[Canada_Rockies]

All great shots, Jacamar!

[jacamar]

All great shots, Jacamar!

Thanks Albert! The shorebirds are quite cooperative down there.

[Sterby]

K-1+DA*300/4+HD1.4TC, handheld, native lighting, LR(CC)+NIK...



Red-bellied Woodpecker demonstrating its flexibility as it searches for a mid-winter snack.

Cheers, and enjoy the season... M

A quick suggestion, please avoid oversharpening the image. I gives a horrible waterpaint/orangeskin effect on the image and completely destroys it. I would leave the basic sharpening in Lightroom as default and correct white balance and exposure and maybe a tad bit of clarity and/or dehaze. Maybe a bit of color correction too if needed, but I doubt it is necessary (as usually it is not needed in nature shots). Downscale and export in 1500 or 1200px per long side. I only go over 2000px if I export for prints.
Digital photography gives a lot of opportunity for post processing but it is easy to overcook the image in many ways.

[Sterby]

Interesting observation... Thank you.

Are you familiar with the male Red-bellied Woodpecker?

My intent was to express its complex luminous (almost glowing) coloration in a harsh winter setting on a crystal clear and bitterly cold afternoon.

Besides cropping the image to compose, very little was done during post-processing. Over-all, shadows were lifted, highlights dropped, then white and black points re-established. As to the subject, it was lightened slightly and contrast upped a tiny amount (via luminosity) to direct the eye and enhance the 3D effect. Since the K-1+DA*300/4+HD1.4TC work together very well in good light, no sharpening was necessary.

In sum, it sounds like you were looking for something less lively and missed my point.

Cheers, and enjoy the season... M

BTW: Is your monitor calibrated correctly? Mine is...

Hmm... this is what I am talking about, this is a crop from the default 100% zoom of the flickr image:

If this is compression, something seriously went wrong somewhere. Usually flickr degrades my images but not this badly.
The other explanation would be that the image was enlarged from a smaller pixel export. I don't know why flickr would do such a thing.

Don't get me wrong, your image is without doubt spectacular, I'm just discussing the artifacting "clouding" such a nice photo

Edit:
Oh, and Seasonal Greetings to you too, may the gravy be with you

---

Last edited by Sterby; 12-28-2017 at 05:30 PM.

[dadipentak]

this is a crop from the default 100% zoom of the flickr image

Yes, if one were intending such a crop, one might take a different approach to post processing.

[stihlmania]

Morning dove at the feeder.
Side note, please feel free to comment on any photo I post. Hint-no need to PM me as you cannot insult me in any way, read the rest-! As a late 2012 member to PF, I have done the Pentax way mostly by myself, starting in 1986. I had an Mx, a K2DMD, a K1000, a M50 1.2, a M135 2.8, many other lens that I do not remember what they were and in the early 90's I purchased the A* 400, don't even ask what it cost new back then. Everything was sold except the A*400, which I will never sell! With the addition of my new K3-II and the AF 1.7 adaptor, I have re-invented my approach to photography, no more need to make every shot count [36 exposure film] even though I had close photo lab connections [my wife was a B&W and color lab printer back then, we even had a color darkroom in the garage] but I still find it hard to take burst shots! Haha! My recent photo expedition to west Texas proved the versatility of the AF1.7 and the A*400. I can now take images that were impossible, for me, with my film cameras, or the 1st gen. digital Pentax cameras, of which I have the 1stD, 1st DS and the 1stDL. But this was the best event of my west Texas adventure- while sitting on the side of a very isolated ranch road waiting for the golden eagle to show up, instead 2 cars with FF Nikon and Canon people arrived. They most naturally told me to change camera brands as their brand was the best, then they saw the A*400 on my Bogen 3033 tripod with the Monfrotto 393 gimbal, which was kind of hidden behind a shrub . Wow, does that thing still work? What is that AF 1.7 thing [ I seem to recall Nikon also had a AF adaptor some time ago] on there? Can I see any photos you have with that set up? I showed them my JPEG's on an IPad from the last day and also mentioned that the raw images were even "MUCH" better, with little comment then they left.... and in 10 minutes the golden eagle arrived!

[stihlmania]

Image that did not go!

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[siva.ss.kumar]

Awesome owl shots

[luftfluss]

