Handsome Kestrel, male of course!....

RedRobin

RedRobin

Dances With Dogs
Messages
9,314
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes




^ Both images on Flickr if you want more info etc. [click the image]

The flight shot was the same bird but the day before and the light wasn't so good.

Comments always welcome - Many thanks for looking.

:)
 
TBH Robin they are both suffering from big crops whilst using extenders, noise is very obvious on no2 but a great looking bird (y)
 
Neil B said:
TBH Robin they are both suffering from big crops whilst using extenders, noise is very obvious on no2 but a great looking bird (y)
Click to expand...

....Interesting comment as both images are cropped to about 50% of the original area, which I don't think of as an especially big crop but perhaps you feel that 50% is big.

Yes, there is certainly noise on the flight shot but it's probably down more fundamentally to my exposure. I particularly dislike bird plumage when it looks ultra smooth because the photographer has got so concerned with noise that he/she has, for my taste, overdone the noise reduction in post-processing. I am pleased with the capture and shape of the moment and decided to accept the noise level you now view it with having already done some noise-reduction.

I am currently failing to see in what way the first image is suffering and would be grateful to learn from your explanation. Cheers :)
 
Look closely at the sky in the first. I can see dozens of areas of blotches and striation artifacts radiating out from and area to the left of the bird. This is probably as a result of a combination of over sharpening and NR (even more noticeable on Flickr). There is a bit of noise on the bird itself but it's not too bad

As for the second shot, the amount of noise does nothing to enhance the shot at all. Personally, I'd not have bothered with that one.
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
Look closely at the sky in the first. I can see dozens of areas of blotches and striation artifacts radiating out from and area to the left of the bird. This is probably as a result of a combination of over sharpening and NR (even more noticeable on Flickr). There is a bit of noise on the bird itself but it's not too bad

As for the second shot, the amount of noise does nothing to enhance the shot at all. Personally, I'd not have bothered with that one.
Click to expand...

....Hmm, regarding the first image I wonder how many viewers look quite as closely as you are doing. Are you using a loupe?

Regarding the in-flight image it's a pity that you can only see its faults and can't appreciate the picture as a whole, but we are all different in what we enjoy. I am now curious about your own bird photography as setting a standard which I should strive for but haven't seen any - Do you have a link, please? Flickr?

Btw, my images are not intended to be a standard whereby they are offered for sale, nor as huge prints to stick on a wall.

However, I am not ignoring your comments and will probably revisit and post-process the first image again with your comments in mind.

Thanks :)
 
:agree: sort of, first one has less noise but the sky is suffering with compression issues and needs editing on a separate layer.
2nd looks like it was underexposed but correcting the exposure has amplified the noise, acceptable levels is a personal thing.
 
RedRobin said:
....Hmm, regarding the first image I wonder how many viewers look quite as closely as you are doing. Are you using a loupe?

Regarding the in-flight image it's a pity that you can only see its faults and can't appreciate the picture as a whole, but we are all different in what we enjoy. I am now curious about your own bird photography as setting a standard which I should strive for but haven't seen any - Do you have a link, please? Flickr?

Btw, my images are not intended to be a standard whereby they are offered for sale, nor as huge prints to stick on a wall.

However, I am not ignoring your comments and will probably revisit and post-process the first image again with your comments in mind.

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

1) I have no idea what loupe is but as soon as I saw the first pic the lines in the Sky were pretty obvious to me. I'm surprised you didn't notice them yourself. It is something I have noticed sometimes when I process stuff in Lightroom which has a smooth or plain bg.

2) I don't 'appreciate the picture as a whole' as you put it because personally and it is just my opinion it's a noisy mess and as I stated if it were mine I'd not have bothered. I'd probably have not even attempted to recover it.

3) As for my own bird photography, well I don't do it to set a standard but I do try to keep it up to a certain standard. I don't always achieve it but I try (the trick with sarcasm is to be good at it to get away with it and imo, you are not). Feel free to view my Flickr, it's open for all to look at and not difficult to access.

4). Whether your pics are offered for sale or for making huge prints or not is irrelevant. Because, neither are mine.
 
Last edited:
Neil B said:
:agree: sort of, first one has less noise but the sky is suffering with compression issues and needs editing on a separate layer.
2nd looks like it was underexposed but correcting the exposure has amplified the noise, acceptable levels is a personal thing.
Click to expand...

....You are absolutely right about the in-flight (2nd) image - As I said earlier, I had wrongly exposed the original. Failure is the path to success and I am only now beginning to look at histograms.

