Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures(new!!!) | Search | Login | Register | Help
Canon vs Nikon: Which is better?
One camera setting that ruins your pictures
(and more, keep reading):
 

Among our users, we have some of the most talented photographers in the world share advice that you won't find even in the most expensive subscription magazines. That's because some of them only post on our website, so you won't find this information anywhere else! Some of them post under an alias, others disclose their studio name, it's up to them. But in either case you get to read and discover photography techniques that will make you very good at taking pictures.

Unlike other websites, we don't try to pitch DSLRs, lenses, and other gear, while collecting sales commission. We don't sell photography tutorials, books, DVDs and courses, while promising that your photography will improve only if you buy what's being promoted.

Instead, we have other people, who are either professional photographers or serious amateurs, some with decades of experience, share with you what they learned, what gear they use, which products really work and which are useless, which techniques work and which don't.

It's all completely unbiased. Our users simply have no reason to lie to you. They are people just like you.

And we provide a free platform for you and them to communicate. So you get to discover this information straight from the source, from people just like you, not from editors of some magazine or sales reps of some company.

This is what makes us different from other photography websites out there that try to sell you something while claiming they are trying to help you.

If you are a beginner, intermediate, advanced, or a professional photographer, then the benefits of signing up for our free daily photography forum digest are:

• We cover both film and digital photography.

• We talk about professional (D)SLR cameras, mirrorless cameras, mid-range/prosumer models, point-and-shoot, and camera phones.

• We cover all types of photography from portraits to landscapes to action shots to macro photography. (Which one interests you the most? Stop and ask yourself right now. You'll need to be able to answer that in just a minute. No matter what you shoot, you'll get better at just that. Read below to find out why.)

• We cover all aspects of photography from picking gear to composition to working with models, and everything in between.

• Each week you'll be receiving new tips and techniques on how to take the kind of pictures that will make your friends, relatives and peers just stare in amazement, speechless, when they see your work. Yep! That's how good your photography will become.

• Daily, you'll be receiving a photography forum digest with the latest photography tips, tricks, reviews and discussions.

• If you ever have a question or need help, you can always ask, and we'll cover your question in the following newsletter issue.

• And of course, it's all completely FREE!

• Let me repeat that. Since for some reason a lot of people contact us asking if the membership is really free: we are a social website for photographers, so we don't sell anything, and we don't charge any fees. It's as simple as that.

Here is how to proceed and what to expect:

Enter your name and e-mail address below, and you'll be instantly added to our photography mailing list distribution. You'll receive a one-time confirmation e-mail. Right after that, the first e-mail with today's digest will be forwarded to you. The signup process is completely automated, so you are just a few minutes away from discovering what our existing users already received earlier today. You'll get up to speed right away on what's the latest on our website, without any long introductions or other delays.

First name:

E-mail address:

Going forward, the next digest will be released in just a few hours. So if you don't sign up now, you'll also miss everything covered in it too.

 
Photo Analysis
Why does this look artificial
(?)
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Oct 21, 2016 10:44:23   #
Psergel
 
Other than exporting this to jpeg...it is SOC with only the LR default sharpening (25) and a small adjustment in exposure (-.45).

Why does this look so phony?

I played with it quite a bit (lower highlights, contrast up and down, clarity etc etc) and it still looks kind of like a fake Heron agains a fake background. It's not.


(Download)
 
Oct 21, 2016 10:46:03   #
Leitz
 
Psergel wrote:
Other than exporting this to jpeg...it is SOC with only the LR default sharpening (25) and a small adjustment in exposure (-.45).

Why does this look so phony?

I played with it quite a bit (lower highlights, contrast up and down, clarity etc etc) and it still looks kind of like a fake Heron agains a fake background. It's not.

It will look quite natural when Admin moves it to the appropriate section.
Oct 21, 2016 10:58:41   #
WayneT (a regular here)
 
Possibly if you had opened up you aperture slightly to fade out the background (increase the bokeh) it would have given you a little better depth.
Oct 21, 2016 11:04:55   #
davidrb (a regular here)
 
Psergel wrote:
Other than exporting this to jpeg...it is SOC with only the LR default sharpening (25) and a small adjustment in exposure (-.45).

Why does this look so phony?

I played with it quite a bit (lower highlights, contrast up and down, clarity etc etc) and it still looks kind of like a fake Heron agains a fake background. It's not.


