distract on close examination and the small feather around the nape could be cloned out
I suppose f5 does blur the tree detail - but it is still not too pleasant, (for me), and it could be said by some that the tree trunk does not blend with either the bird nor the background…. the twig also does not suit the tree (trunk) ……..?
The beak also has a blown highlight which distracts from the sharpness
IMHO it is a very good shot of the bird, with one or two provisos, but the tree trunk does nothing for the overall image and I'm not a fan of 16 x 9 for such close shots
As I have been told "think about it when you take the shot"
If it was intentioned, which I would suspect it was, then it is just a matter of preference
Then there is 16 x 9 versus 2 x 3 - again the composition may dictate this - and you do not get that much time anyway, especially if you are very near and the bird almost fills the frame.
Typical Goldfinch "look" - the colours are good, the blacks are dominant but then they are on the bird in nature - maybe a little too much in the tail if you want to bring out some feather detail
It looks as if it was taken in a low light situation - but it can not have been looking at the camera settings - did you use an off camera fill in flash? - also maybe indicated by the flat edge of the trunk, rather than a "roundness"
There is a small piece of something on the birds beak which could distract on close examination and the small feather around the nape could be cloned out
I suppose f5 does blur the tree detail - but it is still not too pleasant, (for me), and it could be said by some that the tree trunk does not blend with either the bird nor the background…. the twig also does not suit the tree (trunk) ……..?
The beak also has a blown highlight which distracts from the sharpness
IMHO it is a very good shot of the bird, with one or two provisos, but the tree trunk does nothing for the overall image and I'm not a fan of 16 x 9 for such close shots
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bill, should have said, no flash used no and the twig is part of the trunk.
Anyway, a different shot,processed differently,any better?
Goldfinch April 4 by Fracster, on Flickr
Anyway, a different shot,processed differently,any better?
Goldfinch April 4 by Fracster, on Flickr
- Messages
- 12,658
- Edit My Images
- No
Ade, as you know I'm no expert and I'm new to this - but have learned so much on here in the last two months - it has transformed my bird photography - previously I just wanted a "record" shot of the bird and nothing else.
So these are just my comments as a relative beginner…….. and maybe I'm starting to look too closely as the images on here just get better and better.
I'm not sure why but the tree, just looks a bit unreal - I don't like it anyway but the edge from the top to half way down just looks too "defined" - maybe because it is relatively sharp being (almost) on the same plane as the bird …… whilst the rest of the trunk is OOF…….. it just distract my eye and is too dominant as part of the image.
You know better than anyone else that "dynamic range" is difficult for even the best camera and we all strive to get the blacks and the whites "right" and it is difficult when they are both in the same image and I notice (now) generally, that any reflection on the beak can cause the "white" to blow - and presumably a blown white can never be sharp even when brought back in PP?
You have gone to 3 x 2 and in doing so there is more space around the bird albeit making the bird smaller and showing that the branch is part of the tree, therefore, I feel, in this shot, even though there is "more tree" it makes the composition more complete.
As an image of the bird - they are both good and the colours in the 2nd are maybe more representative as the bird is generally seen in the wild…….. I think that a lot of us, (not including you), can tend to get carried away with the vibrance and saturation sliders ……. creating colours that are maybe a little over the top
As I said I like both bird shots ……… I just can't get on with the trunk …… just me ........ and as you have noticed ...... I can ramble on
PS - you have still left that little white mark on the beak, just to annoy me.
(PPS - I'm just reading about histograms - it is a pity that we cannot post them with the images)
So these are just my comments as a relative beginner…….. and maybe I'm starting to look too closely as the images on here just get better and better.
I'm not sure why but the tree, just looks a bit unreal - I don't like it anyway but the edge from the top to half way down just looks too "defined" - maybe because it is relatively sharp being (almost) on the same plane as the bird …… whilst the rest of the trunk is OOF…….. it just distract my eye and is too dominant as part of the image.
You know better than anyone else that "dynamic range" is difficult for even the best camera and we all strive to get the blacks and the whites "right" and it is difficult when they are both in the same image and I notice (now) generally, that any reflection on the beak can cause the "white" to blow - and presumably a blown white can never be sharp even when brought back in PP?
You have gone to 3 x 2 and in doing so there is more space around the bird albeit making the bird smaller and showing that the branch is part of the tree, therefore, I feel, in this shot, even though there is "more tree" it makes the composition more complete.
As an image of the bird - they are both good and the colours in the 2nd are maybe more representative as the bird is generally seen in the wild…….. I think that a lot of us, (not including you), can tend to get carried away with the vibrance and saturation sliders ……. creating colours that are maybe a little over the top
As I said I like both bird shots ……… I just can't get on with the trunk …… just me ........ and as you have noticed ...... I can ramble on
PS - you have still left that little white mark on the beak, just to annoy me.
