You can't handle the truth" (Page 4): Another take on criticism is that there are things that make a good photograph a good photograph, independent of the quality rendition of the...

Photocraig

Reconvic wrote:

well said but in this case I disagree. How can you criticize a photo of a Purple Gallinule or a Green Heron if you've never captured one or ever seen one?

Another take on criticism is that there are things that make a good photograph a good photograph, independent of the quality rendition of the subject.

First, a photograph must be "accessible" to the viewer--like proper viewing size, well exposed and focused--even selectively and well framed and composed. Any viewer aged six to sixty six can express their opinion on that. So, it depends on your audience, but if it is general, like hanging on a public (even living room or forum vs bedroom or private office wall, it should pass that test.

As much as photography is personal to the photographer, so is it personal to the viewer. An expression of how a photo "strikes" a viewer, is legitimate.

As far as technical critiques, beyond the obvious like WAY (2-3 stops) over/under exposed, and overall focus softness, they too are often subjective. And any specific critiques of methods should come from an expert-I agree.

Critiques are a fundamental part of the Photographic Community's conversations arising from its fundamental place in Artistic education, and it is a developed skill. Amateurs are less likely to have the skills to critiques like a Pro or an Educator. Unfortunately, many haven't developed the skills to separate the like/dislike for the subject or message from the elements of the image before them. Critiques within the community are intended to be inherently constructive. And friendly. And not a confrontation. As in many communities, not everybody gets that and not everybody is equally skilled or educated.

If serious educational level critique is what someone is after, look to an educational environment like an Academic Photo program, Artist cooperative etc. Some folks like that exist here. I learned more about photography from my faculty critiques from College Profs and top workshop leaders' critiques. And also, from fellow students and participants. And, also valuable, was the occasional friend asking why that photo was on my wall, cuz it looked like CRAP. On the thousandth's re-look I'd decide if he was right or not. Sometimes my "gem" captured after days of waiting, hiking etc. would stay and sometimes it would be filed away.

It is up to you what you post, where you post (or hang) it and how you receive any message it provokes.

By the way, good photo,
C

Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

Bill_de wrote:

I could argue your assessment of the 101st. I served with the 199th and the 1st Cav.
I 101st was better than one of them, but maybe not the other.

To avoid any further conflict I won't say which was which. The best thing is that we are all still here today.

---

I knew I shouldn't say "best" ….yup yup...agree with your assessment of best.

BebuLamar

deleted post

MrAnalog

My son is in the Army. I do get it. I never stop worrying. I’m so proud of him. I’m thankful for your service and all who risk their lives and future so we can sleep well at night. I’m truly glad you’re okay. Thanks

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Reconvic wrote:

In the 4 weeks that I have been a member on UH I h... (show quote)

Well, not to misguide you, but there are some visible differences between affordable 600mm lenses. You can maybe rely on reviews, or do what I did - get a hold of a few and run them through their paces. You may be surprised to find that there are a couple of clear winners, and others that are ok, and one that if gifted to me I would regift it to someone else.

Regarding your images - I take it you are inviting comment since there is a question mark in every image title. There are compositional intents and other highly subjective concerns that I will leave alone for the moment. But we can talk about exposure and processing/camera settings.

When directly asked for my opinion or critique, I will often lead with the question - what was it that made you take this specific picture, OR what is your creative intent. Then I ask if they feel they have achieved their intent - if so why, if not, why not.

Your exposures are good. I think you nailed the two heron shots, but the first first gallinule looks like it might be slightly overexposed - the top of the head appears to be blown out, while the second could have used a bit more exposure. If you shot these as raw, the remedy might be easier than if you are working with highly compressed 8 bit images out of the camera.

Your question mark in each title is right on the money - My response for each image is yes, yes, yes and yes.

The first in each image pair is not just oversaturated, to my eye it is "overcooked" - oversharpened (sharpening halos), contrast kicked up too high, microcontrast (clarity) over used, unnatural colors on both the subjects and the backgrounds, some loss of shadow detail because of contrast being set too high. The Purple Gallinule in particular is over the top - the blue reflecting off the water, the green stems on the reeds, and some of the iridescence in the bird's plumage appear to be over-stated. It really doesn't look like that in nature. But I suspect you were already leaning in that direction.

