Majestic Pigeon

I like the detail in the feathers and it is lovely and contrasty (y) processing seems fine to me.
 
Savagestorm said:
Majestic Pigeon by SavageStorm, on Flickr

Caught a pigeon attempting to attract a mate. Any PP suggestions?
Click to expand...
I would not worry too much about PP for the minute but concentrate on getting your subject in focus.Not sure what your settings were but as a guide your shutter speed needs to equate to or be greater than the focal length used for the shot.As an example 300mm = 1/300 plus 400mm = 1/400 plus,etc etc.With a good steady technique you can use a much slower shutter speed.
 
it looks sharp to me rich - the feather on the neck are very crisp
 
Indeed the neck feathers are very crisp.

The head an eye are a little less so, possibly could have been improved by focusing on the eye/head area?
 
I'd say the eye was tolerably sharp - certainly not soft enough to warrant crit about concentrating on getting the subject in focus
 
yeah seriously - if you don't think its tolerably sharp - maybe you need a new screen or new glasses
 
RichardtheSane said:
Indeed the neck feathers are very crisp.

The head an eye are a little less so, possibly could have been improved by focusing on the eye/head area?
Click to expand...

Much less so I would have said Richard,and the eye is always the point of contact in a shot such as this or any other bird.
 
big soft moose said:
yeah seriously - if you don't think its tolerably sharp - maybe you need a new screen or new glasses
Click to expand...

Your the expert mate,I shall take your word for it (y)
 
Here a weird thing - its less sharp on flikr than it is on the forum display - f***ed if I know how that works.

Anyway ignoring all the b*****ks to answer the OPs question I don't think it needs much PP its fine as it is - suggestions for next time would be that as well as focussing on the eye to get it pin sharp (assuming of course that its what you want - there isn't a hard and fast rule that says it has to be the point of focus), I'd say either zoom in more for a head shot , or frame a bit wider for a whole bird - the 2/3s body composition doesn't work that well imo
 
It seems to me that it is quite a heavy crop?

Maybe that's why the eye is soft.

The throat feather detail is great though. It seems that the focus point is more than likely on the shoulder, which is possibly why it's a fraction out on the eye.

Every wildlife article, be it in a magazine, forum or book that I've ever read, says that the eye should be the sharpest point of focus.

It's still a nice in-your-face type photo though.
 
The eye is more emphasised as being oof in the original as the image posted on TP is showing a smaller verison of the full sized image on Flicker,which is 4491 x 2994.With a striaght 1024 on the longest side it appears much better,albeit still slightly off.But to be honest Pete the whole point of this and any other section for critique is to point these things out,you of all people should know better.If you start off in the habit of accepting that this is how it should be then you are on nothing but a downward spiral,just saying.


20028435072_08f7912975_o_zpslgfxanrd.jpg
 
u8myufo said:
f.But to be honest Pete the whole point of this and any other section for critique is to point these things out,you of all people should know better.If you start off in the habit of accepting that this is how it should be then you are on nothing but a downward spiral,just saying.
Click to expand...

thepoint of this or any other critique section is to give honest but constructive critique which highlights the good and the bad ... whats wrong with this section is that too many people have forgotten the "good and bit of it and just jump on any fault with overly harsh and unhelpful criticism (which can often read like they get an ego boost out of being harsh - speaking generally not about your post specifically) ... that's the downward spiral that needs to be reversed

This isnt the best picture ever taken by any means, but its not terrible - the eye could be sharper, but I'd still stand by m original crt that its not so unsharp as to make the picture a reject or not worth critiquing its other aspects
 
  • Like
Reactions: den
big soft moose said:
thepoint of this or any other critique section
Click to expand...

Is also to post a few of your own images up now and again,come join in with the fun,after all we are one big happy family ;) So your original comment and I quote "Certainly not soft enough to warrant crit about concentrating on getting the subject in focus", is not really what I would expect from a person of your experience putting across to someone who is learning the subject of bird photography.I guess it must be ok to have a good wedding shot and not worry about blown whites on the bride,or perhaps an architectural shot with wonky vertical lines on the main point of focus.You mention about giving good critique and about jumping in on any fault,yet you mention you are not talking about my post specifically,then why bring that subject up in the thread? It is totaly irrelevant to the Op`s picture,you know exactly all the places that topic has been discussed in,just pop in and say your two penneth worth and aim it at those who you think it applies to (y) So I will stand by my original comment,the eye is oof and that is what needs to be improved upon.
 
Last edited:
when you are that close it has to be super sharpe ............ and the eye has to be perfect and show real detail .. that's what the viewer sees first ..

it is not really sharp and the bg noise is noticeable ........ but I suppose it depends on your idea of sharpness .......... but any fall back gets exaggerated

the beak also needs work

It is just a head shot and as long as it is posted as that, it's just fine but technically it has to be very good to impress ..... and that tight a crop needs to have a well processed bg and this really falls short for me

in my IMVHO
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top