Ad nauseum, right? ;}

PS: MOST pronounced with longer lenses tho...

Understood! Let me re-emphasize that with longer lenses such as you were using (400 mm zoom range eg.) that the lens is wide open(f/stop wise...) and is presenting you with as bright an image as possible so that you can see what you need to see. This means that you are viewing
your image with the lens NOT stopped down yet and with the least amount of DOF(depth-of-field) possible for that lens (zoom) range.
Thus, anything objectionable that is to the side, or in front or behind your focal point, and at such a low DOF might not be very noticeable
by you, "pre-exposure" or "shutter-press". However, depending on how you are arranging the settings on your camera for proper exposure,
you might very well become aware of the objectionable "object" that has become slightly sharper or more contrasty due to the fact that
you lens exposed the image a few stops(possibly) smaller than when you were composing the bird and finding the focal point on the critter.
Very easy to miss these things, btw, in the heat of battle, right? Again, "if" you have the time always examine all four corners of the viewfinder before you shoot for such things as these anomalies, or better yet...if time permits, do a manual stop-down prior to shooting
(OR go to LIVE VIEW) which should give you an excellent idea of what the final DOF\overall sharpness of the image should be, including any of those
missed fuzzy area's that would not be so evident when composing your image. BTW...as everyone said this image is easily salvageable with
a little editing\cropping, etc., and I think you did an excellent job with this shot of such an elusive creature. Continued success!

Ba Da BING! Case closed...

I agree with Greg. It appears that you are using a long lens in which case there was "something" in the foreground and off to the
corner that you unwittingly caught in the frame during exposure? It is so OOF (out-of-focus) that it wasn't readily apparent to your
focus eye and also owing to the narrow depth of field. Happens a lot and something to be aware of when you shoot with longer
lenses. There is really nothing in the scene in that area that could flare (which you "could" fix in PhoShop of course...) unless it
was an errant drop of water on something in that area that flared a bit for you, esp. when you narrowed the scene down with your
selective lens. What think you? Filters "could" do this too but usually when shooting almost directly, or near directly into the sun, which
you were not. Just saying...

PS: DON'T FORGET...when you look through most camera lenses attached to a camera you are looking at the scene WIDE OPEN. Therefore
defects such as these out-of-focus critters will not be too apparent to your eye (or catch your attention as much?) until you get the
image processed and viewable, either on the LCD or best yet, your computer monitor. It will always gain a bit of contrast and sharpness
as you "most" probably shot it at least one-two stops down from wide open(or more...?) and then it will painfully become much more
apparent. I'd bet you were using a longer lens or zoomed out a bit if using a kit or zoom lens which would be indicative of the
scenario I just described. Always examine all four corners of your viewfinder and assess the scene. If you use a tripod this will slow
down and FORCE you to do this. Plus that other benefit...overall sharpness vs. camera shake! Good luck and learn...

I was not going to respond but since you are still online...and waiting...here 'tis-

In the spirit of one-man up-man-ship let me simply say that they are slightly different methodologies of expression, albeit sharing common outcomes (virtually). I offer my apology to you if you think I was flaming you, okay?

Coffee? Yeah maybe...but nothing else. Tho... it seems that oHIo has been trying to follow Oregon's lead as of late in that "other" department...a sad state of affairs. Or, vice versa, dunno?

Anyway, peace be to you TD and as I said before...well, here it is in a different way...Life is too short! Get back to therapy and keep shooting! Again, hope you sell them soon and continued
success. ;]

Easy TD...lighten up! This is only a blog and not FB?
Anyway, hope you sell it (them?). Break a leg... :thumbup:

PS: Professionals were once amateurs "until" they started worrying about money. And, most successful pro's ARE masters of light! Right?

NOT anal...JUST THINKING, THAT'S ALL...which is good! To THINK(insofar as photography is concerned...) is beneficial and beneficial is rewarding and rewarding is fullfilling and fullfilling is happiness and happiness is self-feeding, and...? Enjoy it!

Visually...PB



[quote=cambriaman]And my friends accuse me of being anal! This issue never occurred to me to consider. Now, you've got me thinking, I'm sure the subject will obsess me for at least a while. Thanks!

PS: You SURE they are your friends. lol?:oops: :roll: :lol:

Ever sell this camera? Would you just sell the body alone?

