|
Post by Mark Itol on Nov 23, 2010 14:31:43 GMT
Hi Ka Mastah, I was able to get some shots of UPD's latest attraction and would like to request for your critique on the photo below. The lighting condition was very challenging. I'm interested to know what you think on all aspects -- composition, WB, brightness, contrast, sharpening, etc. The photo is intended for web display. The processed image is a composite of two images, -1 EC for the background and as-is exposure for the bird and the perch. Processing included levels, sharpening, and saturation. NR was applied on the BG and a small branch at the bottom left was cloned out. I think I warmed it too much. Thank you in advance and I hope to learn a lot from this exercise. Unprocessed Full-Frame (converted and resized to 800x1200, DPP default settings): Processed version: EOS 40D, EF 400mm f/5.6 L, ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/10 sec, manual exposure, live view (mode 2), contrast-detect AF via live view, 190XB/393 support, cable release, cropped, 2 conversions (-1 EV on the BG), processed and resized to 800x1200
|
|
|
Post by Romy Ocon on Nov 24, 2010 1:00:18 GMT
I'm interested to know what you think on all aspects -- composition, WB, brightness, contrast, sharpening, etc. The photo is intended for web display. The processed version looks great! WB and sharpening look very pleasing. This is a matter of personal taste, but I'd probably move the subject a tiny bit to the right to keep it somewhat off-center and give some more space where it is facing. Also a matter of personal taste, I'd probably increase the contrast a bit to make it pop even more, say apply a levels adjustment of 2, 1.00, 248. Such adjustment will push a few tiny spots beyond 255, 255, 255, but that should be ok as the whole photo will be strengthened at the expense of a few blown pixels. ADDENDUM: Just a side comment on the original capture - I always make a conscious effort to frame static birds as if I'm gonna use the uncropped capture as my final comp. This gives me the flexibility to print the full frame to as large as 24"x36" even if the bird is not filling the frame. In the case of your capture, I'd move the bird to the right till its head is near the upper right third point. For BIFs, we don't have much of a choice but to aim the center point at the bird, as that AF point is most responsive.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Itol on Nov 24, 2010 13:29:54 GMT
Thanks for taking time to do a critique, Ka Mastah! This is a matter of personal taste, but I'd probably move the subject a tiny bit to the right to keep it somewhat off-center and give some more space where it is facing. Also a matter of personal taste, I'd probably increase the contrast a bit to make it pop even more, say apply a levels adjustment of 2, 1.00, 248. Such adjustment will push a few tiny spots beyond 255, 255, 255, but that should be ok as the whole photo will be strengthened at the expense of a few blown pixels. Noted! I will try these suggestions when I get back to the PP table. ADDENDUM: Just a side comment on the original capture - I always make a conscious effort to frame static birds as if I'm gonna use the uncropped capture as my final comp. This gives me the flexibility to print the full frame to as large as 24"x36" even if the bird is not filling the frame. In the case of your capture, I'd move the bird to the right till its head is near the upper right third point. For BIFs, we don't have much of a choice but to aim the center point at the bird, as that AF point is most responsive. I only make such effort when the bird becomes considerably large in the frame. I guess I have to start practicing optimal framing regardless of the bird's size in the whole frame. Many thanks again for your insights, Ka Mastah. Greatly appreciated.
|
|