Getting the hang of it... photos comments requested
jmc
in the States, I added a Canon 70-300mm DO IS ISM lens to my kit, which
has been a wonderful improvement, finally bringing wildlife
photography within my reach.
While there, I went to Wyoming and came back with over 600 photographs.
It's taking absolutely forever to do the edits required of that many
RAW photos, but at least it's giving me lots of practice. Taking that
many photos also gave me some good practice with the Rebel XTi, but I am
now completely addicted to DSLR photography.
I've stuck two photos from Wyoming and a bunch of bird photos up at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelcat/
Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
jmc
jazzology
> I might be getting the hang of this whole DSLR thing. While I was back
> in the States, I added a Canon 70-300mm DO IS ISM lens to my kit, which
> has been a wonderful improvement, finally bringing wildlife
> photography within my reach.
>
> While there, I went to Wyoming and came back with over 600 photographs.
> It's taking absolutely forever to do the edits required of that many
> RAW photos, but at least it's giving me lots of practice. Taking that
> many photos also gave me some good practice with the Rebel XTi, but I am
> now completely addicted to DSLR photography.
>
>
> Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
> the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
>
> jmc
I'm a nikon user so my experience is limited to that...
I looked at a couple images from your flikr gallery and my first
thought was "do you use sharpening in camera or post?" if not, read
the following
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/sharpen1/sharpen1.htm
your images are great, but IMO could use some finishing for the "wow"
factor. I'm still figuring all this out as well... With my nik, it's
easy for me to get close, and it takes a bit more effort to get it
perfect. I used to think sharpening was just compensating for my
inability to focus.
Jazz
Justin C
jmc <NOnewsgr...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
[snip]
> Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
> the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
The bee eaters (if that's what they are) look good, two birds (huddled
together for warmth I guess) interacting like this is probably not a
common shot. Though they're not shot from the best angle... in front is
usually better, but, of course, they won't be there long enough.
The Australian Hobby would be great if it hadn't got it's feet in such
an awkward pose. Another problem with this, and a few other bird of prey
shots you have, they have the leather leg straps on showing they're
captive. Not ideal for wildlife photography. The one kite against the
hillside doesn't show the straps and, therefore, looks much better,
probably my favourite of the lot. The blue wren (or whatever it is) is
out of focus, I don't think you should have submitted it because it
lowers the quality of the collection.
Just my opinion.
Wild Cabayo
"jmc" <NOnewsgr...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
news:57pd8rF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> ...snipped...
>
> I've stuck two photos from Wyoming and a bunch of bird photos up at
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelcat/
>
> Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
> the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
>
> jmc
Hey there. I love the shot of the Rainbow Beeeaters. Cute as hek. What mode
are you shooting in? P, A, S, M? (By the way, I'm a Minolta DSLR shooter).
If you're shooting in any of the automatic modes, I really can't comment
much on anything except for composition, cropping and subject matter and, as
far as that goes, subject matter looks great. Love the shot of the bighorns.
The lighting, composition and DOF on most of the shots I personally like,
look good!
I would've played around with the shot of the mailboxes, different angle,
tighter crop, ...anything involving a landscape with a blue sky I tend to
get like Ansel and fel like I want to exaggerate the colors to add more
impact, or surrealism. Sometimes, to the point of fantasy.
Good job all around. Welcome to the world of addicted DSLR operators.
Robert Coe
<NOREPLYwildcab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: "jmc" <NOnewsgr...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
"get like Ansel and … exaggerate the colors"?? Are you serious? Most of
Ansel's important work (and a large fraction of his unimportant work) was in
B&W! What little color he did shoot tended to be rather muted. Either that or
I've got to get new glasses.
As for Jodi's picture of the mailboxes, I wouldn't have changed the
composition at all. (I'd dump the square cropping though.) I did find it hard
to display on my monitor: all the diagonal lines formed into rows of white
dots. Maybe it was oversharpened, or maybe the resolutions she used were badly
handled by the JPEG converter. But I thought the color and composition were
excellent. My wife, a pretty good oil and watercolor painter, thought so too.
Bob
Wild Cabayo
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:9mmg13lhrlu326ohv...@4ax.com...
>
> "get like Ansel and . exaggerate the colors"?? Are you serious? Most of
> Ansel's important work (and a large fraction of his unimportant work) was
> in
> B&W! What little color he did shoot tended to be rather muted. Either that
> or
> I've got to get new glasses.
>
Yes, I was serious actually. As in, "experiment", "explore", "tinker", i.e.
using different lab techniques in the world of PhotoShop. I know Ansel does
his thing in the world of black and white and 254 shades of grey (in the
print lab). I was referring to the world of color in the digital lab.
