Wild Kingfisher

FourRingCircus

FourRingCircus

Messages
1,949
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Out testing the 1Dxii today and found an obliging Kingy. Took shots up to 12800 ISO and they still pass muster. This thing is simply incredible! Must apologise for not paying for the shots and therefore not having him diving-in with his beak touching the water...... ;)

Think I may still have a bit to learn on LR processing - especially the last shot here. I like it, but I feel it could be improved if I wasn't so concerned about pushing some sliders. I'd changed lenses (500F4 to 400F2.8) because the light had gone a fair bit, but I'm not sure why the appearance changed so significanlty. Of course, I didn't adjust the settings correctly, so it's at F5.6 whereas the others were up at F11.

Feel free to critique as stringently as you may. I'm not going to learn much if you don't. :cool:

16161-1471121612-6d85ff795cc69add1688e41c76613ece.jpg


16162-1471121621-91939a52915c149e3817cbda73e8fb1a.jpg


16164-1471121639-887124c97a705fb06d3ee4d2b56e2aec.jpg


16165-1471121651-9c063895e6aefe14c5dee10c46884699.jpg
 
•


I like 1, 2, and 3 (cool feathers chill!) and
their renditions but #4…
 
Kodiak Qc said:
but #4…
Click to expand...
Yup! Maybe I should have left it out (less is more), but it was in shade and it's an angle I like because it's got the head an back. I should probably just go back to the start with that one.
 
Yep, 1,2 & 3 are great. They could do with a slight boost in colour/saturation imho, but (y)

(#4 looks like it was shot through glass)
 
B.jhonno said:
Have the images been played with or straight out of the camera
Click to expand...
They have been processed in LR, but it's been done on a laptop. Not sure if that's what you mean by 'played with' or not. They certainly haven't been messed-about with. I won't see them on my proper pc screen until I'm in the office tomorrow.

OldCarlos said:
Yep, 1,2 & 3 are great. They could do with a slight boost in colour/saturation imho, but (y) (#4 looks like it was shot through glass)
Click to expand...
I changed the lens for #4 because the light disappeared, but you're right, it looks very odd for what is one of Canon's best lenses. I must have made some error, I'm sure! :(
 
OldCarlos said:
Yep, 1,2 & 3 are great. They could do with a slight boost in colour/saturation imho, but (y)
Click to expand...
Had a play with #1 now that I've got a proper screen in front of me. See what you think:

16187-1471265381-b3c8dd1b02567a695da6292f20351b18.jpg


(1000mm, 1/640s, F10, +1/3EV, ISO 5000)
 
1,2 and 3 are all decent captures John, and whilst I believe you like tight compositions, I think they need just a little bit more room on the bottom, particularly number 3 (the stand out shot in the set with the flared feathers) where you've just clipped the toes off a little.

I've spoken to a couple of people with this camera and it really is an incredible bit of kit, and I think once you get your head round some PP techniques, then you'll be in a good position to shoot some really nice stuff.

There really isn't an excuse with this camera not to be shooting in 4 figure ISO's to get the optimum shutter speed, and as long as you're not underexposing or cropping heavily then you're going to get technically good results.

Mike
 
pooley said:
I think they need just a little bit more room on the bottom, particularly number 3 (the stand out shot in the set with the flared feathers) where you've just clipped the toes off a little.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback Mike. When you said "just a little bit more room", I wonder if I've been just a little bit too meagre for you here? ;)
pooley said:
There really isn't an excuse with this camera not to be shooting in 4 figure ISO's to get the optimum shutter speed, and as long as you're not underexposing or cropping heavily then you're going to get technically good results.
Click to expand...
Spent a bit more time on this one at my main screen now and hadn't noticed before that it's actually at 8000 ISO!! (1000mm 1/1000s F11).

Does it work any better for you this time?

16212-1471439955-1b5ed6e3c4d386f8ab4dfde81212893b.jpg
 
pretty good shots John . well done ... lucky man .. wish I could find one of the little buggers down here

it's just a matter of fiddling with pp to get what suits you ............. editing at this level is probably quite a personal thing

but at the end of the day IQ will be affected by ISO and the higher you are and the bigger you crop you may find that it is only possible to pp within a narrow band otherwise you go "over the top" with sharpness etc.
 
