[rkappleby]

Hi I haven't posted to the thread before - Here's one from my trusty old Takumar 300

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Designosophy]

I get the same flack from my wife.

Fortunately the fun of using the M 400/5.6 trumps all such nonsense.

Keep shooting buddy.

Tom G

Thanks, Tom. Will do, and right back at ya.

Hi I haven't posted to the thread before - Here's one from my trusty old Takumar 300

There's something very right about this photo. I think it's the color, for starters.

[jackassp]

FA* 300 Lens

[kengoh]

FA* 300 Lens

Sharp and detailed shots of the birds.

[kengoh]

Just 1 bird during a short shooting session yesterday evening with Sigma 500/F4.5.
500mm, F4.5, 1/1600s, ISO 200

[panoguy]

Just 1 bird during a short shooting session yesterday evening with Sigma 500/F4.5.

Huh. It looks almost exactly like the bird was "cut out" of one background and placed onto another, or the background was masked and then blurred.
(Sorry if this sounds like a critique - I was a high-end fashion retoucher for 15 years and old habits die hard...)

Maybe its just the complimentary color contrast playing tricks with my eyes at this resolution. Very nice action shot anyhow!

[Digitalis]

. It looks almost exactly like the bird was "cut out" of one background and placed onto another

my thoughts exactly, because the bird is rather noisy and the background doesn't have even the slightest hint of noise in it.

[kengoh]

Huh. It looks almost exactly like the bird was "cut out" of one background and placed onto another, or the background was masked and then blurred.
(Sorry if this sounds like a critique - I was a high-end fashion retoucher for 15 years and old habits die hard...)

Maybe its just the complimentary color contrast playing tricks with my eyes at this resolution. Very nice action shot anyhow!

Thank panoguy, you are right, the background is a dull white/grey sky.
The bird is almost black. I just like this action shot so try ways to preserve this pic, can't hide from your yrs of high-end fashion retouching skills.

my thoughts exactly, because the bird is rather noisy and the background doesn't have even the slightest hint of noise in it.

Hi Digitalis, your observation is correct, the background is shot at iso80 while the bird is at iso200, after brightening up, it added noise to maybe >iso1600, making it pretty obvious.

Guess I need to re-shoot in the morning where the lighting is favorable at that timing.

[panoguy]

Thank panoguy, you are right, the background is a dull white/grey sky.
The bird is almost black. I just like this action shot so try ways to preserve this pic, can't hide from your yrs of high-end fashion retouching skills.

It's an excellent moment in flight of a very colorful bird, so I would be trying just as hard to preserve it (although I'd struggle with the focus and tracking long before this - I'm not good at BIF).

It really wouldn't take that much to "integrate" the bird better with your chosen background... "Feather" (ha!) the mask around the body and slightly around the feet (but maybe not the beak) and "brush-out" the mask (more feathering done with a big, blurry brush) where the wingtips are in motion or at the bird's feathers edge, then brighten & desaturate (a lot) the area behind the upraised wing, and darken the area at the feet and tail.
Really, it's just about "selectively" lowering contrast and edge sharpness on the macro level... (easy for me to say, right?) and matching the expected backlighting for those luminous wing feathers.

Adding noise to your background might also help, but might not make as much of a difference since we almost expect to see smooth bokeh.

Well, anyhow, sorry I rambled... like I said, old habits die hard.

[traderdrew]

Hi Digitalis, your observation is correct, the background is shot at iso80 while the bird is at iso200, after brightening up, it added noise to maybe >iso1600, making it pretty obvious.

I have noticed something and a Canonite friend of mine reinforced this to me. If you started messing with the exposure in post processing, you will start creating noise. I keep my exposure right on the center unless I am shooting sunsets. When I used a Nikon I had to underexpose it about a click to two.

I don't know if you all know this, the K-5 utility can edit RAW images and it is quite handy as it has done a better job than letting my Photoshop edit the jpegs. Sooner or later I will probably purchase Lightroom.

[Lowell Goudge]

Huh. It looks almost exactly like the bird was "cut out" of one background and placed onto another, or the background was masked and then blurred.
(Sorry if this sounds like a critique - I was a high-end fashion retoucher for 15 years and old habits die hard...)

Maybe its just the complimentary color contrast playing tricks with my eyes at this resolution. Very nice action shot anyhow!

my thoughts exactly, because the bird is rather noisy and the background doesn't have even the slightest hint of noise in it.

Thank panoguy, you are right, the background is a dull white/grey sky.
The bird is almost black. I just like this action shot so try ways to preserve this pic, can't hide from your yrs of high-end fashion retouching skills.



Hi Digitalis, your observation is correct, the background is shot at iso80 while the bird is at iso200, after brightening up, it added noise to maybe >iso1600, making it pretty obvious.

Guess I need to re-shoot in the morning where the lighting is favorable at that timing.

My compliments to the digitalis and panoguy who picked up this was a created image. Also to Kengoh for explaining how it was done. Maybe we should adapt the publishing approach of stating when an image has been seriously manipulated?

[Frogfish]

my thoughts exactly, because the bird is rather noisy and the background doesn't have even the slightest hint of noise in it.

That is also very easily done with the blur brush though - just the outlines around the subject are a little more difficult - but it creates a buttery smooth bokeh without a hint of noise.

[Frogfish]

I was out yesterday with the DA*300 + Tamron x1.4 (420mm) and have to say that IQ wise that is a great combination, I think I only took the TC off once all day. AF is generally slow though and becomes very picky when the light drops.

It was a gorgeous sunny blue sky day .. the first for weeks it seems ! This is about a 50% crop or less. Minimal PP from RAW. The monkeys were about 40 yds (metres) away.



I was looking for a Manfrotto 393 a couple of days ago when I spotted and bought myself a Chinese imitation of a Wimberly that I've never seen before - not even on-line - (ca. $200 - that's quite a saving over the real thing !) and I wanted to give it a try on a thick, strong monopod I have. Works a dream and is a massive improvement over the ball-heads and the Manfrotto 410 I have. Even with the knobs loosened off a touch the lens remains firmly in place when hands off and without tightening up the knobs again.

I've bought it mainly for the Tokina 300/2.8 I've just bought from another PF shooter and think it should work great for that heavier lens, on either mono or tripod.

[8540tomg]

Nothing as exotic as Kenny's stuff but we can only shoot the things we can find right?

A very hot early spring day for S. Ontario today. I saw the usual suspects down by the local pond: a Song Sparrow, Robin and a nesting Canada Goose.



Why is there always a twig in the way?



She blends well into her environment



All shots Pentax K5, Pentax M 400/5.6 - ISO 800 at f11~16, 1/1000th sec.

Tom G

[littledrawe]

I spotted and bought myself a Chinese imitation of a Wimberly that I've never seen before - not even on-line - (ca. $200 - that's quite a saving over the real thing !) and I wanted to give it a try on a thick, strong monopod I have. Works a dream and is a massive improvement over the ball-heads and the Manfrotto 410 I have.

Do you have a link to the item or some photos and info so the rest of us can check it out?