> As for Jodi's picture of the mailboxes, I wouldn't have changed the
> composition at all. (I'd dump the square cropping though.) I did find it
> hard
> to display on my monitor: all the diagonal lines formed into rows of white
> dots. Maybe it was oversharpened, or maybe the resolutions she used were
> badly
> handled by the JPEG converter. But I thought the color and composition
> were
> excellent. My wife, a pretty good oil and watercolor painter, thought so
> too.
>
> Bob
On my end, the mailboxes/landscape scene didn't look oversharpened. Your
glasses, my eyes and our monitors are probably functioning the way they're
supposed to if we both got this far on Usenet.
What I was suggesting to Jodi was that I, me, like to see the same scene
from different angles. That's just me and how I like to do things with my
photography. What Jodi displayed was perfectly fine.
Regards
jmc
> On Apr 7, 6:21 am, jmc <NOnewsgroupsS...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>> I might be getting the hang of this whole DSLR thing. While I was back
>> in the States, I added a Canon 70-300mm DO IS ISM lens to my kit, which
>> has been a wonderful improvement, finally bringing wildlife
>> photography within my reach.
>>
>> While there, I went to Wyoming and came back with over 600 photographs.
>> It's taking absolutely forever to do the edits required of that many
>> RAW photos, but at least it's giving me lots of practice. Taking that
>> many photos also gave me some good practice with the Rebel XTi, but I am
>> now completely addicted to DSLR photography.
>>
>> I've stuck two photos from Wyoming and a bunch of bird photos up athttp://www.flickr.com/photos/travelcat/
>>
>> Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
>> the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
>>
>> jmc
>
> I'm a nikon user so my experience is limited to that...
>
> I looked at a couple images from your flikr gallery and my first
> thought was "do you use sharpening in camera or post?" if not, read
> the following
>
Mostly post. A bit of in camera, with jpgs. But most of these were
shot RAW. Why? I can't tell if your criticizing or complementing :)
> http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/sharpen1/sharpen1.htm
>
Thanks. I don't have Photoshop (newer version won't work on my Win2K
system), but do have PE. I'll take a look.
> your images are great, but IMO could use some finishing for the "wow"
> factor. I'm still figuring all this out as well... With my nik, it's
> easy for me to get close, and it takes a bit more effort to get it
> perfect. I used to think sharpening was just compensating for my
> inability to focus.
>
What sort of finishing do I need to get that "wow" factor? That's what
I'm trying to learn here.
> Jazz
>
jmc
> In article <57pd8rF...@mid.individual.net>,
> jmc <NOnewsgr...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
>> the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
>
> The bee eaters (if that's what they are) look good, two birds (huddled
> together for warmth I guess) interacting like this is probably not a
> common shot. Though they're not shot from the best angle... in front is
> usually better, but, of course, they won't be there long enough.
>
they're in an aviary, and I was shooting through glass. If I'd wanted
to go off-trail I'd have to shoot through mesh instead.
> The Australian Hobby would be great if it hadn't got it's feet in such
> an awkward pose.
Couldn't help that. He didn't stay in one place for long. They're
*fast* (a type of falcon, they're as fast as the Peregrin) and I got
precious few in-focus in-frame pics. To be honest, don't think the foot
positioning was that bad.
> Another problem with this, and a few other bird of prey
> shots you have, they have the leather leg straps on showing they're
> captive. Not ideal for wildlife photography.
But ideal for *learning* wildlife photography. Raptor exhibitions are
great for practice! I can try to clone them out, but I'm still learning
to do that and 'leave no tracks'.
> The one kite against the
> hillside doesn't show the straps and, therefore, looks much better,
> probably my favourite of the lot.
He's actually a wild one that has apparently started coming by for the
food - the Kites catch and eat their food in midair, so during the
display the falconer throws food high in the air - and the wild one was
waiting...
I like this one a lot too, it's the sharpest of all my raptor photos,
and shows good color (colour). Just wish he didn't blend in with the
background so well :)
The blue wren (or whatever it is) is
> out of focus, I don't think you should have submitted it because it
> lowers the quality of the collection.
>
It doesn't look so bad in it's original form. A bit soft, but not as
bad as it looks in Flickr. It's shot through dirty glass in another
aviary. I'll probably take it out, 'cause I agree with you anyway.
> Just my opinion.
That's what I'm looking for! Thanks!
jmc
jmc
> "jmc" <NOnewsgr...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
> news:57pd8rF...@mid.individual.net...
>> ...snipped...
>>
>> I've stuck two photos from Wyoming and a bunch of bird photos up at
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelcat/
>>
>> Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
>> the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
>>
>> jmc
>
> Hey there. I love the shot of the Rainbow Beeeaters. Cute as hek. What mode
> are you shooting in? P, A, S, M? (By the way, I'm a Minolta DSLR shooter).
