My First Post

[NikonnooB]

http://eye-m-stassi.smugmug.com/photos/258373864_E5m2U-600x600.jpg

I'm hoping this post works. I finally got my stuff up on SmugMug, and I'd love to get some critique on this image.

Thanks!:)

Adding exif:
Basic
Date Modified 2008-02-24 13:48:47
Date Taken 2007-11-01 12:49:14
Date Digitized 2007-11-01 12:49:13
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D40
Exposure Time 0.0002s (1/4000)
Aperture f/5.6
ISO 200
Focal Length 110mm (165mm 35mm)
Photo Dimensions 4096 x 2723
File Name _DSC3000.jpg
File Size 1.72 MB
Detailed
Flash flash did not fire
Exposure Program aperture priority
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Exposure Mode auto
Light Source unknown
White Balance auto
Digital Zoom Ratio 1/1
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Sharpness 0
Subject Distance Range 0
Sensing Method one-chip color sensor
Color Space sRGB

[Nicole]

Well, if you'd like critique, this should probably be moved to the critique section ;) So, if you'd like it moved, add your image's exif and let me know and I'll move it over :)

[Frk]

I won't hazard a critique, as I'm a novice here. But it looks beautifull taking of like that, or is it just catching a fish?

[goshort]

dear friend, wonderfully captured, what a beautiful start of an unknown flight. the beauty of your pic is at the foot and the splashing water. only my advice wud be to crop 1/2" from right because the lovely bird comes almost in centre, which also compositionally demands because we have to give more space towards destination rather than at back which space is almost of no work. thanks.:)

[NikonnooB]

Thank you, guys!

As for whether this guy was taking off, or fishing - this was a take-off, and I was just so happy to have not missed it (like I usually do!)

And, goshort - thank you - I was thinking about that, as I'd've loved to have captured it with the "rule of thirds", but the birds just won't listen! ;) For some reason, I didn't even think of cropping. I'll be doing that.

Now, Nicole - YES, you're absolutely right, and I apologize for not thinking of the critique section. Totally should have done that, and I'm sorry I didn't.

I read your post in response to the thread on how to get the exif data in there, and I'm going to go in there to ask a related question. I really want to know how to do this, and I would definitely like this moved to the critique forum. I need the exif in critique forums?

Thanks!

[Nicole]

Moved it over to animal critique :) I'll check the other thread too, but it's highly recommended to put in the exif if you can in the Critique section :)

[RussHeath]

Overall, a great shot. I particularly like the contrast in the black feathers, the water, and the excellent timing you have. It's hard to get that telltale water splash behind the bird's feet that really gives this a sense of action. I also like the vignette, was it intentional?

I think you may have a small room for improvement in the exposure of the white feathers. It's a tough balance, because you have such extremes in this shot, but given that white is the dominant color of the subject, I would probably have exposed about a half stop less even if that meant dropping some of the detail in the water.

Great shot, and thanks for sharing. :)

[NikonnooB]

Thank you Russ. Yeah - that contrast with the feathers was a real killer. I was just so darned happy to get the splash!

I can totally see your point about stopping it down, and, in fact, the original capture was much darker - I increased the exposure in Photoshop RAW, because I'd actually lost detail in the wings, and underneath. I really tried not to overexpose the white, but this was a hard one. Now, maybe you can tell me... if I'd stopped it down further, would not the splash have blurred more? I'm still really trying to learn here, and for some reason, that whole higher fstop number, smaller the opening thing really messes with me, sometimes! ;) This one also probably had a polarizer on it, also, which makes my brain a little more muddled (the water tended to be pretty shiny that day). I'm not good at recording details about my shots, so I'm not totally certain I had it on.

And, for the vignette - unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the shot), my lens seems to add vignette to many of my shots at more open apertures, at certain focal distances. I'm not certain how to avoid it - but I believe it's exacerbated by the circular polarizer, as well. In this image, I liked it, so I didn't try to correct it in post processing.

This input is great - I'm SO GLAD I can finally post stuff!

Thanks!

[gb_eh]

I think you have done rather well here... There is nothing harder than an exposure on a black and white bird. You tend to blow the whites to capture details in the dark areas or visa versa... you have done really well here to balance it. The only problem areas i see are the vignette (personal choice here), and the head seems to be a little soft. But for a black and white bird in action you have done really good here.. nice work.

[windrider86]

Dont relly know quite what to critique because other than the head is a little soft (which is something that really isnt a huge deal with this picture) its a great catch. if I were you, I'd be proud of this one

[NikonnooB]

Thank you Windrider! I really appreciate the compliment on this, and the comment.

