Xmsmn Loc: Minnesota

👍

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Perhaps a better way to have approached your concerns would have been to have merely submitted the photograph without any comment from you about its perceived shortcomings. If the image had problems, minor or serious, I suspect these would have been pointed out to you. Thanks for sharing your image. It is always good to see creatures in their "activities of daily living".

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I think the problem is that the OP has noticed the softness in the chick and won't be able to un-see it.

My way of assessing an image is to view it full screen on my 27" monitor. If nothing jumps out at me then I'm happy to rate it as "acceptable". That's as close as I want to get to pixel peeping. With this image the softness of the chick was bad enough to look a bit ugly to my eye. However, even with that level of softness it's possible to use PP to get it to the point where it doesn't look soft at normal viewing distance. Some softness will still be there and it'll be visible when viewed up close, but those areas won't be perceived as soft at NVD, and that holds true provided the image isn't enlarged too much.

Fine detail that's lost can't be recovered, but you don't need micro-detail to create an impression of sharpness. Increased vividness and increased edge sharpness are all that's needed. If the impression of sharpness persists at NVD, that's all that's needed.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Thank you. I think you helped make my point about if there is a problem with an image, there will be someone who will point it out. We always hope that it will be kind and helpful advice such as you just offered. For me there is two distinct issues here. One is the question of the sharpness of the image which is what you have capably addressed. The other aspect which is much more important to me is the image of a Sandhill Crane mother feeding her colt. I can happily live with some softness around the colt's legs in order to have that image. I googled images of Sandhill mom's feeding their colts and found some but not that came close to replicating that particular pose. Wouldn't it be sad, if that wonderful less than perfect image of a gift of nature was lost to all of us because there was some aspect of it that did not rise to the level of total errorlessness.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Indeed. The professionals among us have a reason for having a low error tolerance threshold, but the rest of us can, and should be, much more accommodating. Striving to achieve high technical standards is commendable and should lead to improvement and growth, but we should never allow technical factors to acquire more significance in our minds than the stuff that really matters. I think we all benefit from occasionally being reminded of what's really important in our shots. Fortunately there are a few in UHH that do that for us.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Thank you. It was pleasant communicating with you. I looked at some of your posts and must say that you have posted some beautiful images of your homeland. I have ancestors from Scotland on my mom's side. However they left Scotland in the 1600's. One of my many times great grandparents were James Hoge from Midlothian who would marry Lady Marjorie Lambert. Their son, William Hoge would marry Barbara Hume who was the daughter of Sir James Hume and Lady Marjorie Johnston. Barbara Hume sailed with her parents on the Caldonia from Scotland to New Jersey. Both her parents died at sea on the Atlantic aboard the Caldonia and Barbara was raised by others. The fact that we, any of us, are here all is tenuos, at best. Who knows we might be cousins, but it would be distant cousins.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Likewise. You're doing well to have such a detailed record of your ancestry going back more than 300 years. I'm sure we'd just need to go back far enough to find that we are indeed distant cousins, and I'm sure that would apply to most of us. I didn't realise that emigration from Scotland started as early as that. I thought it was exclusively a product of the Highland Clearances. Perhaps it was only later on that emigration became forced or an act of necessity. It sounds like your ancestors may have come from the aristocracy (yes, we did have aristocracy in Scotland ).

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I guess that what is important will be different for different Hogs. There are the Tech bods, there are the Arty bods, there are the Family bods, there are the Architecture bods, there are the History bods, there are the Gadget bods and so on - all brought together by the exposure triangle, but not necessarily anything else.
Then there are the Pro bods and the Hobby bods, and the PostP bods and the PreP bods, the RAW bods and the JPG bods. Unfortunately there are Missionary bods, who want to convert everyone to their way.
Perhaps this should be posted in "What is a Photographer ?"

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Indeed. If you asked ten people about anything subjective, the chances are you'd get ten different answers. But it's also true to say that amongst that diversity there are usually more than a few common factors. With photography, for example, the way we perceive things doesn't vary that much from person to person. That's why leading lines, natural framing etc won't be going out of fashion any time soon. Our eyes are also universally attracted by vividness and brightness, and I've no doubt there are other "rules" of perception that I haven't mentioned. While we're on the subject of so-called rules, it's always worth mentioning that rules can sometimes be deliberately broken for a specific effect, and that too points to a commonality in the way we perceive things.

Some people use those facts as justification for their belief that anything can be justified in photography and post processing. Personally I'm always sceptical when I see that idea being extolled. The simple fact is that as we progress we learn and we improve, and there are certain things that would be seen by most people as the sort of mistake that beginners tend to make. In other words there are things that we perceive as right and wrong (or better and worse) even amongst those who claim there is no right and wrong with something as subjective as photography and PP (just a few thoughts - feel free to agree or disagree).