Critique Juvenile Dunnock

Phil-D

Phil-D

Messages
7,499
Edit My Images
Yes
If I was pleased with the Sigma 150-600 'C' on the D7000, I'm over the moon with it on the D7200 :D


Done a bit of work on the j-peg,selective sharpening around the head, lifted the shadows slightly,no noise reduction and cloned out an annoying branch from the trunk (could possibly have been done better :rolleyes:)

All C&C welcome, thanks for looking :)


Juvenile Dunnock by Phil D, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
the image does look a bit dark - looks better with the exposure lifted by around half a stop and you could bring some more detail to the eye by using a levels layer on a selection around it

Phil-D said:
Done a bit of work on the j-peg
Click to expand...

are you just shooting jpeg,?
 
stanm said:
the image does look a bit dark - looks better with the exposure lifted by around half a stop and you could bring some more detail to the eye by using a levels layer on a selection around it



are you just shooting jpeg,?
Click to expand...

Hiya Stan, thanks for the reply, honest feedback and opinions is what I'm after (y)

The bird was in the shade and although the sun was in and out, it was in when I took the shot. I do shoot both jpeg and raw and could easily lift the exposure in ACR but was trying to keep it 'real' if that makes sense. I was fairly impressed with the detail, it looks pin sharp around the eye, head and wing to me but with the head being slightly turned away from the light I did notice it cast a slight shadow over the eye but again thats just how it was, cheers :)
 
It's a nice pose and really shows the 'juvenile' appearance but I wonder if it's showing as over-yellow?

28815662036_b81ee0fd08_b.jpg
 
gramps said:
It's a nice pose and really shows the 'juvenile' appearance but I wonder if it's showing as over-yellow?

View attachment 71091
Click to expand...

Cheers Roger, colour is SOOC, did you adjust the WB? I can certainly see a slight difference between the two (y)
 
Phil-D said:
Cheers Roger, colour is SOOC, did you adjust the WB? I can certainly see a slight difference between the two (y)
Click to expand...

Just reduced the yellow hue/saturation Phil, auto-WB didn't affect the image.
If you think your colour was a true representation then it's fine, just to me does not replicate the colour of Dunnocks that I have seen, even allowing for the fact that juveniles have more pronounced markings than adults. :)
 
gramps said:
Just reduced the yellow hue/saturation Phil, auto-WB didn't affect the image.
If you think your colour was a true representation then it's fine, just to me does not replicate the colour of Dunnocks that I have seen, even allowing for the fact that juveniles have more pronounced markings than adults. :)
Click to expand...

Morning Roger, apart from lifting the shadows and a little selective sharpening it's SOOC, no colour adjustment, WB was auto and not altered.

Shot in the shade with the bg in shadow, I put the shot up thinking I was impressed with the results of the Sigma 'C' on the D7200, obviously I'm the only one :D, not to worry

Thanks again for taking the time to reply :)
 
Phil-D said:
Shot in the shade with the bg in shadow, I put the shot up thinking I was impressed with the results of the Sigma 'C' on the D7200, obviously I'm the only one :D, not to worry
Click to expand...

Wooah ... it's not a comment on the lens, or indeed the D7200 ... IQ is good and my only comment was in respect of the yellow on the bird, which I accept could be correct but not like the colour of any Dunnock I have seen. :)
My experience with the D7200 is that colour sometimes needs to be reined in a little.
 
gramps said:
Wooah ... it's not a comment on the lens, or indeed the D7200 ... IQ is good and my only comment was in respect of the yellow on the bird, which I accept could be correct but not like the colour of any Dunnock I have seen. :)
My experience with the D7200 is that colour sometimes needs to be reined in a little.
Click to expand...

Sorry Roger, when I wrote 'obviously I'm the only one' I wasn't referring to you. It was more a tongue in cheek reply to the other 160 views :)
 
As an image, I'm finding the bird appears 'unhappy' and the darkeness about it doesn't help.

The area about the head, especially to the left and below the eye seems unaturally lit - especially given the darkness of the surroundings.