Wait...what? You just said it was never opened!??

Besides..."how" did you take the pictures then, hmmmmm?
(yeah, right...your cell phone indeed!). :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Interesting observation you bring up as "something" makes you do what you do?

A lot of pro's will purposely emphasize one side of the face vs. the other based on a lot things that they may be trying to de-emphasize, or hide. Eg., scars on one side of the face can be cleverly hidden by shooting the good side more from a 3/4 point view or even a total side view...nobody would be the wiser. Also, highlight and shadow placement (including deeper light ratio's) could do the same as aforementioned if one wants to show both cheeks (3/4-7/8 view) and yet de-emphasize any facial "defects" by placing these into the deep shadows...

Also, many people DO NOT have both eyes that are the same size (droopy eyelids, etc., et al...) and your job is to even these up before the capture. Using the lessons of divergence and convergence, simply turn the larger eye AWAY from the camera (3/4 view, etc) and this will tend to even out the eye
sizes quite nicely w/o having to resort to CS. Works the same way as RR-tracks which eventually converge in the distance, optically.

Any good portrait course will give you a method for your madness GEN (lol!).

Cheers...PB

8 hrs...Holy CR#P! LOTS of fuel!!? I think I've seen one land, within a football field length easily, then started to back-up without stopping at all at the Air Show. Took off like a rocket
( with some RATO's attached to boot...45 degree angle plus... Amazing technology to this day...

Will do...just give me a little time re this. Will shoot with my G10 which will be a little better than the phone. The audio pickup should be a bit better too. Will keep the cam on the ready as once I hear it bearing in from the East I usually have around 10 secs. to get out onto the deck or back yard without killing myself or stepping on poochie ( ;0 . Wish me luck...

Hmmmmm...NEXT time it goes over the house and I'm on the back deck I'll try and shoot some quick video using my iPhone. Is quite spectacular to say the least and is an intimidating monster to say the least...however those pilots all seem to know what they are doing when setting up for the glidepath to WPAFB.

Incidentally they usually manage to have at least one as a static display at the annual Dayton Air Show (mid June...) which also hosts the Blue Angels, Sean Tucker, Patty Wagstaff, etc., et al. Worth a visit to witness this event if you are ever in the area then not even to mention yr. round for the world class aviation museum accessible to the public. Hey don't forget, WE were first in
flight thanks(NOT N.C.!) to Orville and Wilbur(whom are buried at Woodland cemetery near Univ. of Dayton). Later...

PS: I think they "used" to build the engines down in Cincinnati
for this among others?

You should see it and HEAR it when it flies over my home at
LOW altitude here in S. Dayton, OHio, on it's way to a touch-and-go at Wright Pat. AFB, almost daily! Looks like a scene out of
the intro to Star Wars and just as thrilling...

[/quote]

If I'm understanding your intent...you want a detailed moon in a moonlit scene (albeit lo key then...), or landscape? Starting with the moon first...
1) Following "Shoeless" lead and to get the detailed look on the
moon enough to see the "Lady in the Moon" , the other "sea's" and Mare"s etc then you need to remember that light put out from, say, a full moon is merely reflected "daylight". Using the Basic Daylight Exposure rule (BDE) then at whatever ISO you want to use(200-400 shud be adequate...) then to determine
the CORRECT exposure for detail...Your f\stop will always be
f\16 and SS(shutter speed) will be 1\ISO, for a full moon and ON a solid tripod using shutter delay and mirror up using the self timer or an electronic release. If around 1/2 phase moon then add around 1/2(open up) stop to make up for the difference in light. In any case, bracket a bit from these starting points to ensure detailed capture. This is ALL in camera done right the first time...forget the HDR efforts. I usually make an image bank of correct 1/2 phase-to-full moon shots in RAW and keep them in storage for use later on by... 2) compositing into a lo key scene to pop it up. I shoot at least with a 500 mm. lens which will give it a credible enlargement(or disk...) to fit most scenes that I use.
Try this...you will be satisfied, finally. You'll ALSO be able to enlarge it, if you wish, to the size that "Shoeless" showed which could render the craters, etc., depending on the quality of your lens, solidity of your tripod, and how settled the atmosphere really is when shooting.

PS: I control the situation by using MANUAL focus to avoid lens
"hunting" and also MANUAL exposure to lock it down!