The only layer editing I have ever done is by selecting the subject within the image in Photoshop CS6, inverting it and applying Imageonic Noise Reduction plug-in to that automatically generated 'background' layer - In this case, the sky and the darker shadows on the wall but very rarely on the bird (my acceptable level).
 
BRASH said:
1) I have no idea what loupe is but as soon as I saw the first pic the lines in the Sky were pretty obvious to me. I'm surprised you didn't notice them yourself. It is something I have noticed sometimes when I process stuff in Lightroom which has a smooth or plain bg.

2) I don't 'appreciate the picture as a whole' as you put it because personally and it is just my opinion it's a noisy mess and as I stated if it were mine I'd not have bothered. I'd probably have not even attempted to recover it.

3) As for my own bird photography, well I don't do it to set a standard but I do try to keep it up to a certain standard. I don't always achieve it but I try (the trick with sarcasm is to be good at it to get away with it and imo, you are not). Feel free to view my Flickr, it's open for all to look at and not difficult to access.

4). Whether your pics are offered for sale or for making huge prints or not is irrelevant. Because, neither are mine.
Click to expand...

....A loupe is an eye glass - A small magnifying glass used by jewellers and watchmakers and also a standard tool in the days of viewing film transparencies on lightboxes.

2) I of course accept it's your opinion and I appreciate its honesty.

3) Keeping our efforts to a certain standard as what most of us do and that's all I meant. That standard is consequently an example of our best efforts and others can form an opinion about that standard and hence understand or better respect an opinion. No sarcasm was intended, so I think you may have misinterpreted me on that aspect - Not important.

4) The level of critique you have applied to these Kestrel images suggested to me that your own standards might be as if for commercial sale or large print display. Hence my mention.
 
I like the 1st Robin, although it could have chosen a better perch for you ... 2nd does have too much noise and shadow.
I guess some of us like to get out when we can and get what we can in the circumstances available ... sometimes it works well and sometimes it doesn't but we (and many others) still appreciate what we get :)
 
Would have to also agree with regards to the artifacts and noise on these Robin,still two nice images though. My own thoughts,and this is in general,it`s not a case of whether you or anybody else makes money from them, but with the kit used nowadays by a lot of people, this should not really be happening.It sticks out like a sore thumb to me,and that is viewing just on a bog standard 24" Dell. If that were me and I know it is not :D I would have got the first one looking better as there are some nice colours in that shot,and not bothered with the other one,as I bet if you were honest you would agree that it is sub standard.
 
They both look pretty good on my new 5K Retina, (but it is amazing) ..... The bird in the first is really attractive but I would have preferred a more rural perch ....... but getting a chance to shoot one that close is good in itself

The second is well caught in that position .... I see them like that most days ....... but when they see me they bugger off

They don't seem over noisy to me but plain backgrounds do show it up more than others
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
They both look pretty good on my new 5K Retina, (but it is amazing) ..... The bird in the first is really attractive but I would have preferred a more rural perch ....... but getting a chance to shoot one that close is good in itself

The second is well caught in that position .... I see them like that most days ....... but when they see me they bugger off

They don't seem over noisy to me but plain backgrounds do show it up more than others
Click to expand...

A better idea for you Bill,take a look at the sky,those patterns are as prominent in the first image.I have only darkened this to give a better idea,and the cause is due to editing,concentrating on the subject whilst not taking notice of what is happening elsewhere in the picture.

kes_zpscf0yua6b.jpg
 
u8myufo said:
A better idea for you Bill,take a look at the sky,those patterns are as prominent in the first image.I have only darkened this to give a better idea,and the cause is due to editing,concentrating on the subject whilst not taking notice of what is happening elsewhere in the picture.

kes_zpscf0yua6b.jpg
Click to expand...



Yep but can't you sort out the sky in post ... that's what RAW is supposed to be all about

(I know Robin says he likes it like it is) - but is the situation caused by processing rather than settings - the exposure on the bird looks spot on

so basically you localise two areas, the subject and the background and work on each separately?

must read up more on Layer in PS .... I use PS as best I can ... along with LR ... but I have never quite figured out layers
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Yep but can't you sort out the sky in post ... that's what RAW is supposed to be all about

(I know Robin says he likes it like it is) - but is the situation caused by processing rather than settings - the exposure on the bird looks spot on

so basically you localise two areas, the subject and the background and work on each separately?

must read up more on Layer in PS .... I use PS as best I can ... along with LR ... but I have never quite figured out layers
Click to expand...

Yes Bill it is caused through processing,no idea mate I never use layers.
 
