Female Kestrel

She's a reall looker, I love the eye contact (y) but it has a little bit of a yellow cast, more than I would expect from the time of day shot, also the vibrancy seems a little over cooked...

Matt
MWHCVT
 
MWHCVT said:
She's a reall looker, I love the eye contact (y) but it has a little bit of a yellow cast, more than I would expect from the time of day shot, also the vibrancy seems a little over cooked...

Matt
MWHCVT
Click to expand...

Have to agree with Matt on this one Den.
 
Hi Rich....to be honest i really cannot see it.....i have just found the origanal and saved it as a CR2 file if their is a way of you getting it and having a look and maybe a comparison to the one i posted ,just to see what i am not seeing if that makes sense....PS unprocessed and AWB Raw
 
Last edited:
den said:
Hi Rich....to be honest i really cannot see it.....i have just found the origanal and saved it as a CR2 file if their is a way of you getting it and having a look and maybe a comparison to the one i posted ,just to see what i am not seeing if that makes sense....PS unprocessed and AWB Raw
Click to expand...

Hi Den, I know what you said before when I commented on one of your shots, but I still say you are trying to extract too much detail from them. To my eye with this one, the darker markings on the feathers seem just to pale, they would never look like that naturaly. Can you link to just a large sized straight conversion of the original without any PP?
 
Rich.... i can email the origanal to you or if you can help to how i can do the former for you .Thanks......Here is the origanal ,shot in RAW imported to lightroom ,no crop or PP just exported as Jpeg
Origanal kestrel by den9112, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
My monitor is calibrated and that original looks much better colour wise than your edit. Have to agree with Rich, it looks as though you're upping vibrancy too much (even though you said you haven't touch it?)
 
htid said:
My monitor is calibrated and that original looks much better colour wise than your edit. Have to agree with Rich, it looks as though you're upping vibrancy too much (even though you said you haven't touch it?)
Click to expand...

Well I'm sat infront of a brand new screen that after booting up the first thing I did was calibrate it on friday night (y)
 
MWHCVT said:
Well I'm sat infront of a brand new screen that after booting up the first thing I did was calibrate it on friday night (y)
Click to expand...

Sorry Matt, you're the one who mentioned vibrancy! I gave the 'credit' to the wrong person ;)
 
Were in the post do i say i have not touched the vibrancy.......i have emailed rich the CR2 file.....if i can genuinley not see it then i can't ....Rich as very kindly sent me a pm , hopefully he can point out what as been done and has not ......
 
Den, I got the file ok, and will have a closer look when my eyes are not like P..s holes in the snow. Tbh though I agree with Chris, the other image you posted looks pretty good and I would be happy if it were my own. I think the problem arises with you striving to perfect your shots to acheive max detail.Dont get me wrong I am all for trying things out, as imo it is the only way to learn. The sky looks a more natural colour in the second image to start with, so going back to the first image it does not necessarily mean you have messed about with vibrancy.Levels and curves can alter the colour of things as much as anything else Den, and because you concentrate on the subject when editing you overlook what else is going on, and that is something that even I fail to do quite a bit.

I will be open here with you Den, the last thing I want you or anybody else to think is that I am a know it all, nothing could be further from the truth. I ask questions as I am genuinely interested in the subject, and if I see something that is not quite right I point it out,it does not make me any different to anybody else. Sometimes I just need an explanation as to why a certain picture is looking the way that it does, and the reason I ask is because I do not understand, sadly though a lot of those questions go unanswered :shrug: There was a time that when somebody pointed something out with a picture quite a few would join in on the coverstaion and put their thoughts over a lot more, you might get a handfull of different edits from people with each explaining what they had done, the good thing about that was the fact it was just not the OP who would come away having learnt something new, a few of the others would have picked something up as well, again it is something that rarely happens now. Rant over :LOL:
 
Thanks for the reply Rich.....it's a touch frustrating when you cannot see what other people are seeing.......a few increments on the slider can make all the difference.....as for the sky yes i can see that looking at the origanal shot now...i don't mind CC its just knowing were you are going wrong when more than one person can see.....maybe a different aproach on my workflow could help as had a good read last night ...............scott kelbys lightroom 3 ....
 
den said:
Were in the post do i say i have not touched the vibrancy.......i have emailed rich the CR2 file.....if i can genuinley not see it then i can't ....Rich as very kindly sent me a pm , hopefully he can point out what as been done and has not ......
Click to expand...

den said:
Hi Rich....to be honest i really cannot see it.....i have just found the origanal and saved it as a CR2 file if their is a way of you getting it and having a look and maybe a comparison to the one i posted ,just to see what i am not seeing if that makes sense....PS unprocessed and AWB Raw
Click to expand...

Sorry I must have misunderstood, I took that to mean you've not touched it in Photoshop, and the file is a Raw file that you had it set to auto white balance. I assume you meant that you've not done any PP on it. My mistake then I guess!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top