To gb_eh - I agree - I wish the head were sharper. It does look sharper at full size - you can pretty clearly see the wrinkles under the beak, but I still wish I was able to sharpen to the head, instead of the wings. As for the vignette, I'm stuck with either trying to repair it, or enhance it. It simply happens with the lens I have (and until I win the lotto, I'm afraid I'll be sticking with it). I could try to alleviate some of it by removing the circular polarizer, and am going to try both ways in future shots.

The balance of black and white is seriously helped by camera RAW. I'm so glad I finally have a camera that can give me that broad a range!

Maybe you guys can tell me your opinion - if I'd stepped down the aperture, so I could get a broader depth of field (enabling focus on the whole bird) would I not have lost the frozen water drops? Maybe gotten a bit of motion blur? Is it a better choice to have caught the drops and lost the face focus, or vice versa?

I guess I'm asking how those of you with more experience would shoot it. Of course, I'm probably cross-thread-posting on this question, but I really do want to know...

[RexK_Cozumel]

well looking at your exif data you could have done both since at 5.6 you were at 1/4000 of a second in reality you only need about 1/200 to stop motion (depends on how fast things are moving but for water it should be fine) you could have easily gotten the same image using somewhere between f8-f11 and that woudl have given you the DOF you needed to get the whole bird into sharp focus.

[NikonnooB]

Rex! Thank you! That was exactly the kind of clarification I needed. Being new to this, I'm still not clued in as to the latitude of the various settings. Knowing I can stop action at 1/200 is giant information. And, knowing that f/8-f/11 is sufficient for DOF between the front and back of the bird really gives me something to work with.

This is such a great forum - and I really appreciate everyone's help here.

BTW, Rex - the view from your office window is Cozumel? I'm SO jealous! That's heaven on earth! :)

[tufcat]

Excellent capture. I like it as it is.

[NikonnooB]

Thank you, tufcat. It's nice to hear such a great compliment, when I'm so new and insecure. :)

[RussHeath]

Thank you Russ. Yeah - that contrast with the feathers was a real killer. I was just so darned happy to get the splash!

I can totally see your point about stopping it down, and, in fact, the original capture was much darker - I increased the exposure in Photoshop RAW, because I'd actually lost detail in the wings, and underneath. I really tried not to overexpose the white, but this was a hard one. Now, maybe you can tell me... if I'd stopped it down further, would not the splash have blurred more? I'm still really trying to learn here, and for some reason, that whole higher fstop number, smaller the opening thing really messes with me, sometimes! ;) This one also probably had a polarizer on it, also, which makes my brain a little more muddled (the water tended to be pretty shiny that day). I'm not good at recording details about my shots, so I'm not totally certain I had it on.

And, for the vignette - unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the shot), my lens seems to add vignette to many of my shots at more open apertures, at certain focal distances. I'm not certain how to avoid it - but I believe it's exacerbated by the circular polarizer, as well. In this image, I liked it, so I didn't try to correct it in post processing.

This input is great - I'm SO GLAD I can finally post stuff!

Thanks!

NikonnooB -- Sorry it took me a while to get back. As Rex said, you probably don't need 1/4000 shutter speed, but having shot a few of these fast action bird shots I wouldn't go slower than 1/400 unless I had to. When I'm shooting birds in lower light I push as low as 1/200, but I still get a fair percent with blur in them. In the bright light you had I would have been using 1/400 or 1/500 and metered off the white bird. That would have given you around f/8 or f/9, which as stated above would have increased your DOF a little without sacraficing motion stopping power.

Depending on the RAW conversion software you have, you might consider having another go at converting this one (if you still have the original RAW file). Go ahead and convert it with about 1/2 stop less exposure, then try to bring up the shadows in post. The bird will look a little more flat, but you'll gain detail in the whites. RAW can be a real blessing!

Again, very nice shot. :)

[NikonnooB]

You know - that's a great idea. I always keep my RAW images (pack rat), so it'll be great to experiment with this further. I'm going to eliminate some of that vignette, too - I just assumed that would be the way I'd want to go, but maybe I'll like it better with less...

As for that "metered off the white bird" - you say that as if I might have the skill to have been able to do something that quickly! ;) I was happy to have set up for a fast shot, before he took off - and I managed to get decent focus - I don't think I'm up to considering the actual metering as I shoot this kind of shot --- yet! I'll get there, though!

Wonder if DPS'll let me post any new adjustments I make here?

[Nicole]

Wonder if DPS'll let me post any new adjustments I make here?