BillN_33 said:
The bird in the first is really attractive but I would have preferred a more rural perch ....... but getting a chance to shoot one that close is good in itself
Click to expand...


....I would have preferred a more 'rural' perch too but this is an isolated building near a cliff and this Kestrel regularly perches on it probably to better see prey. Kestrels and Falcons are well known for perching and even nesting on buildings.

Kestrel%20m_9709vnfxs.jpg
 
I like No1 its a cracking shot of a beautiful Raptor

Les
 
@BRASH , @u8myufo , and others who noticed the artifacts in the sky :

Not visible on my iMac 27" but I visited my daughter in Bristol yesterday and saw huge blotches in the sky of image #1 when viewed on her new MacBook Retina laptop.

I would appreciate any help or ideas how to avoid such artifacts which I can't see on my system, please.

Thanks :)
 
it looks OK to me ....but reduce the shadows/highlights/exposure and view it at 2:1...........and you should see what's in the bg

but we are now getting into the dreaded pixel peeing
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine who is a professional photographer has just visited me and so I asked him about the issue and he said that it was largely down to the screens/monitor which the image was being viewed on and all I could do was edit on a WYSIWYG basis (What You See Is What You Get) and it was all to do with pixellation.

BillN_33 said:
it looks OK to me ....but reduce the shadows/highlights/exposure and view it at 2:1...........and you should see what's in the bg

but we are now getting into the dreaded pixel peeing
Click to expand...

....Thanks for the viewing tip, Bill.

Extreme pixel peeping is a step too far as far as I'm concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: den
It looks like posterisation on my screen, visible in the 2nd darker image too

Shoot in raw at your highest bit depth and you should be fine for a bit print, turning it into a small jpeg for web use is likely to be what's causing the problem rather than just your editing

Nice capture btw :)

Dave
 
RedRobin said:
A friend of mine who is a professional photographer has just visited me and so I asked him about the issue and he said that it was largely down to the screens/monitor which the image was being viewed on and all I could do was edit on a WYSIWYG basis (What You See Is What You Get) and it was all to do with pixellation.



....Thanks for the viewing tip, Bill.

Extreme pixel peeping is a step too far as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Well at least you are halfway of undertstanding it Robin. If you have not already looked HERE you will see that I caused exactly the same thing in the background of the Blue tit shot.I had underexposed as I was having trouble with highlights being blown whilst the rest of the bird was spot on.Whilst bringing it back in PP i messed up the bg,probably more prominent than yours due to a more colouful bg.
 
RedRobin said:
A friend of mine who is a professional photographer has just visited me and so I asked him about the issue and he said that it was largely down to the screens/monitor which the image was being viewed on and all I could do was edit on a WYSIWYG basis (What You See Is What You Get) and it was all to do with pixellation.



....Thanks for the viewing tip, Bill.

Extreme pixel peeping is a step too far as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...


So correct me if i'm wrong Robin, we spent many £k's on the latest body and lens, we then had a mega thread on monopods/heads that had to be nothing but the best.
Resulting images have some slight issues that can be easily sorted with some helpful advice from forum members but you now label that as "pixel peeping" :rolleyes:




DG Phototraining said:
It looks like posterisation on my screen, visible in the 2nd darker image too

Shoot in raw at your highest bit depth and you should be fine for a bit print, turning it into a small jpeg for web use is likely to be what's causing the problem rather than just your editing

Nice capture btw :)

Dave
Click to expand...

:agree: ish :thinking: you just have to look at your workflow and resizing for web use but i guess your "pro" mate would of told you that :whistle:
 
Neil B said:
So correct me if i'm wrong Robin, we spent many £k's on the latest body and lens, we then had a mega thread on monopods/heads that had to be nothing but the best.
Resulting images have some slight issues that can be easily sorted with some helpful advice from forum members but you now label that as "pixel peeping" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


....So I best correct you then. You have unfortunately misunderstood me if you think I am rejecting forum members' helpful advice. I am merely saying that I have a preference to resist "EXTREME pixel peeping".

I don't understand why you make any reference here to my thread on monopods/heads. As I understand it from various replies, a number of people found it very helpful in deciding their own needs. I should update that thread because things have changed! :D

Yes, resizing and how different monitors display the same image are all part of what I was told but I couldn't show my friend on my system because the problem doesn't manifest itself on it and neither does it manifest itself on his calibrated (hardware method) computers.
 
On that first image i can see the banding when viewing a preview of the thread on my phone, ie an image about 2cm square.

You know what "C&C welcome" means, right? You've got some good advice, put it to work and your photos will be better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top