>
P, mostly. I never shoot in full automatic, and still only fiddle with
A and Tv modes. Not good enough for full Manual yet. In time :)
> If you're shooting in any of the automatic modes, I really can't comment
> much on anything except for composition, cropping and subject matter and, as
> far as that goes, subject matter looks great. Love the shot of the bighorns.
> The lighting, composition and DOF on most of the shots I personally like,
> look good!
>
> I would've played around with the shot of the mailboxes, different angle,
> tighter crop, ...anything involving a landscape with a blue sky I tend to
> get like Ansel and fel like I want to exaggerate the colors to add more
> impact, or surrealism. Sometimes, to the point of fantasy.
>
I'm not really into surrealism, unless I have a good picture I screwed
up somehow (focus or color cast, usually). They I'll play with it to
try to salvage something from the mess :)
I do like a really blue sky though. Fortunately Wyoming obliges with
some of the bluest skies I've ever seen, and I've been around a bit.
I'll be putting up some of the landscape shots when I get to them, and
you'll see what I mean...
> Good job all around. Welcome to the world of addicted DSLR operators.
>
>
Thanks. Having fun, but spending *way* too much time here adjusting
pictures. Only about 400 left to go!
jmc
jmc
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:56:58 -0700, "Wild Cabayo"
> <NOREPLYwildcab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :
> : "jmc" <NOnewsgr...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
> : news:57pd8rF...@mid.individual.net...
> : >
> : > ...snipped...
> : >
> : > I've stuck two photos from Wyoming and a bunch of bird photos up at
> : > http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelcat/
> : >
> : > Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
> : > the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
> : I would've played around with the shot of the mailboxes, different angle,
> : tighter crop, ...anything involving a landscape with a blue sky I tend to
> : get like Ansel and fel like I want to exaggerate the colors to add more
> : impact, or surrealism. Sometimes, to the point of fantasy.
>
> "get like Ansel and … exaggerate the colors"?? Are you serious? Most of
> Ansel's important work (and a large fraction of his unimportant work) was in
> B&W! What little color he did shoot tended to be rather muted. Either that or
> I've got to get new glasses.
>
> As for Jodi's picture of the mailboxes, I wouldn't have changed the
> composition at all. (I'd dump the square cropping though.) I did find it hard
> to display on my monitor: all the diagonal lines formed into rows of white
> dots. Maybe it was oversharpened, or maybe the resolutions she used were badly
> handled by the JPEG converter. But I thought the color and composition were
> excellent. My wife, a pretty good oil and watercolor painter, thought so too.
>
> Bob
Square? Are you looking at the same pic I am? Looked pretty
rectangular to me... It's 500px X 333px.
If you're seeing a square, then that may be while you're having problems?
Thanks for the comments though. From other angles there's too many
neighbors and not enough mountains - this is the best angle there is.
jmc
jmc
> As for Jodi's picture of the mailboxes, I wouldn't have changed the
> composition at all. (I'd dump the square cropping though.) I did find it hard
> to display on my monitor: all the diagonal lines formed into rows of white
> dots. Maybe it was oversharpened, or maybe the resolutions she used were badly
> handled by the JPEG converter. But I thought the color and composition were
> excellent. My wife, a pretty good oil and watercolor painter, thought so too.
>
> Bob
I see now, your white-dot problem. Went back to the original, and even
with sharpness turned down, the edges of that one mailbox holder, and
some of the tall weeds, still look like they're made up of dashes
(rather than dots). This was shot RAW, so I don't know what's causing
the effect, since my understanding is that RAW doesn't do any in-camera
sharpening. Am I wrong about that?
jmc
Robert Coe
wrote:
: Suddenly, without warning, Robert Coe exclaimed (08-Apr-07 12:59 PM):
: > As for Jodi's picture of the mailboxes, I wouldn't have changed the
: > composition at all. (I'd dump the square cropping though.) I did find it hard
: > to display on my monitor: all the diagonal lines formed into rows of white
: > dots. Maybe it was oversharpened, or maybe the resolutions she used were badly
: > handled by the JPEG converter. But I thought the color and composition were
: > excellent. My wife, a pretty good oil and watercolor painter, thought so too.
: >
: > Bob
:
: Square? Are you looking at the same pic I am? Looked pretty
: rectangular to me... It's 500px X 333px.
:
: If you're seeing a square, then that may be while you're having problems?
On your Travelcat main page, if I click on the picture, then on "All sizes",
I'm shown a selection of "Available sizes". One of them is a 75x75 square.
When I posted my comment, I hadn't noticed that it was so small; I guess it's
just a copy of the icon that appears on the main page. In any case, the
picture obviously doesn't look right in that format.
