the first bird with my K5

**i_trax** · 06-03-2012, 02:01 AM

the DA18-250 with K5 - very impressive kit.
GREY western form Butcherbird

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

Last edited by i_trax; 06-03-2012 at 06:54 AM.

rawr · 06-03-2012, 06:08 AM

Greetings from an east coast Butcherbird

K-5 DAL 55-300

Juvenile Pied Butcherbird portrait 2

**i_trax** · 06-03-2012, 07:00 AM

thank you,
yes of course it was Butcherbird, was just looking through the Internet for it
kind regards
jack

telly0050 · 06-03-2012, 07:16 AM

very good bird images.
just wish it's half stop brighter

**i_trax** · 06-03-2012, 08:32 AM

I live in Western Australia with the sun extremely bright, hence I underexpose all my out door photos, it is much safer and I just like them that way,
overexposed photo looks bad and it is useless.
thank you for looking and comments

WightWalker · 06-03-2012, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by telly0050

very good bird images.
just wish it's half stop brighter

And a tad sharper.

I appreciate underexposing to preserve highlights but post processing can bring out the detail in the shadows.

telly0050 · 06-03-2012, 10:17 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by i_trax

I live in Western Australia with the sun extremely bright, hence I underexpose all my out door photos, it is much safer and I just like them that way,
overexposed photo looks bad and it is useless.
thank you for looking and comments

yes i agree with you, i tend to underexpose my image by half stop most the time just to be safe.
however in this case i would suggest brighten the image up, since the subject is the bird and its head is looking nearly completely black here.

Drom · 06-03-2012, 10:43 AM

Nice photos and I agree regarding the post processing. With my current lenses, in auto and semi-auto modes, my K-r consistently shoots images just a hair on the under-exposed side. I rarely get an over-exposed image, which is wonderful . I think it is very difficult to correct an over-exposed image in PP; at least I haven't figured out how to do it well .

Since i got Adobe Elements, all I need to do with a photo like the ones you have here is run them through Smart Fix in Elements. One click and it seems to brighten them up just right. I usually have to do little else.

I like your third image the best.

SKwan · 06-03-2012, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by telly0050

however in this case i would suggest brighten the image up, since the subject is the bird and its head is looking nearly completely black here.

I agree!

I always use metering mode of Center Weight. If shooting(in day time) the birds which stand on the top or edge of trees, buildlings, etc, the background will be brighter than the birds which so underexposed. Besides, for getting brighter head and eyes, I need to incrase the exposure by 1-1.5 stop.

I take RAW+. So exposure-adjusted JPEG file can be used before any post-processing.

SKB53401 - SKwan's Album: DA 55-300 F4-5.8 - PentaxForums.com

**TER-OR** · 06-04-2012, 01:41 PM

It's better to slightly underexpose. Try adjusting the exposure in post-processing to bring the bird details a bit brighter, you'll find a lot there. You can be subtle and still keep some of that nice deep blue sky.

Cool bird.

**i_trax** · 06-05-2012, 05:23 AM

thank you All,
I still do have a day job and take on average ~ 15,000 photos a year, right now has to be jpeg, just no time for RAW and PP although I do use PhotoShop occasionally and I do appreciate its capability.
Those are my first attempts with K5 and various lenses, I hope I will improve with time.
The viewing monitor also makes huge difference, this bird's black head looks pretty non-detailed on my old Dell (22") monitor, looks much better on my 24" HD Dell at work and looks actually good on 17" Mac BookPro.
I decided to leave PP till I retire, in the meantime I just want to take photos , freeze memories , even if they are not perfect, and enjoy it.
kind regards
jack

WightWalker · 06-05-2012, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by i_trax

thank you All,
I still do have a day job and take on average ~ 15,000 photos a year, right now has to be jpeg, just no time for RAW and PP although I do use PhotoShop occasionally and I do appreciate its capability.
jack

I'd still strongly advise taking shots in RAW even if you just use the supplied SilkyPix software to convert to JPG; results use the in camera settings, so your JPG file is virtually identical & you've got the RAW to fall back on.

I guess that you'll have your work cut out if you intend to go back & PP all your shots in retirement - let's hope it's a long one!

**Ron Boggs** · 06-06-2012, 05:30 PM

Shoot whichever mode you prefer. Regardless of raw image capabilities being far better than jpeg...jpegs are still more than sufficient for all but the largest of print jobs.

I shoot primarily for publication and currently have images running in full page ads in several publications (via an ad agency) as well as state regulatory publications and have two images in a magazine coming out next week. Note these are all PAID images and I am a former editor of a full color glossy magazine. I almost never shoot raw. Couldn't care less about the better PP capabilities. Old school thinking from film days is shoot it correctly when you trip the shutter. Convert it to a tiff so the file size is massive like the editors and ad agencies prefer and sell the image.

I have sold and had published perhaps 1000 images through the years (in many dozens of magazines and trade publications) so I am just an amateur as a true pro needs to sell more than that annually to make ends meet.

Whether you shoot raw or jpeg is entirely a factor of your personal preferences with the one exception being fine art prints. For larger than 20"x30" you will like the results better with raw (I tend to shoot medium format film for large fine art prints). Perfect Resize minimizes the raw advantage as well. I have had images used on billboards using Perfect Resize (actually Genuine Fractals...they just changed the name a couple years ago).

Everything the raw advocates say about raw being better is true...but only marginally relevant to the typical imaging process. I just want the check to have my name on it and the image to be something I like to look at.