(PPS - I'm just reading about histograms - it is a pity that we cannot post them with the images)
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for the comments.
The main problem I had was that the light was fairly harsh, so had to dial in some - expo comp to stop the whites blowing, which leads to problems elsewhere.
Bill, the branch stays, the birds have got used to it now,but I shall cut some more props next weekend and see if I can find something you like more..............
PS....that white mark is something sticking out of the birds beak, suppose I could clone it out.
The main problem I had was that the light was fairly harsh, so had to dial in some - expo comp to stop the whites blowing, which leads to problems elsewhere.
Bill, the branch stays, the birds have got used to it now,but I shall cut some more props next weekend and see if I can find something you like more..............
PS....that white mark is something sticking out of the birds beak, suppose I could clone it out.
- Messages
- 959
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice female goldie..
Good control of the whites and black..
For me probably the exposure on the second is better to my eye...
Composition wise, would have been better facing the right, as looking at the tree isnt the best pose..but you can only shoot whats in front of you..
Good overall image
Good control of the whites and black..
For me probably the exposure on the second is better to my eye...
Composition wise, would have been better facing the right, as looking at the tree isnt the best pose..but you can only shoot whats in front of you..
Good overall image
- Messages
- 959
- Edit My Images
- No
The position of the blaze (red face) around the eye, a males blaze would go further past the back of the eye
The black on the head of a male bird is jet black, this bird has a mottled black head
The size of the spike (beak) is smaller on this bird than it would be on a male.
The small feathers above the beak, if you blow the image up are light, a male birds feathers here would be black
The general colouration of this bird is not as colourful as a male
Her head is more rounded than a male
And I have nearly 50 years experience breeding these birds in captivity
Bill
- Messages
- 12,658
- Edit My Images
- No
They are very similar, (in the field I cannot tell them apart as my eyes are not that good)
AFAIK - Females have that buffish cheek, the red is less intensive and more rounded at the base, (than square), and the buff bit across the chest is more complete - almost forming a band.
but as i said - I never really spot the differences …………… but Romany I hope will put me right and help
- Messages
- 959
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes Bill the cheek patches on males can be whiter/brighter..and to most folk, sexes are very similar
Have a look at my avatar, thats what a male should look like
Yes goldfiches crossed with canaries were very popular when I was a lad, as was crossing two British finches together, goldfiches crossed with bullfinches etc..
Have a look at my avatar, thats what a male should look like
Yes goldfiches crossed with canaries were very popular when I was a lad, as was crossing two British finches together, goldfiches crossed with bullfinches etc..
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,658
- Edit My Images
- No
yep that square bottom to the red patch on the face versus the round bottom on the Female, also the unfinished brown band on the male versus complete on the female ……. the next time I see one ……. great to know stuff like this ……. respect for the birds
- Messages
- 12,939
- Edit My Images
- No
Fark me, this must be some crap photo.................
Yup!!
- Messages
- 12,658
- Edit My Images
- No
concise, were U bin!
- Messages
- 12,939
- Edit My Images
- No
Skinhead do in Southend all weekend.
- Messages
- 12,658
- Edit My Images
- No
are there "born again" skinheads?
AFAIK - an interesting fact about the European Goldfinch is that it has never got as far as the Equator - S Egypt, Morocco, yes, but no farer
lots of sub species
I think that they tried to introduce it to Australia and NZ - but not successfully
Thought you'd like to know
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,939
- Edit My Images
- No
No. It's a way of life and unless you're part of it, (ie born of working class British stock and lived it) you'd not understand. Don't listen to the media hype it's 99% pish.
- Messages
- 12,939
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 12,658
- Edit My Images
- No
That's interesting - I wonder if they have spread throughout the country
Another Finch - the Chaffinch has never got past the Equator, almost, but not past, and just to compare the British took the Chaffinch to S Africa in the year 18 something, (I'd have to look the exact year up), - to Cape Town and another town - it has never spread any further than the original two towns - I've often wondered why?
invasive, introduced species, plant and animal are now beginning to worry most countries
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,658
- Edit My Images
- No
here's my last attempt that you can shoot down
ISO 800, 1/2500th sec, (I was hoping to get something in flight), f5.6, D7100 with Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR - taken last week ………. original image under exposed
PP ………. what you can do with LR is very good
beak shadow - maybe I've posted this before
then we can ask male or female and why?
Original image
and another
ISO 800, 1/2500th sec, (I was hoping to get something in flight), f5.6, D7100 with Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR - taken last week ………. original image under exposed
PP ………. what you can do with LR is very good
beak shadow - maybe I've posted this before
then we can ask male or female and why?
Original image
and another
Last edited: