Cannock Chase Birds - 2

CT

CT

TPer Emeritus
Messages
26,617
Edit My Images
Yes
Finally finished sifting the shots and found this Brambling I didn't know I'd got. I must have thought it was a Chaffinch. :shrug:

IMG_5745-01.jpg


Chaffinch.

IMG_5718-01.jpg


And the colour of the male Bullfinches was just stunning so that's all the excuse I need to post these three..

IMG_5771-01.jpg


IMG_5809-01.jpg


IMG_5825-01.jpg


That's your lot... promise! :D
 
you keep them coming

another fabulous set of pictures from the master!!!!:clap:

I'm assuming you use the 500mm lens for these - what sort of distance are you from the target?
 
One and five are stunning(y)(y), the others are just bloody good:)
 
Ab Fab CT were these taken on the Chase and what setup do you use, do you use a hide :clap: (y)
 
mmcp42 said:
I'm assuming you use the 500mm lens for these - what sort of distance are you from the target?
Click to expand...

Yes, these were with the 500mm and 1.4X TC (700mm), probably at about 25-30 feet.

Edit. It is possible to get a lot closer - probably 10 feet. There is a perimeter fence.
 
boozybill said:
Ab Fab CT were these taken on the Chase and what setup do you use, do you use a hide :clap: (y)
Click to expand...

Yes these were taken at the bird feeding station at the rear of The Chase Visitors Centre. It's a busy place for walkers, and bikers etc, so the birds are well used to people being about. I didn't use a hide - just set up the tripod and kept reasonably still.
 
must go and give it a go (y)
 
if you like that sort of thing then them ok i suppose..:LOL:
















but then on a serious note them's very very good . the first is by far my fav..

great set cedric thanks for sharing .. :clap:

"i was only saying to my dad about going up the chase for a days shoot as he was dragged up there.. this confims it would be worth a jolly.."



md(y)
 
BigBaldBob said:
Lovely set CT.
(still over sharpend for me, but hey ;) )
Click to expand...

LOL. Sorry Bob, but when you talk about unnatural white highlights in the feathers which are there in the RAW file and the unedited TIF, it doesn't lend a lot of credibility to your case. ;)

I will post a 1:1 unedited crop if my internet connection will ever let me again.
 
As I said, great shots but over sharpend.
You have great glass, why over sharpen?
Is the halo around the birds head in the last shot there on the RAW file?
If it is,Id get you sensor checked. ;)
 
Yes the halo is there on the RAW file. It's not 'around' the birds' head btw, it's just over the top. The lightening around the birds beak is caused by the shape of the foliage behind if you look.

But I like the way you back your bets both ways, you're shot down on the white highlights and the halo which are in the RAW files and which aren't due to sharpening, but that automatically means my sensor is crap rather than you just might possibly be wrong! :shrug:
 
(y) as always mate, love the brambling:)
 
CT said:
Yes the halo is there on the RAW file. It's not 'around' the birds' head btw, it's just over the top. The lightening around the birds beak is caused by the shape of the foliage behind if you look.

But I like the way you back your bets both ways, you're shot down on the white highlights and the halo which are in the RAW files and which aren't due to sharpening, but that automatically means my sensor is crap rather than you just might possibly be wrong! :shrug:
Click to expand...


I haven't been shot down at all.:thinking:
The white highlights on the feathers look unnatural because there is to much contrast.(over sharpened).Of coarse they are there in the original file.They wouldn't just appear for no reason, but they have been over exaggerated because of the excessive sharpening.
And again,there is no reason at all to have the thin white halo around the birds head other than the fact the image is over sharpened.
The reason I mentioned the sensor is because you immediately dismissed the points I was making
No body was edging bets, just pointing out blatantly obvious parts of the image.
Like I said, lovely shots,but over sharpend.
Do you use a CRT monitor?
 
fantastic set there ct:clap: im very jealous that you've got the bullfinch on your feeder. if i had to pick 1 the last for the colour and sharpness.
many thanks
jason
 
j.palmer said:
fantastic set there ct:clap: im very jealous that you've got the bullfinch on your feeder. if i had to pick 1 the last for the colour and sharpness.
many thanks
jason
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, or should I say stranger. :)
 
BigBaldBob said:
I haven't been shot down at all.:thinking:
The white highlights on the feathers look unnatural because there is to much contrast.(over sharpened).Of coarse they are there in the original file.They wouldn't just appear for no reason, but they have been over exaggerated because of the excessive sharpening.
And again,there is no reason at all to have the thin white halo around the birds head other than the fact the image is over sharpened.
The reason I mentioned the sensor is because you immediately dismissed the points I was making
No body was edging bets, just pointing out blatantly obvious parts of the image.
Like I said, lovely shots,but over sharpend.
Do you use a CRT monitor?
Click to expand...

We could argue about this all night, but the bit you're missing off the end of all your sentences is IMO!

Now let me assure I'm not in the least bit narked about you having a go at my shots, in fact, I welcome any constructive criticism, good or bad, but how can you possibly say these shots are over-sharpened when the points you refer to are in the original files and will obviously be enhanced by ANY sharpening. :thinking:

Sharpening is very much a matter of taste, but the fact remains you've chosen to highlight two particular points and I've clearly told you they are exhibited in the RAW files. Rest assured I will post 'em. ;)

The biggest problem with these images, is they're noisy, being shot at 800 ISO and no NR used on them, so sharpening will and has increased image noise.

I use a 19" flat screen monitor. Two actually.
 
j.palmer said:
fantastic set there ct:clap: im very jealous that you've got the bullfinch on your feeder. if i had to pick 1 the last for the colour and sharpness.
many thanks
jason
Click to expand...

It's not my feeder by the way Jason - I wish! This is the Bird Feeding Station on Cannock Chase.
 
Great shots again. CT. No complaints from me.

I've peered at the last shot at 400% and can see just a 1pix halo around the head, but nothing worth worrying about IMO.

That said, I'm not getting into the sharpening argument. I think its a personal taste thing.
 
CT said:
We could argue about this all night, but the bit you're missing off the end of all your sentences is IMO!

Now let me assure I'm not in the least bit narked about you having a go at my shots, in fact, I welcome any constructive criticism, good or bad, but how can you possibly say these shots are over-sharpened when the points you refer to are in the original files and will obviously be enhanced by ANY sharpening. :thinking:

Sharpening is very much a matter of taste, but the fact remains you've chosen to highlight two particular points and I've clearly told you they are exhibited in the RAW files. Rest assured I will post 'em. ;)

The biggest problem with these images, is they're noisy, being shot at 800 ISO and no NR used on them, so sharpening will and has increased image noise.

I use a 19" flat screen monitor. Two actually.
Click to expand...

You are right, we do disagree.:)
If you read my original comment you will see I do say "for me".
As I said before, I'm sure the highlights are there in the original file (why wouldn't they be?), but "for me" now they are sharpened, the feather textures don't look natural, and they "IMO" certainly haven't been "enhanced".
The high noise wouldn't cause the halo around the head.Whatever caused the halo,whether in the RAW file or not, the fact remains its there.All Ive done is point it out.I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that I did, but I did.
We can add as much sharpening as we like, but surely the ultimate goal is to achieve a natural looking image,and again "for me" the feather detail looks coarse and unnatural.
The fact that I believe the images look oversharpend shouldn't bother you enough to be so defensive.
All Ive done is politely offer an opinion.Just because it isn't the same as yours doesn't necessarily mean its wrong.;)

No one was "having a go" at your shots.It seems that by using the term "having a go" you indeed are a little "narked".If so i apologise.(y)



.
 
BigBaldBob said:
No one was "having a go" at your shots.It seems that by using the term "having a go" you indeed are a little "narked".If so i apologise.(y)

.
Click to expand...

Give over mate - I'm not narked - just disagreeing. :wave:

I can't post the shots, my connection is crap - has been for 2 or 3 days. It's not this board, I can't upload pics anywhere including my website, uploads just time out. Just browsing the board is slow and painful, so it's obviously my connection.
 
BigBaldBob said:
Do you use a CRT monitor?
Click to expand...

What's the monitor got to do with it when CT has clearly stated that the light halo is present on the RAW file?!

Have you ever photographed birds in sunlight? :shrug:
 
OK here's a 1:1 crop from that last Bully shot. It's been output straight from RAW with no editing or sharpening whatsoever.

halo.jpg


As I said, the light area around the face and beak is down to the bg and was there from the word go, which only leaves what appears to be a halo over the top of the head. Sometimes these artifacts can appear due to strong side lighting, ( it was strong side light at the time ) and it's usually in adjoining areas of high contrast which is the case here, where the back head contrasts against the light background.

Clearly the image is a tad soft at 1:1, and reducing to web size, which was the case with the original shot posted, will only reduce definition making it softer, so sharpening definitely needs applying. I gave it the minimum I felt acceptable, but factor in the compression due to size reduction and saving as a jpeg, and it's not difficult to see how that will only highlight the contrast in that problem area.

I hate soft images and anyone who browses here will see me moaning about them on a regular basis, but I'm paranoid about sharpening too, and always sharpen carefully, looking out for halos and other artifacts appearing as I go.

I'd be the first to say if I thought an image was over-sharpened, but you have to look at the whole image before deciding it is. ;)
 
Weggy said:
What's the monitor got to do with it when CT has clearly stated that the light halo is present on the RAW file?!

Have you ever photographed birds in sunlight? :shrug:
Click to expand...
The reason I asked if he used a CRT monitor is because often, with older CRT monitors, images can look a little softer than they do with a TFT.
The Halo isn't there in the RAW file.
The halo only appears after sharpening.
If you think the halo (caused by sharpening) is OK, thats fine.;) Like you say, its personal preference.
The feather detail in the original shot looks more natural.In the processed image, "IMO" it looks over sharpened and unnatural.

If the halo was caused by side lighting then it would be in the original file.
All sharpening does is increase contrast between pixels.If you have a dark area and a light area like the the birds head against the background, the increase in contrast produces the halo.

The halo wasn't caused by side lighting or resizing..
Here is the crop of the original file resized to roughly the size of the original post.
See, resized, no sharpening and no (obvious) halo..
halounsharpend.jpg


Heres the same image after sharpening.Magically the halo has appeared..Obviously I don't know the exact amount of sharpening you used, but Ive based it on getting the breast area to look about the same as the original posted shot.Infact,after looking at it again, it seems ive used even slightly less sharpening than you.
This takes me back to my original point which was..."for me" the image is over sharpend.
halosharpend.jpg
 
Soft and natural? It's not sharp!

Spec savers is open all day. ;)
 
Errr.... no it isn't sharp..did I say it was?:shrug:
Nobody said it didn't warrant some sharpening, but it was the degree of sharpening we've been discussing, or have I missed something here?:thinking:

By the way mate, if u need glasses, things tend to look softer not sharper..;)
 
BigBaldBob said:
Nobody said it didn't warrant some sharpening, but it was the degree of sharpening we've been discussing, or have I missed something here?:thinking:
Click to expand...

Just the whole point I think. :thinking: We obviously disagree on 'desirable' sharpening. Your rather nice goose shot is actually a tad soft IMO, particularly the eye, which really could be a mite sharper for me. You haven't got your 'Edit 'box ticked though, so I've left it alone.

It's been nice chatting to you Bob, but I've just realised I'm way behind with indexing my beer mat collection. :wave:
 
LOL. Tick your box then - we have to be quite strict on this. ;)
 
Ive ticked the box mate.Sharpen away.
How are the beer mats? All looking soft and blurry? :LOL:
:beer:
 
LOL. I'll post the edit in your Goose thread when I can get it to upload - I'm having trouble even opening threads again now! :shrug:
 
Cracking set of images CT, I'm really jealous of the Brambling. Absolute Belter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top