Show your Bird Portraits

[Valvebounce]

Hi Daniel.
I think that the photo looks better without the sharpening, however I think the composition is very nice so once the sharpening and halos are sorted you will have a great shot. I have also received the "you have oversharpened this post" and although it is disheartening it is an opportunity to learn and improve and I'm sure the majority of us are here for that.
I think it takes great courage from Alan (or whoever else might chose to be critical) to break with the tradition of "lovely shot" and actually offer criticism, and when asked give the advice on how to improve.
Criticism on its own can be harmful, constructive criticism can when taken the right way help us improve.

Cheers, Graham.

 

[Ryananthony]

That looks much better in my opinion. But I have no credentials. I would rather be critiqued then praised for my images. As nice as it is hearing great shot, nice photo, etc. I don't learn from that.

 

[hbr]

Hi Daniel,
First let me say that those two pictures are great especially the picture of the Mockingbird. I have yet to have a picture of one that nice. But in the spirit of trying to be helpful, I believe the dark halo on the side of the egret is caused by both chromatic aberrations and slight over sharpening, (maybe in your default camera settings)? Also the large picture of the Mockingbird, to my eyes, still has a slight over sharpened look.
I usually set all my picture style settings in the camera to zero and make the adjustments in post processing. I also usually do minimal sharpening of the RAW file and save the sharpening for the JPEG image.
I do my RAW editing in DPP. Typically, I set the USM amount to 1, the fineness to 1 and the threshold to whatever is needed to strike a balance between noise and detail. I have also noticed in DPP that if you are using the lens profile data for CA correction and the picture doesn't have any CA then set the control to its minimal value and you will have less visible noise in the picture.
Anyway, I am not a professional photographer so take my comments with a grain of salt. Again, just trying to be helpful and express my opinions and saying how I would approach the editing of the photos.

Cheers!

 

[Mikehit]

There is a multitude of things going on.

As mentioned, the halo is likely to be due to recovering the sky.
As for the mockingbird itself, you have also done some significant global highlight recovery.

Once you do that it will not take much sharpening, and/or contrast adjustment, to exacerbate both the halo and the recovered detail in the feathers.

I have found that when very sharp lenses (I first saw this with the 70-200 f4L) are spot on focus and in certain lighting conditions, it takes very, very little sharpening before it starts to scream at me. You seem to have such an image here and your original hardly needs anything at all (it also shows that it is not the DO lens with, or without the 1.4xtc).

 

[AlanF]

Daniel
I think it is important to discuss the merits of different views on technique, and constructive comments have been made by several of us. The mockingbird shot is basically a great one, and looks even better less sharpened - to me, anyway, and I think to many of us.

 

[Jack Douglas]

So Neuro, what are you doing with all your free time now Dilbert is gone?

Jack

 

[Loswr]

So Neuro, what are you doing with all your free time now Dilbert is gone?

"Well, I'm gonna get out of bed every morning... breathe in and out all day long. Then, after a while I won't have to remind myself to get out of bed every morning and breathe in and out... and, then after a while, I won't have to think about how we here on CR Forums had it great and perfect for a while."

 

[Orangutan]

Dilbert was unmasked and his name published. So he painstakingly removed all of his posts and has departed from this part of the world.

I'm not a fan of doxxing, though I'm slightly curious as to whether he was just some random dude. I thought he was more misguided than a troll.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Dilbert was unmasked and his name published. So he painstakingly removed all of his posts and has departed from this part of the world.

I'm not a fan of doxxing, though I'm slightly curious as to whether he was just some random dude. I thought he was more misguided than a troll.

Words are inadequate to describe Dilbert but he did contribute some exquisite humour once in a while. Never seemed to post many photos though??

Jack

 

[Claudelec]

Héron cendré 70D, 100-400 IS MKII, 400mm , 1/500 6.3 ISO 400
cropped for size reasons

 

[Mikehit]

A really stately pose there, Claudelec and great colours

 

[Click]

Héron cendré 70D, 100-400 IS MKII, 400mm , 1/500 6.3 ISO 400
cropped for size reasons

Nice shot.

