Critique Starling

[wezza13]

Hey all,

I know it's a touchy subject at the moment, reading some of the other threads, but please can you tell me where to improve?

Considering I only started a couple of weeks ago, I don't want to get into too many bad habits!

The iso is high as the light hasn't been too good when I get home from work.

Thanks for taking the time to look.

• ƒ/8.0

• 500.0 mm

• 1/500

• 1000 iso

• Starling by Wez Filtness, on Flickr

 

[Phil-D]

Beautiful colours and detail Wez For me the composition is good and I'm not bothered by the noise in the bg........in fact, I think you could do with telling me where I could improve

 

[FourRingCircus]

Wow! From the top of the neck downwards, that's one of the most impressive shots of a starling I've ever seen.

Where to improve:

1. Leave work earlier if it's a nice day!
2. Focus on the eye of the bird.
3. Try to get closer and/or drop the ISO
4. Wait until the bird is looking at you for the best shot.

An amaziing image, let down only by the eye/beak and background grain.

 

[wezza13]

Hehe, thank you for taking the time to comment.

I can see now that the eye is soft but I will work on that next. I leave my AF-C on 51 focus points but going to try it with single or 9-point next time to see if it makes much difference.

Practise, practise, practise!

 

[fracster]

single point for static shots mate. You can move the point around if you have chance to.

which camera?

 

[wezza13]

single point for static shots mate. You can move the point around if you have chance to.

Thanks, will give that a try.

which camera?

D7100 with the Tammy 150-600mm.

Been trying it at 600mm wide open and 500mm at f8. My untrained eye can't see a lot of difference but I'm pretty sure I can see some difference in the sharpness between the two.

 

[fracster]

I have no experience of that lens, but most zooms are better backed off.

Assuming the 7100 is like my 7200, you can select afc single point focus and move it around with the thumb pad on the back of the body. May not work for you, but worth trying.

 

[FourRingCircus]

One more suggestion would be to re-size the pics before uploading - just for us poor sod on 56k dial-up modems!! It's showing as a 14Mb file @ 5161 x 3441 (being resized by the site to 1161 x 780).

 

[den]

Hi Wez, Starlings are very underrated and in the right light can look stunning ,what I see when I look at your shot is its underexposed ,possibly by at least 2/3 rds of a stop and focus also looks to be on middle of bird rather than the head (eye) just my opinion Wez

 

[FourRingCircus]

what I see when I look at your shot is its underexposed ,possibly by at least 2/3 rds of a stop

@den Can you expand upon this please? I see a very well exposed shot here, which will not be improved with more exposure. In fact, an extra 2/3 and I reckon the wood on the right and the left of where the bird is standing will have lost any sense of definition. I think the birds legs and feet would begin to suffer too. I see all the detail I could possibly want in the dark areas and shadow points, so what on earth would further exposure add to this pic in your eyes please? I am genuinely interested to hear your answer and I'm not just baiting for a disagreement.

 

[den]

No need to expand in my opinion as its underexposed,...you dont agree fine ,lets move on

 

[BillN_33]

IMHO, like many images the image has elements of both under and over exposure

Here's is an edit maybe for discussion - I am not saying that it is better or worse - but just difference

The image that Wez has produced is a good one … I am not taking anything away from that …….. but if he does not mind …… maybe this is a good image to develop constructive "Critique" on without having a "right" opinion either way - just to discuss for a technical standpoint what we all see in the images.

