Need some help (Page 2): Yeah, just for the heck of it.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

nat wrote:

Good suggestion. I'll try that.

Yeah, just for the heck of it.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

nat wrote:

So, how DID you get that shot of your distal femur fracture? If you'd like, you can also tell us how you got the fracture in the first place; hopefully, not for photographic purposes!

I got the complete set of X-rays and cat scan images from the hospital in San Bernardino where they had a trauma center and a great surgeon. I had to get the images so that I could continue treatment at the VA hospital.

I got the distal femur fracture by running out of talent while riding a dirt bike in the desert. I have given up dangerous sports.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

nat wrote:

This is cropped from a photo shot with a Canon 7D, 55-250 lens, shutter 1/500, aperture 5.6, focal length 250. How could I have gotten more detail on the feathers and sharper focus on the whole head? I also have a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 24-105. Would either of these lenses be better? This bird was pretty close and I have lots of opportunities to get it better. Would appreciate suggestions.

250 @ F8

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

All that is needed is some PP in PS with NIK Color Efex Pro 2 Detail extractor and tonal contrast

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

Thanks, mborn. Hmm. You really brought out details and now I'm thinking, the original is more appealing (if it ever was in the first place, but I liked it)..he/she is not quite so handsome with every detail showing. That is also true of our species...right? Thanks again.

mikemilton

tainkc wrote:

I bet the details are there. Forget about the lens issue for one moment. Try bringing the whites down and the highlights down just a bit in pp play with the shadows and the darks and then raise or lower the exposure a little. You should be able to bring out the detail in the feathers and end up with the exposure looking about the same as this photo only with greater detail.

I agree... Assuming this comes from a raw file, you should see a great improvement. Just lowering the highlights should work best.

A smaller aperture would improve future shots and, for white birds or those with white areas, you can dial in a bit of exposure compensation.

If you only shoot jpg then you can also turn on automatic light optimization. All this does is change how the in camera jpg is created by lowering highlights and raising shadows. It is a blunt instrument and I shoot raw and do this myself after so that it is possible to get just the amount wanted. If you want to test this you could shoot raw+jpg so you can see what ALO is doing.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

nat wrote:

Thanks, mborn. Hmm. You really brought out details and now I'm thinking, the original is more appealing (if it ever was in the first place, but I liked it)..he/she is not quite so handsome with every detail showing. That is also true of our species...right? Thanks again.

Nat
You are welcome the advantage to working in PS and with NIK is you can adjust the picture to what you want. You can show more ore less details. just did a 3 minute adjustment to answer the original question.
BTW I am in SE Mass

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

mborn wrote:

Nat
You are welcome the advantage to working in PS and with NIK is you can adjust the picture to what you want. You can show more ore less details. just did a 3 minute adjustment to answer the original question.
BTW I am in SE Mass

I have PS, but I have been reluctant to spend much time learning it, as it seems so intimidating. FYI - You have an impressive bio and I tried to check out your website but it wasn't available.

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

mikemilton wrote:

I agree... Assuming this comes from a raw file, yo... (show quote)

I'm thinking I should shoot RAW more, but isn't there a conversion that has to take place before you can work on those photos on your computer?

mikemilton

nat wrote:

I'm thinking I should shoot RAW more, but isn't there a conversion that has to take place before you can work on those photos on your computer?

Well, there is processing of any file to get it to the screen but for jpg, it is mostly hidden from you.

This is one reason that many people use either Lightroom or Aperture. Both these programs make raw files painless. They are also much less expensive and easier to use than PS while giving your most of the capability a photographer needs.

I use LR and it is laid out for very simple use of the development panel (you just work your way down a list of adjustments - they are ordered in the optimal sequence although you may need to go back and forth a bit). You are really not aware you are using a raw file as a user except that you have a lot more scope to work with the highlights and shadows. The other advantage is that multiple versions are managed for you without taking up additional disk space or creating multiple files (these are called virtual copies) and the original file is never modified (nondestructive editing)

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

nat wrote:

I have PS, but I have been reluctant to spend much time learning it, as it seems so intimidating. FYI - You have an impressive bio and I tried to check out your website but it wasn't available.

That is interesting, I clicked on the link and it connected me. You can also use NIK in LR and LR is less intimidating than PS. Me personally I shoot in RAW, I find for me it gives me more options.
Possibly we could get together and do some shooting and I could show you PP in LR and PS

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Nat, I am a fan of post-processing but better to have a better picture in the camera to start with. If you have an L lens, then use it. It is much sharper than your others. All lenses have optimal sharpness at about two stops down from the maximum f/stop. The difference in depth of field is not that great if you want the background out of focus. However, you will notice the increased sharpness.

In post-processing, you can always make something less sharp while keeping it realistic. Less true when taking something that is not sharp and then sharpening it.

Good luck and shoot raw.

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

mborn wrote:

That is interesting, I clicked on the link and it connected me. You can also use NIK in LR and LR is less intimidating than PS. Me personally I shoot in RAW, I find for me it gives me more options.
Possibly we could get together and do some shooting and I could show you PP in LR and PS

I was able to get to your website. I'm particularly interested in your bird photos and your classes. I love your bird photos. One has to be willing to go out and sit and wait, and wait....I have been chasing Great Egrets and GBHs every year; never got a really good close-up. I'm beginning to recognize my better photos; therefore, I am more interested in shooting RAW and committing to learning LR and PS. I would love to come to "the other side of the pond" in the fall and go on a field trip with you!

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

abc1234 wrote:

Nat, I am a fan of post-processing but better to h... (show quote)

Indeed, I have discovered that you cannot make an unsharp photo sharp. I'm getting really good at deleting photos!! I do have a couple L lenses-and the obligatory tripod for support. You spoke of optimal sharpness; is that the "sweet spot" that is often mentioned?

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

nat wrote:

I was able to get to your website. I'm particularl... (show quote)

Nat
Private message me your e-mail address so we can correspond better
Myer