 

[dpc]

Magpie, yesterday afternoon...

 

[Vern]

Hi Daniel.
I think that the photo looks better without the sharpening, however I think the composition is very nice so once the sharpening and halos are sorted you will have a great shot. I have also received the "you have oversharpened this post" and although it is disheartening it is an opportunity to learn and improve and I'm sure the majority of us are here for that.
I think it takes great courage from Alan (or whoever else might chose to be critical) to break with the tradition of "lovely shot" and actually offer criticism, and when asked give the advice on how to improve.
Criticism on its own can be harmful, constructive criticism can when taken the right way help us improve.

Cheers, Graham.

+1 in thanking Alan for providing feedback. I would welcome same and take it in the spirit that we are all interested in improving. I know I can see flaws in my pics and am, unfortunately, pretty poor at post capture processing, so all advice welcome.

 

[Click]

Magpie, yesterday afternoon...

Very nice picture, dpc... Almost B&W

 

[dpc]

Magpie, yesterday afternoon...

Very nice picture, dpc... Almost B&W

Thanks! Yes, it was a very grey day. The picture could pass a B&W.

 

[Vern]

Héron cendré 70D, 100-400 IS MKII, 400mm , 1/500 6.3 ISO 400
cropped for size reasons

backlighting is lovely! While challenging lighting, I think it adds interest and drama.

I wonder if a bit more detail could be pulled out of the shaded feathers in post processing. I ask b/c I don't know the answer, but I'm sure others do.

 

[Vern]

Carolina Chickadee, 5DSR ISO 500, 600II f4, 1/1000, fill flash @-1 1/3 w better beamer.

my critique - would be better w a little more DOF. Focal point was on the eye but looks slightly front focused (just did AFMA using Focal, but looks like it missed slightly). Would have been better to trade off shutter speed for f5.6, I think. I'd like to be better at spotting this in the field, but its hard to see on the back of the camera.

I'm experimenting to see if avian pics w/o the 1.4X III are OK with just the 600 while using the 5DSR.

Unfortunately, our leaves have now fallen and all the beautiful color around the birds is on the ground.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Carolina Chickadee, 5DSR ISO 500, 600II f4, 1/1000, fill flash @-1 1/3 w better beamer.

my critique - would be better w a little more DOF. Focal point was on the eye but looks slightly front focused (just did AFMA using Focal, but looks like it missed slightly). Would have been better to trade off shutter speed for f5.6, I think. I'd like to be better at spotting this in the field, but its hard to see on the back of the camera.

I'm experimenting to see if avian pics w/o the 1.4X III are OK with just the 600 while using the 5DSR.

Unfortunately, our leaves have now fallen and all the beautiful color around the birds is on the ground.

Vern, it does seem to be front focused and I've run into this too. I've even gone so as to alter my AFMA towards back focusing in cases where my bet is that a small birds shoulder will be the focus point. It's also easy to shift aim unknowingly or in my case with BB focus to release unknowingly or subconsciously knowingly, if that makes any sense. I'm presuming it's spot single point you're using?

In general, about positive feedback/criticism, it's very difficult for a person who is not at hand to offer advice when all the facts/factors are not there to be evaluated in a methodical manner of progressive elimination. All we can do is try.

Relative to this idea of choosing to purposely back focus when there is a strong possibility that the camera will focus on a forward point of a bird, let's say it's flying laterally. The eye is always behind the body, the nearest object, which is what cameras are configured to focus on, so I'm thinking it's a valid tool. Thus, I'm about to investigate if different AFMA settings can be associated with C1 .. C3 in my 1DX II - anyone know?

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

dpc, that's an attractive shot of what some would call a beautiful bird, although I beg to differ on what I call it. It's one of my popular pests stealing food I try to serve to others! It and the squirrel, but that's being a little too harsh perhaps.

Jack