I saw both under and over exposed areas - dark background with highlights on the leg and leading edge of the perch ……… a dark area in front of the eye …….. all caused by shadows and highlights, (which many will say is natural lighting - quite true) …… the catch light in the eye was a little weak and focus on the eye may have been very very slightly off, (because of the angle that the bird is at)
I would also comment on the head angle …… but this is a matter of composition (and taste) … I would have like to have seen a shot with a slight turn towards the camera

my edit took two or three minutes and is not in any way the best that could be done, if you approve of using LR and or PS … again a matter of what you prefer and how you see things

but remember we are looking at a posted jpeg whose quality has been reduced through web posting

EDIT

ORIGINAL

 

[den]

Much better with a bit of thought in the PP exposure looks much better with some nice NR done

 

[BillN_33]

my comments to Wez

your settings look good

• ƒ/8.0

• 500.0 mm

• 1/500

• 1000 iso

no problem with high ISO on these latest sensors ……… I would generally now go that route, (using f8 and a fast shutter speed) and look at noise reduction in the background ….. (not particularly the same NR on the subject)

you can always "bracket" if you are unsure about the exact exposure - then see what the in-camera histogram looks like and adjust as necessary

it is common sense, but get as much "right" in the camera before pp - if you are serious about using pp shoot RAW …… if not, mild pp works just as well on jpegs and the jpeg output straight out of the camera will probably look "better" than the RAW the camera produces……. but compare and decide for yourself

IMVHO - before the usual disagreements roll in … Critique on here has really become like "walking on egg shells"

 

[FourRingCircus]

Here's is an edit maybe for discussion - I am not saying that it is better or worse - but just difference

Well done Bill.

Perhaps 'exposure' is more subjective than we like to think? My personal preference is still the original. To quantify this, I find the edit to be slightly more harsh and two-dimensional. I think a lot of the (golden) colours have lost some of their warmth and also the greens have lost some of their depth in the edit.

You and I are aware that we have different (colour tone) tastes in what we see, so there is no right and wrong here.

My comment to Den was (genuinely) to discover if his 'opinion' was based in some kind of fact that I was lacking knowledge in, or if it was indeed just subjective opinion.

 

[BillN_33]

Well done Bill.

Perhaps 'exposure' is more subjective than we like to think? My personal preference is still the original. To quantify this, I find the edit to be slightly more harsh and two-dimensional. I think a lot of the (golden) colours have lost some of their warmth and also the greens have lost some of their depth in the edit.

You and I are aware that we have different (colour tone) tastes in what we see, so there is no right and wrong here.

My comment to Den was (genuinely) to discover if his 'opinion' was based in some kind of fact that I was lacking knowledge in, or if it was indeed just subjective opinion.

After extensive research I have come to the conclusion, backed up by evidence from many, that Canon shooters see the world through warm golden colours and Nikon shooter have a more realistic "colder" view on life. It is the way Canon shooters compensate themselves in life for their mis-choice of equipment

Canon colours are warmer than Nikon colours

I think that a camera sensor will never reproduce the colours, lights and shades that the human eye sees …….. and there is little way of judging that what you see is what I see, (generally, exactly or whatever), - all our eyes are different and we go through life with individual preferences …….. if we can get this across in this section we can agree to disagree sensibly ………… but there will be "crap" shots that are so bad that this needs pointing out directly

I do believe that your comments to Den were genuine - but as I said I saw under exposure in the bg and on the bird as well as over exposure on the bird - it depends how you look and my comments were from technical standpoint - I did nor say my edit was "better" In fact I said the opposite


(from "Windbag the Sailor")

 

[FourRingCircus]

After extensive research I have come to the conclusion, backed up by evidence from many, that Canon shooters see the world through warm golden colours and Nikon shooter have a more realistic "colder" view on life.<snip>Canon colours are warmer than Nikon colours.

I've snipped the inappropriate bit there!

This could actually be quite a ground-breaking discovery Bill. For years, I've participated in the Canon/Nikon 'thing' for a bit of banter, and always ended a conversation with the advice that they are just as good as eachother and the user will know what 'feels best' in the hands, otherwise they are the same. Perhaps we should now be saying that the user will know what 'feels best' when they view the photographs. You could be onto something, but it's always nice to be known as warm and friendly rather than cold hearted!!

 

[BillN_33]

I've snipped the inappropriate bit there!