The second image in each pair seems like they could use a little of what you applied to the first in each pair, in a small, measured dose.

Now part of the problem is how your web browser renders color, and what color space you use on the image that you uploaded. Things can get oversaturated for the thumbnail image.

Your focusing was pretty good, especially with the Green Heron shots, but I think you missed a bit with the Gallinule, where they eyes are out of focus.The lighting is certainly challenging in the first three images - resulting in some seriously harsh highlights and deep dark shadows. There is little you can do about this other than dial back the contrast and boost the shadow recovery in post processing.

These are as good as it gets for a Sigma C lens. It is better than the original Tamron for sure.

Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

MrAnalog wrote:

My son is in the Army. I do get it. I never stop worrying. I’m so proud of him. I’m thankful for your service and all who risk their lives and future so we can sleep well at night. I’m truly glad you’re okay. Thanks

thanks MrAnalog

Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

Gene51 wrote:

Well, not to misguide you, but there are some visible differences between affordable 600mm lenses. You can maybe rely on reviews, or do what I did - get a hold of a few and run them through their paces. You may be surprised to find that there are a couple of clear winners, and others that are ok, and one that if gifted to me I would regift it to someone else.

Regarding your images - I take it you are inviting comment since there is a question mark in every image title. There are compositional intents and other highly subjective concerns that I will leave alone for the moment. But we can talk about exposure and processing/camera settings.

When directly asked for my opinion or critique, I will often lead with the question - what was it that made you take this specific picture, OR what is your creative intent. Then I ask if they feel they have achieved their intent - if so why, if not, why not.

Your exposures are good. I think you nailed the two heron shots, but the first first gallinule looks like it might be slightly overexposed - the top of the head appears to be blown out, while the second could have used a bit more exposure. If you shot these as raw, the remedy might be easier than if you are working with highly compressed 8 bit images out of the camera.

Your question mark in each title is right on the money - My response for each image is yes, yes, yes and yes.

The first in each image pair is not just oversaturated, to my eye it is "overcooked" - oversharpened (sharpening halos), contrast kicked up too high, microcontrast (clarity) over used, unnatural colors on both the subjects and the backgrounds, some loss of shadow detail because of contrast being set too high. The Purple Gallinule in particular is over the top - the blue reflecting off the water, the green stems on the reeds, and some of the iridescence in the bird's plumage appear to be over-stated. It really doesn't look like that in nature. But I suspect you were already leaning in that direction.

The second image in each pair seems like they could use a little of what you applied to the first in each pair, in a small, measured dose.

Now part of the problem is how your web browser renders color, and what color space you use on the image that you uploaded. Things can get oversaturated for the thumbnail image.

Your focusing was pretty good, especially with the Green Heron shots, but I think you missed a bit with the Gallinule, where they eyes are out of focus.The lighting is certainly challenging in the first three images - resulting in some seriously harsh highlights and deep dark shadows. There is little you can do about this other than dial back the contrast and boost the shadow recovery in post processing.

These are as good as it gets for a Sigma C lens. It is better than the original Tamron for sure.

Well, not to misguide you, but there are some visi... (show quote)

THE Gallinule was shot with a d7100/sigma C and the Green Heron with the D850 and Sigma C ...The Gallinule was processed in PicMonkey and I had been shooting for 3 months, had never seen a Gallinule before and I thought it looked dirty so I took away the little murkiness of the bird...It was a perfect pose of a Gallinule because it hid most of the rear of the bird that's never attractive to me.Plus it was shot in jpeg and the Heron Raw...which lens of the: Nikkor 200-500, Tamron G2, Sigma Sport, or Sigma C do you think is the best as far as performance not durability?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Bill_de wrote:

I could argue your assessment of the 101st. I served with the 199th and the 1st Cav.
I 101st was better than one of them, but maybe not the other.

To avoid any further conflict I won't say which was which. The best thing is that we are all still here today.

---

I never got into interservice rivalries or inter-divisional arguments as to which were more "elite" than others. I don't even like the word "elite"!

I worked with officers , non-coms and enlisted personnel from many branches, divisions and various aviation battalions. Most of the folks I met were working hard to do their jobs, have their buddie's backs and stay alive.

I spent a week at GID, that was the Graves Identification Division and soon came to realize that even the toughest, strongest and most highly trained soldiers were fallen by a relatively small projectiles that entered the bodies in a vital place. We are just a bunch of human beings.

My job, mainly, was aerial reconnaissance photography- we found the tunnels and bunkers where the unfriendly folks hung out. We used special cameras and infrared aerographic film. I never got as far as Sergeant/Major but I did make SP/5 by the end of my last tour. Funny, nowadays that Specialist rank is gone and replaced by Warrant Officer, as per pay grade. Not only that, my MOS is gone too! Nowadays the data we collected under fire, could be more effectively ascertained by satellite surveillance with instantaneous readout on a screen in a nice air conditioned office somewhere stateside. Had I re-uped, I was promised a promotion and OCS, but I mustered out and decide to go back to the world and stay there.

When I am asked waht I took away from my military experience all I can say is a decent perspective on life and a propensity for getting up every morning and getting my backside into gear and getting some work done. Not the lazy guy- me!

My only remaining "souvenir" of Viet Nam is the shoulder flash from my dress uniform and that flag. Sadly, it is a temporary burial container flag from the casket of a friend of mine who never really made it home.

Be nice to each other - guys!

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Reconvic wrote:

THE Gallinule was shot with a d7100/sigma C and th... (show quote)

I thought I saw D7200 in the metadata . . . Oh well.

I think aside from a little softness, it was quite good.

I find the Nikon and the C to be pretty close - but the prize goes to the C because it is a 600mm lens. I bought my Sport after testing all of these with the exception of the G2. It was quite close to my Nikkor 600mm F4 AF-S II - so much so that I have pretty much used the Sport as my go to lens for the last 2 yrs. I have since spent a little time with the G2 and find it to be as good optically as the Sport at 600mm, and better at shorter focal lengths - along with being 2 lbs lighter, it would be the lens I would buy today.

Great catch on the Gallinule, btw. I am jealous.

I've been out recently with my D810 and the Sport - in some cases pretty crappy light - all were hand held, up to 3200 ISO, and pretty severe crops except for the pileated woodpecker.

prothonotary warbler
prothonotary warbler...

(Download)

Pileated Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker...

(Download)

(Download)

Screech Owl
Screech Owl...

(Download)

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Reconvic wrote:

THE Gallinule was shot with a d7100/sigma C and th... (show quote)

A couple of articles by wildlife photographers I read (no I didn't take notes as to source or how to find them) rate the Sigma C and the Tamron G2 as the top IQ wise, with the G2 bing a hair better at 600. Of course if you do the same tests with two other copies of the same lenses the results may go the other way. I now have a G2 because it has both the IQ and the build/weather sealing.

srt101fan

Gene51 wrote:

Well, not to misguide you, but there are some visible differences between affordable 600mm lenses. You can maybe rely on reviews, or do what I did - get a hold of a few and run them through their paces. You may be surprised to find that there are a couple of clear winners, and others that are ok, and one that if gifted to me I would regift it to someone else.

Regarding your images - I take it you are inviting comment since there is a question mark in every image title. There are compositional intents and other highly subjective concerns that I will leave alone for the moment. But we can talk about exposure and processing/camera settings.

When directly asked for my opinion or critique, I will often lead with the question - what was it that made you take this specific picture, OR what is your creative intent. Then I ask if they feel they have achieved their intent - if so why, if not, why not.

Your exposures are good. I think you nailed the two heron shots, but the first first gallinule looks like it might be slightly overexposed - the top of the head appears to be blown out, while the second could have used a bit more exposure. If you shot these as raw, the remedy might be easier than if you are working with highly compressed 8 bit images out of the camera.

Your question mark in each title is right on the money - My response for each image is yes, yes, yes and yes.