: Thanks for the comments though. From other angles there's too many
: neighbors and not enough mountains - this is the best angle there is.
I was prepared to assume that. If the subject isn't moving or on the other
side of a canyon, only a lazy photographer fails to find the right angle.
BTW, why does the highway sign appear to be on the wrong side of the road (the
location being Wyoming, not Australia)? You didn't swipe it from the other
side and set it up there just to add to the composition, did you? ;^)
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
: Suddenly, without warning, Robert Coe exclaimed (08-Apr-07 12:59 PM):
Yes. (You have a Canon XTi, right?) In-camera sharpening is a characteristic
of the "picture style", which is independent of whether you're shooting in RAW
mode. For each style, you can select any of eight levels of sharpening
(including none), and each style has a different default. Only the "Neutral"
and "Faithful" styles apply (by default) no sharpening.
Bob
jmc
> BTW, why does the highway sign appear to be on the wrong side of the road (the
> location being Wyoming, not Australia)? You didn't swipe it from the other
> side and set it up there just to add to the composition, did you? ;^)
>
> Bob
Y'know, I've spent so much time on the wrong side of the road, that
didn't even occur to me! But no, I didn't touch the sign.
jmc
ja...@jamesphotography_nospam_.ca
hats off.
More "wow factor" is mentioned in this thread... may I take the
liberty?
See http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bird.html
I took a quick 5 minutes to tweak your image, so it's not perfect, but
basically you get the idea.
Here's what I applied/adjusted:
-Noise Ninja
-highlight/shadows
-selective color boost, particulary red and green
-Intellisharpen II, and a bit of USM @ .5 pixel radius
-dodging & burning
-blur tool around the outside
-overall saturation up a bit.
I love tweaking images to get every bit of beauty out of them as
possible, though I know much of it is subjective to the observer.
Cheers,
--jim h
http://www.jamesphotography.ca
jmc
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:51:05 +0930, jmc
> <NOnewsgr...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've stuck two photos from Wyoming and a bunch of bird photos up at
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelcat/
>>
>> Comments on the photos and how I could improve them (both the taking and
>> the RAW manipulation) are welcome!
>>
>>
>>
>> jmc
>
(21-Apr-07 2:31 AM):
> Awesome shots - I don't have the patience for avian photography, so
> hats off.
>
> More "wow factor" is mentioned in this thread... may I take the
> liberty?
>
> See http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bird.html
>
> I took a quick 5 minutes to tweak your image, so it's not perfect, but
> basically you get the idea.
>
> Here's what I applied/adjusted:
> -Noise Ninja
> -highlight/shadows
> -selective color boost, particulary red and green
> -Intellisharpen II, and a bit of USM @ .5 pixel radius
> -dodging & burning
> -blur tool around the outside
> -overall saturation up a bit.
>
> I love tweaking images to get every bit of beauty out of them as
> possible, though I know much of it is subjective to the observer.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> --jim h
>
> http://www.jamesphotography.ca
>
Yea, much better than my version.
Problem is, I know what Noise Ninja is, but the rest of what you did
(aside from even more saturation) is beyond me. What did you do to the
highlights/shadows? Why did you boost red and green? How much, and how
do you know how much? I can guess what Intellisharpen is, but is it a
separate app like Noise Ninja, or is it a Photoshop plugin? What's USM
(unsharp mask?), and how do you know what radius to try? Where did you
dodge, where did you burn?
And where the heck did you find time to do all that on a photo that
isn't even yours?
See, I've a long way to go - and I'd need a month of Sundays to do that
kind of editing on the 800 pics from those two collections!
jmc
ja...@jamesphotography_nospam_.ca
Hey,
I wrote a how-to article on much of the techniques I describe above -
check out http://www.jamesphotography.ca/post_prod_with_photoshop.html
After becoming accustomed to these steps, it doesn't take me much time
to edit any given photograph. I find it a vital part of my workflow,
given the fact that I've invested a significant amount in my camera
gear, heck, I should get the most out of my shots, right?
I burned the white of the bird's belly to liven it up, and dodged the
outer 4 corners to dim down the brightness a bit. Intellisharpen is a
Photoshop add-in that appears in the "File - Automate" menu, not the
usual filter menu like Noise Ninja does.
Where did I find the time? It only took 5 minutes. Why? I like to
pass on what I learn.
Cheers,
jim
jmc
>
> jim
>
> http://www.jamesphotography.ca
>
James, thanks for that. I'll have to find ways to use those techniques
with the software I have available. I don't have photoshop because it
won't run on anything above Windows 2000 (I have reasons for not wanting
XP and most definitely NOT Vista). I have GIMP but haven't learned how
to use it yet. Looks like I should take the time to learn it...
jmc