Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Need some help
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Apr 11, 2013 20:30:11   #
nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA
 
billybaseball wrote:
Huh?


Billy - Jeep Daddy's avatar is a photo of his fractured femur with a couple pins in it. I asked how he got it.

Reply
Apr 11, 2013 21:31:36   #
billybaseball Loc: Bel Air MD
 
nat wrote:
Billy - Jeep Daddy's avatar is a photo of his fractured femur with a couple pins in it. I asked how he got it.


Gotcha

Reply
Apr 17, 2013 21:09:04   #
BruceMG Loc: Connecticut
 
looks great just as it is

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2013 21:14:07   #
nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA
 
Thank you.

Reply
May 20, 2013 16:33:51   #
Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)
 
jeep_daddy wrote:
Nat,
This is where you need to do a little experimenting. Your 70-200 is a better piece of glass than the 55-250 so I would say right off that you'd get a sharper image. I would also say that the whites are right on the verge of being blown out. Try bracketing some shots, or fooling around with exposure a bit. I feel that if you'd have under exposed this white gull you'd have more detail. Also, sometimes there's nothing you can do about the lighting when it comes to capturing nature. Direct light is not the best on white birds but you have to take what you can get.
Nat, br This is where you need to do a little expe... (show quote)

This is the correct answer to getting more detail in the feathers.

Reply
May 21, 2013 23:25:13   #
tnste Loc: New Westminster, BC
 
jeep_daddy wrote:
Nat,
This is where you need to do a little experimenting. Your 70-200 is a better piece of glass than the 55-250 so I would say right off that you'd get a sharper image. I would also say that the whites are right on the verge of being blown out. Try bracketing some shots, or fooling around with exposure a bit. I feel that if you'd have under exposed this white gull you'd have more detail. Also, sometimes there's nothing you can do about the lighting when it comes to capturing nature. Direct light is not the best on white birds but you have to take what you can get.
Nat, br This is where you need to do a little expe... (show quote)


I agree with your comments. I have the 7D and a 70-200 L lens and it is a great lens; very sharp. Not familiar with the 55-250 but no doubt the 70-200 is a better lens. I agree bracketing the shots and perhaps increase the f stop to say f8 or f10 if possible for greater depth of field and decrease exposure a bit for more detail but in my opinion the photo is quite good. No expert on wildlife photography but I heard focusing on the eyes will generally give you a sharp image.

Reply
May 30, 2013 12:16:06   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
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.



Reply
 
 
May 30, 2013 14:47:20   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
Most problems with white bird plumage are caused by overexposure but that is not the case here; the exposure is basically OK.
Unfortunately, there are areas on the bird with very little variation in tone, too little to allow adequate separation using Curves, although I have done my best.
Images of this type are often more successful with subdued directional illumination rather than bright sunlight.

Incidentally, have you been 'playing around' with the eye?
GHK

Reply
May 30, 2013 14:54:11   #
nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA
 
GHK wrote:
Most problems with white bird plumage are caused by overexposure but that is not the case here; the exposure is basically OK.
Unfortunately, there are areas on the bird with very little variation in tone, too little to allow adequate separation using Curves, although I have done my best.
Images of this type are often more successful with subdued directional illumination rather than bright sunlight.

Incidentally, have you been 'playing around' with the eye?
GHK


No, I haven't been playing around with the eye. Why do you ask?

Reply
May 30, 2013 15:16:40   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
nat wrote:
No, I haven't been playing around with the eye. Why do you ask?


It just looked as if you might have been.
GHK

Reply
May 30, 2013 15:19:32   #
nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA
 
GHK wrote:
It just looked as if you might have been.
GHK


Oh. A couple hoggers did do some adjustments to try to bring out feather detail. That may be what you are seeing. I know very little about post-processing. It's interesting to me how you picked that up. I'll never get to that level. Thanks for your interest. Nat

Reply
 
 
May 31, 2013 07:48:02   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
nat wrote:
Oh. are I know very little about post-processing. It's interesting to me how you picked that up. I'll never get to that level. Thanks for your interest. Nat


Don't despair. Unless you think it's possible to produce miracles by just pushing a few buttons and are prepared to put in a bit of effort, it is possible to progress quite quickly. The key to efficient learning is to understand what you are doing and why you are doing it.
I am willing to help if you wish.
GHK

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.