The first in each image pair is not just oversaturated, to my eye it is "overcooked" - oversharpened (sharpening halos), contrast kicked up too high, microcontrast (clarity) over used, unnatural colors on both the subjects and the backgrounds, some loss of shadow detail because of contrast being set too high. The Purple Gallinule in particular is over the top - the blue reflecting off the water, the green stems on the reeds, and some of the iridescence in the bird's plumage appear to be over-stated. It really doesn't look like that in nature. But I suspect you were already leaning in that direction.

The second image in each pair seems like they could use a little of what you applied to the first in each pair, in a small, measured dose.

Now part of the problem is how your web browser renders color, and what color space you use on the image that you uploaded. Things can get oversaturated for the thumbnail image.

Your focusing was pretty good, especially with the Green Heron shots, but I think you missed a bit with the Gallinule, where they eyes are out of focus.The lighting is certainly challenging in the first three images - resulting in some seriously harsh highlights and deep dark shadows. There is little you can do about this other than dial back the contrast and boost the shadow recovery in post processing.

These are as good as it gets for a Sigma C lens. It is better than the original Tamron for sure.

Well, not to misguide you, but there are some visi... (show quote)

Gene, don't know if you're still tuned into this thread, just want to say, and I think I'm probably speaking for others, that I really appreciate your professional critiques and commentary. Thank you!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

srt101fan wrote:

Gene, don't know if you're still tuned into this thread, just want to say, and I think I'm probably speaking for others, that I really appreciate your professional critiques and commentary. Thank you!

I pop in and out - but thank YOU!

Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

Photocraig wrote:

Another take on criticism is that there are things that make a good photograph a good photograph, independent of the quality rendition of the subject.

First, a photograph must be "accessible" to the viewer--like proper viewing size, well exposed and focused--even selectively and well framed and composed. Any viewer aged six to sixty six can express their opinion on that. So, it depends on your audience, but if it is general, like hanging on a public (even living room or forum vs bedroom or private office wall, it should pass that test.

As much as photography is personal to the photographer, so is it personal to the viewer. An expression of how a photo "strikes" a viewer, is legitimate.

As far as technical critiques, beyond the obvious like WAY (2-3 stops) over/under exposed, and overall focus softness, they too are often subjective. And any specific critiques of methods should come from an expert-I agree.

Critiques are a fundamental part of the Photographic Community's conversations arising from its fundamental place in Artistic education, and it is a developed skill. Amateurs are less likely to have the skills to critiques like a Pro or an Educator. Unfortunately, many haven't developed the skills to separate the like/dislike for the subject or message from the elements of the image before them. Critiques within the community are intended to be inherently constructive. And friendly. And not a confrontation. As in many communities, not everybody gets that and not everybody is equally skilled or educated.

If serious educational level critique is what someone is after, look to an educational environment like an Academic Photo program, Artist cooperative etc. Some folks like that exist here. I learned more about photography from my faculty critiques from College Profs and top workshop leaders' critiques. And also, from fellow students and participants. And, also valuable, was the occasional friend asking why that photo was on my wall, cuz it looked like CRAP. On the thousandth's re-look I'd decide if he was right or not. Sometimes my "gem" captured after days of waiting, hiking etc. would stay and sometimes it would be filed away.

It is up to you what you post, where you post (or hang) it and how you receive any message it provokes.

By the way, good photo,
C

Another take on criticism is that there are things... (show quote)

Thank you ...very objective perspective.

Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

Gene51 wrote:

I pop in and out - but thank YOU!

Yes Gene thank you...you lose me at the level of knowledge of this photography thing that which you speak but I'm picking up part of what you're putting out....

Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

Gene51 wrote:

I pop in and out - but thank YOU!

Thanks Gene ...upon your recommendation I'm going to upgrade to the G2 (as soon as the shock wears off of the 850/grip/xqd card/backup batteries/grip battery X 2((wife's too)) I shoot 3 or 4 days a week here in central and coastal Florida and settled here for this form of art. Expect to see some good things from me. I might have to sell my Harley Fatboy to get that Fatboy F4 lens