Morning dove at the feeder.
Side note, please feel free to comment on any photo I post. Hint-no need to PM me as you cannot insult me in any way, read the rest-! As a late 2012 member to PF, I have done the Pentax way mostly by myself, starting in 1986. I had an Mx, a K2DMD, a K1000, a M50 1.2, a M135 2.8, many other lens that I do not remember what they were and in the early 90's I purchased the A* 400, don't even ask what it cost new back then. Everything was sold except the A*400, which I will never sell! With the addition of my new K3-II and the AF 1.7 adaptor, I have re-invented my approach to photography, no more need to make every shot count [36 exposure film] even though I had close photo lab connections [my wife was a B&W and color lab printer back then, we even had a color darkroom in the garage] but I still find it hard to take burst shots! Haha! My recent photo expedition to west Texas proved the versatility of the AF1.7 and the A*400. I can now take images that were impossible, for me, with my film cameras, or the 1st gen. digital Pentax cameras, of which I have the 1stD, 1st DS and the 1stDL. But this was the best event of my west Texas adventure- while sitting on the side of a very isolated ranch road waiting for the golden eagle to show up, instead 2 cars with FF Nikon and Canon people arrived. They most naturally told me to change camera brands as their brand was the best, then they saw the A*400 on my Bogen 3033 tripod with the Monfrotto 393 gimbal, which was kind of hidden behind a shrub . Wow, does that thing still work? What is that AF 1.7 thing [ I seem to recall Nikon also had a AF adaptor some time ago] on there? Can I see any photos you have with that set up? I showed them my JPEG's on an IPad from the last day and also mentioned that the raw images were even "MUCH" better, with little comment then they left.... and in 10 minutes the golden eagle arrived!

Neat story, and such a healthy attitude. Unfortunately, many folks are incredibly defensive about their photography and perceive a kindly-meant suggestion as an attack.

Personally, I feel I benefit not only from comments directed at my own photos, but also those directed at others' photos and the resultant conversation.

Anyhoo, here's a dove to keep yours company.

K-5 II + Adaptall 300/2.8 (360B) + AFA 1.7x

[aslyfox]

these guys don't like to face the camera

not sure the type of dove

1 crop and pp applied

2 additional crop, no more pp done

[Canada_Rockies]

Image that did not go!

Very nice. I had to spend 10 minutes cleaning the drool from my keyboard about the A* 400. Noticed on your EXIF of the dove that the focal length is not correct. 1.7*400=680. I know that from how often I use my lowly M 400/5.6.

[micromacro]

Tamron 500mm f8 mirror lens on K-5iis. I found it easier to shoot than on K-1, plus it's less vignetting on crop. Still very difficult lens to focus, but I like to play with it.

[ChipB]

Well Lana, I'd say you did darn good with the focusing!! I've owned one of the Tamron 500 mirror lenses (55BB version) and I can definitely appreciate the focusing issues!!

[micromacro]

Thank you ChipB. I would say it's the most difficult telephoto I've ever had. I miss focus with K-1 much more than with K-5iis. Perhaps, VF magnifier helps, and the focus confirmation is pretty accurate. But omg, it shakes I need to hold my breath when push the button.

[Racer X 69]

A quick suggestion, please avoid oversharpening the image. I gives a horrible waterpaint/orangeskin effect on the image and completely destroys it. I would leave the basic sharpening in Lightroom as default and correct white balance and exposure and maybe a tad bit of clarity and/or dehaze. Maybe a bit of color correction too if needed, but I doubt it is necessary (as usually it is not needed in nature shots). Downscale and export in 1500 or 1200px per long side. I only go over 2000px if I export for prints.
Digital photography gives a lot of opportunity for post processing but it is easy to overcook the image in many ways.

Interesting observation... Thank you.

Are you familiar with the male Red-bellied Woodpecker?

My intent was to express its complex luminous (almost glowing) coloration in a harsh winter setting on a crystal clear and bitterly cold afternoon.

Besides cropping the image to compose, very little was done during post-processing. Over-all, shadows were lifted, highlights dropped, then white and black points re-established. As to the subject, it was lightened slightly and contrast upped a tiny amount (via luminosity) to direct the eye and enhance the 3D effect. Since the K-1+DA*300/4+HD1.4TC work together very well in good light, no sharpening was necessary.

In sum, it sounds like you were looking for something less lively and missed my point.

Cheers, and enjoy the season... M

BTW: Is your monitor calibrated correctly? Mine is...

Hmm... this is what I am talking about, this is a crop from the default 100% zoom of the flickr image:
Attachment 381896
If this is compression, something seriously went wrong somewhere. Usually flickr degrades my images but not this badly.
The other explanation would be that the image was enlarged from a smaller pixel export. I don't know why flickr would do such a thing.

Don't get me wrong, your image is without doubt spectacular, I'm just discussing the artifacting "clouding" such a nice photo

Edit:
Oh, and Seasonal Greetings to you too, may the gravy be with you

Yes, if one were intending such a crop, one might take a different approach to post processing.

Keep in mind that the images we see here on the internet are not the high resolution images that we see on our computer, straight out of camera. Even the files we may use in whatever post processing software we choose will look awesome.

Then we make a copy to upload to Flickr, Imagur, whatever.

Of course the standard file format is jpeg (sure, you can upload png, or others, but there are still limitations forcing size reduction and quality of the original). The jpeg format reduces quality, and of course to keep the internet flowing and reduce congestion, the file sizes are reduced considerably from the original.

Gonna loose a lot of detail, color, whatever.

So maybe we can get back to sharing great images and our common passion of photography, and not get too wrapped up in the minute details that prevent us from sharing the perfect and unadulterated image before it is diluted by the uploading process. A constructive comment is fine, but we shouldn't spend too much energy on these things.