Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Official Photography Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Copelius View Post
    I actually had edited it, but I am still learning as one can tell.
    If you don't mind me asking, what did you use to take the original? What editing changes did you make and why?

    I really only applied two types of adjustments. Both learned from participating in a forum dedicated to image critiquing. Where everyone comments on alternative editing and still remain constructive.

    Lesson one that I learned is that most people will have a preference for an image (especially nature) with high contrast. There are various tools for adding contrast to an image, some simple, some more complex. One aspect is global, the image usually works best when some part has nearly full white, and another part has near full black. Another is to target a specific range of tonalities. In this case I thought there was too little contrast in the lighter tones, so I increased it.

    The only other change I made is the sky. Aqua tones work for water, but usually too much green looks unnatural for a sky. Most people have a strong expectation for blue skies, it can easily distract the viewer when it does not meet that expectation. I took some green out of the sky.

    Apologies if I offended.

    Sent from my P00I using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
      If you don't mind me asking, what did you use to take the original? What editing changes did you make and why?

      I really only applied two types of adjustments. Both learned from participating in a forum dedicated to image critiquing. Where everyone comments on alternative editing and still remain constructive.

      Lesson one that I learned is that most people will have a preference for an image (especially nature) with high contrast. There are various tools for adding contrast to an image, some simple, some more complex. One aspect is global, the image usually works best when some part has nearly full white, and another part has near full black. Another is to target a specific range of tonalities. In this case I thought there was too little contrast in the lighter tones, so I increased it.

      The only other change I made is the sky. Aqua tones work for water, but usually too much green looks unnatural for a sky. Most people have a strong expectation for blue skies, it can easily distract the viewer when it does not meet that expectation. I took some green out of the sky.

      Apologies if I offended.

      Sent from my P00I using Tapatalk
      No offense at all. I use a Nikon D7200 with a 70-300mm extended to 300mm, f7.1, 1/3200, ISO 800. I cannot remember the edits I made but they were pretty simple dealing with contrast and brightness, likely with the editor on the Flickr website.

      I would have to be a lot more confident in my shooting and editing abilities to take offense at any criticism, especially from someone who has a lot more experience than I do and whose work I admire. Now if you were to criticize my singing . . .
      “Every player dreams of being a Yankee, and if they don’t it’s because they never got the chance.” Aroldis Chapman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Copelius View Post
        No offense at all. I use a Nikon D7200 with a 70-300mm extended to 300mm, f7.1, 1/3200, ISO 800. I cannot remember the edits I made but they were pretty simple dealing with contrast and brightness, likely with the editor on the Flickr website.

        I would have to be a lot more confident in my shooting and editing abilities to take offense at any criticism, especially from someone who has a lot more experience than I do and whose work I admire. Now if you were to criticize my singing . . .
        Did you shoot jpeg, post to flickr and adjust there? I wouldn't mind taking a look at the original. Did you crop? The link you posted to this forum links to a lower resolution (800 x 534) rendition of the original (unless this was a very significant crop). A quick check shows the 7200 contains a 24 Mp (6000 x 4000) sensor. At the settings you posted, if you were able to get close, there should be a lot to work with.

        Took a look at the editor available on flickr, it has more that I thought it would, but still only a very basic set of functionality. Investing in post-processing (in both tools and time) can really benefit the overall look and feel of images.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
          Did you shoot jpeg, post to flickr and adjust there? I wouldn't mind taking a look at the original. Did you crop? The link you posted to this forum links to a lower resolution (800 x 534) rendition of the original (unless this was a very significant crop). A quick check shows the 7200 contains a 24 Mp (6000 x 4000) sensor. At the settings you posted, if you were able to get close, there should be a lot to work with.