A suggestion is that the bird is lit and focused perfectly to get the effect shown. The is nothing else in the scene that is lit well or in focus. The background/foreground is not only out of focus, none of it is in direct contact with the bird's body. That may be what is creating the effect of "perfectly artificial." Surprisingly, shooting birds offers the opportunity to get images as this. Very nicely done.
Oct 21, 2016 11:22:28   #
pendennis
 
I'm with WayneT. The bird is perfect. It seems to me, though, that there's not quite enough separation with the background; it seems a bit too much in-focus with the bird. As it is, the overall scene is a bit busy.
Oct 21, 2016 11:48:11   #
Apaflo (a regular here)
 
WayneT wrote:
Possibly if you had opened up you aperture slightly to fade out the background (increase the bokeh) it would have given you a little better depth.

Increase bokeh?

That is not possible. Bokeh is a quality not a quantity.

A wider aperture would increase the background blur and thus provide more separation from the subject. The quality of the blur would probably remain the same and thus the bokeh would not change.

Unfortunately the perspective of this shot is where the problem is. A viewpoint that looks up at the bird and off into a tree and the sky just does not look right, and particularly with grass obscuring the bird's feet. Perspective is a part of the composition that can't be changed in post processing.
 
Oct 21, 2016 12:39:30   #
terry44
 
lack of bokeh, you could create a bokeh in your software. The bird looks great.
Psergel wrote:
Other than exporting this to jpeg...it is SOC with only the LR default sharpening (25) and a small adjustment in exposure (-.45).

Why does this look so phony?

I played with it quite a bit (lower highlights, contrast up and down, clarity etc etc) and it still looks kind of like a fake Heron agains a fake background. It's not.
Oct 21, 2016 13:03:12   #
mwsilvers (a regular here)
 
terry44 wrote:
lack of bokeh, you could create a bokeh in your software. The bird looks great.

You mean background blur, not bokeh. Bokeh refers to the quality of the blur, not the actual presence of blue.
Oct 21, 2016 13:14:22   #
Psergel
 
Leitz wrote:
It will look quite natural when Admin moves it to the appropriate section.

This wasn't meant to be a post processing question if that's what you're suggesting.
Oct 21, 2016 15:11:13   #
robertjerl (a regular here)
 
Psergel wrote:
Other than exporting this to jpeg...it is SOC with only the LR default sharpening (25) and a small adjustment in exposure (-.45).

Why does this look so phony?

I played with it quite a bit (lower highlights, contrast up and down, clarity etc etc) and it still looks kind of like a fake Heron agains a fake background. It's not.


It doesn't look phony, and you can see it was really in that setting by the grass around the bird.

It does have a great DOF with almost the whole scene in fairly sharp focus and the bird mostly being sharper. Most people go for isolated focus on just the subject. Plus the whole thing is more or less well exposed and pretty evenly exposed also.
Oct 21, 2016 17:17:24   #
Leitz
 
Psergel wrote:
This wasn't meant to be a post processing question if that's what you're suggesting.

I was merely suggesting that you not be surprised to see it moved, as it was posted in Main Photography Discussion in direct opposition to Admin's Forum Rules. As for which section is appropriate, each one has helpful guidelines.
 
Oct 22, 2016 05:56:04   #
avemal (a regular here)
 
Great shot. Leave it as is. 🐤🐤🐤🐤🐤🐤🐤🦆🦆🦆🐥🐥🐥🐥🐥🐥🐥🐥🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓
Oct 22, 2016 06:29:24   #
John N (a regular here)
 
Psergel wrote:
This wasn't meant to be a post processing question if that's what you're suggesting.


Perhaps the FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION would be the place. Put your shot in there and see what replies you get. Sometimes it's harsh, but its always honest and truthful.
Oct 22, 2016 08:31:44   #
jerryc41 (a regular here)
 
WayneT wrote:
Possibly if you had opened up you aperture slightly to fade out the background (increase the bokeh) it would have given you a little better depth.


That was my first thought - too much in focus. It looks like the picture of the bird was added to a sharp picture of the trees.

EDIT: As for what section it is in - too many sections.
Oct 22, 2016 09:13:18   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
Apaflo wrote:
Increase bokeh?

That is not possible. Bokeh is a quality not a quantity.

A wider aperture would increase the background blur and thus provide more separation from the subject. The quality of the blur would probably remain the same and thus the bokeh would not change.

Unfortunately the perspective of this shot is where the problem is. A viewpoint that looks up at the bird and off into a tree and the sky just does not look right, and particularly with grass obscuring the bird's feet. Perspective is a part of the composition that can't be changed in post processing.
Increase bokeh? br br That is not possible. Boke... (show quote)


Very good analysis.
I really learned some good pointers from this.
Thank you for the insights.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
          
Photo Analysis
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.