06-03-2012, 10:43 AM	#8
Drom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210	Nice photos and I agree regarding the post processing. With my current lenses, in auto and semi-auto modes, my K-r consistently shoots images just a hair on the under-exposed side. I rarely get an over-exposed image, which is wonderful . I think it is very difficult to correct an over-exposed image in PP; at least I haven't figured out how to do it well . Since i got Adobe Elements, all I need to do with a photo like the ones you have here is run them through Smart Fix in Elements. One click and it seems to brighten them up just right. I usually have to do little else. I like your third image the best. Last edited by Drom; 06-03-2012 at 10:55 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Bird	sealonsf	Post Your Photos!	5	10-08-2011 09:35 AM
Nature Bird on Bird Crime	cali92rs	Post Your Photos!	7	09-26-2011 04:43 PM
Nature little bird	auntsis	Photo Critique	4	01-02-2011 04:10 PM
Nature Bird	buskel	Post Your Photos!	2	08-03-2010 02:59 AM
A black bird, a silver bird, an orange bird, a red bird.	cputeq	Post Your Photos!	5	07-28-2008 06:08 PM

06-03-2012, 06:08 AM	#2
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Greetings from an east coast Butcherbird K-5 DAL 55-300 Juvenile Pied Butcherbird portrait 2

06-03-2012, 07:00 AM	#3
i_trax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,621 Original Poster	thank you, yes of course it was Butcherbird, was just looking through the Internet for it kind regards jack

06-03-2012, 07:16 AM	#4
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233	very good bird images. just wish it's half stop brighter

06-03-2012, 08:32 AM	#5
i_trax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,621 Original Poster	I live in Western Australia with the sun extremely bright, hence I underexpose all my out door photos, it is much safer and I just like them that way, overexposed photo looks bad and it is useless. thank you for looking and comments

06-03-2012, 09:48 AM	#6
WightWalker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: IW Posts: 113	Originally posted by telly0050 very good bird images. just wish it's half stop brighter And a tad sharper. I appreciate underexposing to preserve highlights but post processing can bring out the detail in the shadows.

06-03-2012, 10:17 AM - 1 Like	#7
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233	Originally posted by i_trax I live in Western Australia with the sun extremely bright, hence I underexpose all my out door photos, it is much safer and I just like them that way, overexposed photo looks bad and it is useless. thank you for looking and comments yes i agree with you, i tend to underexpose my image by half stop most the time just to be safe. however in this case i would suggest brighten the image up, since the subject is the bird and its head is looking nearly completely black here.

06-03-2012, 10:30 PM	#9
SKwan Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Hong Kong Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 95	Originally posted by telly0050 however in this case i would suggest brighten the image up, since the subject is the bird and its head is looking nearly completely black here. I agree! I always use metering mode of Center Weight. If shooting(in day time) the birds which stand on the top or edge of trees, buildlings, etc, the background will be brighter than the birds which so underexposed. Besides, for getting brighter head and eyes, I need to incrase the exposure by 1-1.5 stop. I take RAW+. So exposure-adjusted JPEG file can be used before any post-processing. SKB53401 - SKwan's Album: DA 55-300 F4-5.8 - PentaxForums.com

06-04-2012, 01:41 PM	#10
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	It's better to slightly underexpose. Try adjusting the exposure in post-processing to bring the bird details a bit brighter, you'll find a lot there. You can be subtle and still keep some of that nice deep blue sky. Cool bird.

06-05-2012, 05:23 AM	#11
i_trax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,621 Original Poster	thank you All, I still do have a day job and take on average ~ 15,000 photos a year, right now has to be jpeg, just no time for RAW and PP although I do use PhotoShop occasionally and I do appreciate its capability. Those are my first attempts with K5 and various lenses, I hope I will improve with time. The viewing monitor also makes huge difference, this bird's black head looks pretty non-detailed on my old Dell (22") monitor, looks much better on my 24" HD Dell at work and looks actually good on 17" Mac BookPro. I decided to leave PP till I retire, in the meantime I just want to take photos , freeze memories , even if they are not perfect, and enjoy it. kind regards jack

06-05-2012, 05:45 AM	#12
WightWalker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: IW Posts: 113	Originally posted by i_trax thank you All, I still do have a day job and take on average ~ 15,000 photos a year, right now has to be jpeg, just no time for RAW and PP although I do use PhotoShop occasionally and I do appreciate its capability. jack I'd still strongly advise taking shots in RAW even if you just use the supplied SilkyPix software to convert to JPG; results use the in camera settings, so your JPG file is virtually identical & you've got the RAW to fall back on. I guess that you'll have your work cut out if you intend to go back & PP all your shots in retirement - let's hope it's a long one!

06-06-2012, 05:30 PM	#13
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	Shoot whichever mode you prefer. Regardless of raw image capabilities being far better than jpeg...jpegs are still more than sufficient for all but the largest of print jobs. I shoot primarily for publication and currently have images running in full page ads in several publications (via an ad agency) as well as state regulatory publications and have two images in a magazine coming out next week. Note these are all PAID images and I am a former editor of a full color glossy magazine. I almost never shoot raw. Couldn't care less about the better PP capabilities. Old school thinking from film days is shoot it correctly when you trip the shutter. Convert it to a tiff so the file size is massive like the editors and ad agencies prefer and sell the image. I have sold and had published perhaps 1000 images through the years (in many dozens of magazines and trade publications) so I am just an amateur as a true pro needs to sell more than that annually to make ends meet. Whether you shoot raw or jpeg is entirely a factor of your personal preferences with the one exception being fine art prints. For larger than 20"x30" you will like the results better with raw (I tend to shoot medium format film for large fine art prints). Perfect Resize minimizes the raw advantage as well. I have had images used on billboards using Perfect Resize (actually Genuine Fractals...they just changed the name a couple years ago). Everything the raw advocates say about raw being better is true...but only marginally relevant to the typical imaging process. I just want the check to have my name on it and the image to be something I like to look at.