          Took a look at the editor available on flickr, it has more that I thought it would, but still only a very basic set of functionality. Investing in post-processing (in both tools and time) can really benefit the overall look and feel of images.
          Looking back at the original, I guess I didn't get around to the editing on that one. I had played with it but ultimately posted the unedited version. The size was based on the share option in flickr. Here is the original size run through photoshop elements. Thanks for your continued pointers.
          “Every player dreams of being a Yankee, and if they don’t it’s because they never got the chance.” Aroldis Chapman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Copelius View Post
            Looking back at the original, I guess I didn't get around to the editing on that one. I had played with it but ultimately posted the unedited version. The size was based on the share option in flickr. Here is the original size run through photoshop elements. Thanks for your continued pointers.
            That's nice given the conditions. The light areas around the head are completely blown, but that is the best choice to maintain detail elsewhere. Does elements have an option to remove chromatic aberrations? That's the slight purple fringes that you see around the branches. A lot of software will remove that automatically. Almost all lenses have a bit, especially when pointed towards a light source. Purple or green usually.

            Sent from my P00I using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • Went out again with the goal of showing what the 2x extender can do on the 70-200. Looking for a perched bird.

              1/1250 f/5.6 ISO 1600
              I uploaded this at 2048 pixels (I think that is the Facebook max) tall to preserve detail when downloaded. Wanted to show how much detail/sharpness is there in a higher resolution image. To really see that best quality, download the image and make sure you are using a viewer capable of viewing at actual size. If the properties of the .jpg don't show 1638 x 2048 (8 x 10) you retrieved a scaled down version.


              1/400 f/5.6 ISO 400
              Last edited by swampfrog; 02-19-2017, 09:38 AM. Reason: add other image

              Comment


              • Swampy - I'm always pleased to view your work. That last one might be worth some money.

                When poet puts pen to paper imagination breathes life, finding hearth and home.
                -Mid Summer's Night Dream

                Comment


                • Originally posted by clackamascoug View Post
                  Swampy - I'm always pleased to view your work. That last one might be worth some money.
                  Hardly anyone buys images anymore, at least not for any significant amount of money. This particular bird seems to hang out on the same post quite often about 20 feet from the road. Probably a good 20 people got nearly that same image. There is some money in event shooting, but nature, landscape, and wildlife are dead ends unless you're selling teaching, training, or tours. I print some from time to time to hang in the house (mostly landscape), but other than that it's a hobby, which is rewarding enough in the sharing of images with friends, acquaintances, and complete strangers. I appreciate the opportunity to post here.

                  Comment


                  • Went out to Antelope Island the other day. Didn't need any kind of zoom.



                    Also played with some filters to make the picture look old. Still need some work but having more fun.

                    “Every player dreams of being a Yankee, and if they don’t it’s because they never got the chance.” Aroldis Chapman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Copelius View Post
                      Went out to Antelope Island the other day. Didn't need any kind of zoom.
                      This is nice. The horizon doesn't cut through the animal, which is good. The colors tones are nice. If you could just get him to pull his head up and look at you next time!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
                        This is nice. The horizon doesn't cut through the animal, which is good. The colors tones are nice. If you could just get him to pull his head up and look at you next time!
                        As close as we were, I didn't want him getting any ideas
                        “Every player dreams of being a Yankee, and if they don’t it’s because they never got the chance.” Aroldis Chapman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Copelius View Post
                          As close as we were, I didn't want him getting any ideas
                          I remember watching a presentation from Randy Hanna who does African Safari tours. Quick pointers for shooting compelling images for 4-legged animals include the following:

                          1. Two eyes
                          2. At least 3 legs
                          3. The tail

                          For the eyes, he said you don't have to get the full 2nd eye, just some characteristic of it, lashes, contour of the socket, etc.

                          He told a story how he had got this image:



                          Laying down on the ground, he said he had done this enough to learn that elephants will usually feint charge 2-3 times before fully committing, but he also has another safari driver waiting to the side to put a vehicle between the elephant and him if he guesses wrong.

                          Safari participants don't get to attempt this shot.

                          Comment


                          • Clouds and mountains played nicely together coming home from Wyoming today.
                            “Every player dreams of being a Yankee, and if they don’t it’s because they never got the chance.” Aroldis Chapman

                            Comment


                            • Sometimes, it's just about the clouds



                              Around the refuge without the long lens attached



                              Still not happy with my processing with fog in the frame, I always lose the sense of depth that is there, but this one isn't bad

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
                                Sometimes, it's just about the clouds
                                Would you like to try your hand at this one? It was a really strange, boiling cloud formation, more dramatic than my cell phone could capture.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X