Yes please :) We highly encourage people to post their edits made after critiques to the same thread so that we can see the end result (and so you don't have to use up a new day's critique thread to link back to your old critique thread ;)).

[NikonnooB]

http://eye-m-stassi.smugmug.com/photos/259509437_72aCQ-600x600.jpg (http://eye-m-stassi.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=259509437&ImageKey=72aCQ)

Okay - if I was able to follow Nicole's excellent instructions to post, you should see the re-processed image above, with a click-link to the original exif.

The post-processing for this one, taking a lot of what's been said here into account was (using RAW from Adobe Bridge CS3):
Crop more to lower left third
Color Temperature from 5200-5500 (needed warmth)
Exposure +.35 (instead of the original 1.4ish)
Open Fill Light +39 (the darks were just too dark!)
Increased Contrast to =34 (the lower exposure compensation had this very flat)
vibrance +42 (to get the water to look more watery)
Saturation +7 (the beak)
Removed lens vignetting +61 (this looks like too much in the resulting jpeg, but as RAW and as .psd, it looked better)
Sharpened - a massive 95 - for the face
Reduced Luminance noise +21 (to clean up the water after the sharpening)

I kinda miss the vignetting, myself - although after the crop, I'd have to process the vignetting back in, if I wanted it.

The feathers are DEFINITELY better this way, and I do think it was worth bringing back some flatness to get that - that was a great suggestion. As for the crop - I'm going to <em>try</em> to compose better during a shoot like this (I have real difficulty with fast-moving subjects), 'cause I really would have liked to have shot with the rule of thirds in mind.

Any better?

BTW - thank you, Nicole, for the clarification. That's so cool that I can repost - AND still submit another for the day!

[RussHeath]

You know - that's a great idea. I always keep my RAW images (pack rat), so it'll be great to experiment with this further. I'm going to eliminate some of that vignette, too - I just assumed that would be the way I'd want to go, but maybe I'll like it better with less...

As for that "metered off the white bird" - you say that as if I might have the skill to have been able to do something that quickly! ;) I was happy to have set up for a fast shot, before he took off - and I managed to get decent focus - I don't think I'm up to considering the actual metering as I shoot this kind of shot --- yet! I'll get there, though!

Wonder if DPS'll let me post any new adjustments I make here?

First, you really did an excellent job taking everyone's comments and applying them to the edit. The details are much much better in the white feathers, and I don't think you really gave anything up in doing so. Thanks for posting it back so we could see!

Second, what I really meant about metering off the bird (I guess my original post did sound a little odd) was that using spot metering in these situations is helpful. That way if you have your focus point on the subject, your camera will only take it into account rather than trying to expose for the whole scene (which usually works very well). It's not something I often remember to do, but if you know you're going to be shooting a high contrast subject it's worth changing before you put the camera up to your eye. If there's not time, then thank goodness for RAW, huh? :)

[Nicole]

No problem :) And the link works perfectly.

I do like the detail that you've brought back in the feathers. I actually think it looks less flat now that you've brought that detail back. Nicely done :)

[NikonnooB]

Oh, yeah! RAW's been saving my.... er..... you know... since I started with it (back last July). I feel rather like I'm cheating, but then I remember that in the film world, one could tell the lab to process a roll for overexposure and underexposure, so I don't feel that bad. AND, it's so much better with digital, 'cause the pre-processing can be done for each image, individually. I do envy the people who're getting the perfect shot right out of the gate, though.

I do agree - the birds feathers are way better than my first run at this. I loved the original contrast, but it doesn't justify the loss of detail. BUT, I do think I miss my vignette... (a good thing, too, since with that 55-200VR, I'm going to have to live with it).

Thank you, so much for your insights into this - I've been learning so much!

You know, I actually almost always DO use spot metering (even though, I think I should break that habit). I'm surprised it doesn't show up in the exif data from SmugMug, but I checked my file in bridge, and this was shot with spot metering. I tend to use it from my old days with my Nikon FG. I got used to pressing the button, and recomposing. I'm not certain why the original of this shot was so flat and slightly underexposed, as I used aperture priority mode (didn't think fast enough to switch to shutter priority, which I think would've made more sense for this kind of image). I'm glad it was a little flat, actually, 'cause it gave me the latitude to play in raw.

[NikonnooB]

Nicole - you posted, while I was composing the above.

Your posting information worked perfectly, and I got really lucky with being able to follow it. I'm keeping it handy for my cut/pastes for all my future stuff (now my desktop's a mess!) ;)

Thank you for the input on this. I'm glad you agree about the feathers and the new one. This whole process really changed the way I've been looking at things...