This could actually be quite a ground-breaking discovery Bill. For years, I've participated in the Canon/Nikon 'thing' for a bit of banter, and always ended a conversation with the advice that they are just as good as eachother and the user will know what 'feels best' in the hands, otherwise they are the same. Perhaps we should now be saying that the user will know what 'feels best' when they view the photographs. You could be onto something, but it's always nice to be known as warm and friendly rather than cold hearted!!

Buy a Sigma DPM ….. they are interesting …. very

and I suppose my view is that you can warm the image up once it is technically "correct" - correct in the sense that you have done what you can to be happy with it - if you are happy to pp images - some are not, a bit like women and hairy legs

 

[den]

Perhaps 'exposure' is more subjective than we like to think...you're quote John , and this is what I find difficult to accept ...exposure is either correct or in correct ,if a photographer deliberately under exposes and vice versa for a particular image he or she is looking for than yes the finished article is open for discussion to whatever reaction it receives ,then in my opinion its subjective....

 

[wezza13]

Thank you all for your replies. I didn't think it would generate this much discussion!

When you compare the two images side-by-side (or above-below) as Bill posted, yes, the edited one does look better exposed. I will try to keep the eye on the exposure indicator. I normally use spot metering for wildlife but, I believe, I switched to matrix for a couple of evenings, to try it out.

it is common sense, but get as much "right" in the camera before pp - if you are serious about using pp shoot RAW …… if not, mild pp works just as well on jpegs and the jpeg output straight out of the camera will probably look "better" than the RAW the camera produces……. but compare and decide for yourself

It is shot in Raw. I've always shot in Raw purely for the pp angle. I'm really not that good at pp but am still learning it. I have LR 5.5 and PS CC.

Assuming the 7100 is like my 7200, you can select afc single point focus and move it around with the thumb pad on the back of the body. May not work for you, but worth trying.

Yes, I can move the single point in AF-C mode. I'm definitely going to try that, thanks for the tip. Is it okay to use for BiF too? As I said previously, I keep it on 51-point AF but a lot of my BiF shots are blurry. I know that there is a lot of technique involved but I'd like to think that I "should" have a few more keepers!

It's a learning curve and I'm glad to be starting off on the right foot. Need to work on the pp side of things, I know. It's also tricky being colour-blind!

 

[u8myufo]

You are doing fine Wez and do not be shy of posting up your work for C&C.Some good points raised with regards to your focusing,the more you practise the better you will become.Within reason there is no such thing as wrong exposure,if you adjust accordingly for highlights on a subject or backlighting for example then do so, a camera is stupid most of the time, and will tell you diferent when it comes to getting correct exposure on small subjects.I am with John with regards to the original being more pleasing than Bill`s edit,another example of sucking the life out of it just to make it look brighter and try to get every detail to stand out,why people do this is beyond me,but then again I am just another in a long line of experts on here

 

[BillN_33]

I am with John with regards to the original being more pleasing than Bill`s edit,another example of sucking the life out of it just to make it look brighter and try to get every detail to stand out,why people do this is beyond me,but then again I am just another in a long line of experts on here

the usual comment from someone who just did not read, or understand what was said ……. and there again that is why there are problems on here ……. a lack of the ability to understand

and thereby lies the classic problem from one coming in from the shadows - no matter how you try to resolve problems, there is always one

It is even comical as your edit "drags out" and creates more detail through sharpening than the others posted, it verges on hypocrisy

I give up

 

[FourRingCircus]

the usual comment from someone who just did not read, or understand what was said ……. and there again that is why there are problems on here ……. a lack of the ability to understand

I am beginning to see the problem on here Bill......

We've not had a crossed word..... yet...... but.....

I give up

Perhaps that's best.

Can I just say that, in a time long before you arrived here, a time even before Rich stopped smoking, he was one of the most welcoming and helpful creatures on this forum. He welcomed me in here, helped me to frame/edit pictures and encouraged me to go out and do more. It seems you have an issue with him now. I'm beginning to lose track.

Sorry Bill, but maybe it's time to step back from they keyboard and take a breath before posting grief at all n' sundry?