However, the stangest aspect of this image for me, is that the head area seems focussed, yet the body (in the same depth of field) seems blurred. If you told me that the body was shot at a low shutter speed and the head was photoshopped from another image, I'd believe it. :eek:

Critique, not criticism, sorry if it's a bit harsh. ;)
 
FourRingCircus said:
As an image, I'm finding the bird appears 'unhappy' and the darkeness about it doesn't help.

The area about the head, especially to the left and below the eye seems unaturally lit - especially given the darkness of the surroundings.

However, the stangest aspect of this image for me, is that the head area seems focussed, yet the body (in the same depth of field) seems blurred. If you told me that the body was shot at a low shutter speed and the head was photoshopped from another image, I'd believe it. :eek:

Critique, not criticism, sorry if it's a bit harsh. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback John (y)

I have lifted the shadows around the head to gain detail as it was too dark with it being turned away from the light. The only area I see oof I thought was down to dof, towards the tail feathers??, the position of the bird means that the rear half of its body and tail feathers are closer.

Please don't apologise, be as harsh as you like, its a critique forum and that's why I post photos up, I'd rather 100 people tell me they think its craps and the reasons why, than get no feedback at all (y)

This one I thought was a bit different as far as light goes, it looked pin sharp where it needed it, I liked the perch (once I'd cloned out the oof branch ;)) and pose with the dark back ground but that doesn't mean to say I don't welcome others thoughts, positive or negative (y) cheers :)
 
Phil-D said:
Please don't apologise, be as harsh as you like, its a critique forum and that's why I post photos up, I'd rather 100 people tell me they think its craps and the reasons why, than get no feedback at all (y)
Click to expand...
Oh good - so there are two of us still here then! ;)

(Hadn't realised that the body/tail were closer than the head).
 
FourRingCircus said:
Oh good - so there are two of us still here then! ;)

(Hadn't realised that the body/tail were closer than the head).
Click to expand...

It's a lot better in here now, John.

As you've only recently returned, the general gist in the bird forum is that people now take critique really well.

Haven't seen anyone get upset by critique for a long time (y)

When it's given and received properly, there is no offence taken.

This place has moved on a lot :)
 
wezza13 said:
I agree that the feathers have suffered from either DoF or movement during the shutter press.

It has got that photoshop/composite look to it.

I think it could certainly benefit from some contrast/clarity imo (y)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback Wez, points taken on board (y)
 
It's not a bad shot at all ... but it looks awkward in that pose .... so that gives the initial impression

I have not seen a young Dunnock for some time - so not that sure of the colouring

what i found now and again however is if you make an overall adjustment in an effort to "correct" one aspect it can start you on a course when other adjustment just worsen the colours/vibrance and authorial balance of the image.

The tail is a normal OOF problem ...... wide fvalue and DOF is minute

but overall I think that it is a well taken shot, it is just that it is not an attractive pose and obviously you have processed the bg to darken it . which I quite like although some may not
 
BillN_33 said:
It's not a bad shot at all ... but it looks awkward in that pose .... so that gives the initial impression

I have not seen a young Dunnock for some time - so not that sure of the colouring

what i found now and again however is if you make an overall adjustment in an effort to "correct" one aspect it can start you on a course when other adjustment just worsen the colours/vibrance and authorial balance of the image.

The tail is a normal OOF problem ...... wide fvalue and DOF is minute

but overall I think that it is a well taken shot, it is just that it is not an attractive pose and obviously you have processed the bg to darken it . which I quite like although some may not
Click to expand...

Cheers Bill, very little PP'ing on this, certainly no colour change unless that can be caused by lifting the shadows a tad, bg is as shot, the bird was in the shade and the bg was in dark shadow but as I said, I've cloned a rather large OOf branch from the bottom right of the shot.

I posted it thinking it was a bit different but also because I was happy with the performance in low light of the Sigma'C' on the D7200 :)

wezza13 said:
Here is another juve for comparison:

View attachment 71182

I hope you don't mind it in here Phil? Was going to put it in the communal thread. Let me know if you want me to delete it.
Click to expand...

No problem Wez but being in bright sunlight colours will show differently and the colours are as shot :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top