FourRingCircus said:
Thanks for the feedback Mike. When you said "just a little bit more room", I wonder if I've been just a little bit too meagre for you here? ;)

Spent a bit more time on this one at my main screen now and hadn't noticed before that it's actually at 8000 ISO!! (1000mm 1/1000s F11).

Does it work any better for you this time?

16212-1471439955-1b5ed6e3c4d386f8ab4dfde81212893b.jpg
Click to expand...

It does indeed John.

Once you get to a certain level, it's only picking up on the small points that make small but necessary improvements, and this is a perfect example. You don't need telling about the basics, so it's just that extra look at the framing and sometimes the PP and after that it's all about personal taste.

I think the little tweak makes a significant improvement here, nice work.

Mike
 
John

I cannot help 'fiddling"

so I thought that I would produce an "edit" - just a different look, so that you can compare

I am a fan of 4 x 3 when I cannot really decide

jon_king.jpg
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I cannot help 'fiddling" so I thought that I would produce an "edit" - just a different look, so that you can compare
Click to expand...
No issues here with a bit of fiddling Bill. ;)

My wife prefers your 4x3 and I have to admit, I do too - thank-you! :) As you will be aware, I have a penchant for more bird and less emptiness. Don't know why I didn't consider that.(y)
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
typical, blaiming his equipment
Click to expand...
meh don't be daft buddy he's just shown us all how good canon are, tis all, frankly pic 4 is now amazing,lmao, taken through that web beggars belief really

ere John,is that web really sticky?If so just be a tad careful, I get to see way too many false widows, and sure they are quite placid really,but the wrong folk getting tagged can lead to probs,not being a drama queen John ,just had to fill a mate with antihistomines once just a silly note of caution i'm no spider expert !!


John thoughts on your images: they are lovely bro, I'd love to call just one mine truly mate!! i'm jealous of every kingy pic here at the mo. and also the quality of these!! So, my question to a guy further down the road would be are those white blown? If not then that would be the area I would be personally looking at either in post or at shooting time if they are. John I haven't the knowledge to advise or even know where the actual problem lies but that white bothers me buddy it's also if I ever do get the chance I yearn for(oh and surely I will I'm stubborn enough),at the onset of shooting that's going to be one of my big concerns getting those whites at the back of the head right. I'll probably mess it up John,but in the spirit of honest crit I feel there is more to be had there.I'm looking on an uncalibrated monitor driven by a computer run by a mouse on a wheel you know the crack.... the whites jar me mate. Actually does anyone else see this for personal viewing reasons It might be my monitor is way too bright. john this might be meaningless?? But crit helps both parties and these are lovely to look at and ponder for a while
Oh john,I also see this in Bill's repost
I am unsure on your framing but respect your choices, the post isn't going to be prettiest thing in those images it features,but do think you want a tad more "air " around the bird a bit more space for it too breath would be nice that tail sits mighty close. John I'm not urging you to be conventional in your framing ...follow your heart bro.just my very humble muses. It's cool watching a guy whom has some good tools progress mate inspiring. Wanted to comment on your red starts so little time.... keep grafting(y)

take care


Stu
 
Stuart Philpott said:
So, my question to a guy further down the road would be are those white blown?
Click to expand...
Yeah but, no but,......... :D

I used to get very concerned about 'blown whites', but sometimes, it's just not worth the fuss! Whenever colours, light and shade are involved, you will not expose absolutely correctly for whites. There has to be a balance struck. It's worst of all with a black and white bird like a Pied Wagtail or Pied Flycatcher. The question for me has to be, does the possibility of a 'wee bit' of blown white detract from the overall image? In the case of the kingfisher, I'd suggest not. On my screen, the first image is showing definition in all but about 20% of the whites at the back of the head. Trying to sort this in camera will only result in an underexposed image which needs too much pp. Trying to sort such a small amount of whites in pp is probably the answer, but I'll need to get a handle on the adjustment brush first.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top