Not a bird

While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

--
PeterN

On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN said:

While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

Nice capture!

However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=ht...01_sanibel.jpg


Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I
cannot deny it is a nice capture.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

PeterN wrote:
While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

Very nice!
I had to go to a site in northeast Houston Tuesday and there
was a street vendor by the RR tracks selling "COON".
So I had to go look and he had about 10 skinned and butchered
racoons on ice ready for BBQ. No photos though since I doubt he
had a Houston food vendor license and the police were there
talking to him.

On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN said:

While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

Nice capture!

However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.

As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself, is
not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast enough for
the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is not fast
enough to capture most birds in flight.
I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.


http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=ht...01_sanibel.jpg



Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I cannot
deny it is a nice capture.


Thanks for your comments.

In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds, many
of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without that I
could not even get shots like this.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg

--
PeterN

On 1/1/2014 3:51 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
PeterN wrote:
While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

Very nice!
I had to go to a site in northeast Houston Tuesday and there
was a street vendor by the RR tracks selling "COON".
So I had to go look and he had about 10 skinned and butchered
racoons on ice ready for BBQ. No photos though since I doubt he
had a Houston food vendor license and the police were there
talking to him.
Thank you for your comments.

--
PeterN

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 12:48:35 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN said:

While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

Nice capture!

However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=ht...01_sanibel.jpg


Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I
cannot deny it is a nice capture.

I also wonder about colour spaces. See
http://www.fredmiranda.com/testforum/topic/1134507

For what it is worth, I am using Firefox.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN said:

On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN said:

While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

Nice capture!

However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.

As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself,
is not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast enough
for the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is not
fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.


http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=ht...01_sanibel.jpg



Not

quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I cannot
deny it is a nice capture.


Thanks for your comments.

In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds,
many of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without
that I could not even get shots like this.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg

I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
could handle a crop with room to spare. I dare say I would have done
better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
performance on the D800.

I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
something better in PP.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-01-01 22:11:50 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN said:

On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-01-01 20:08:14 +0000, PeterN said:

While trying to shoot birds from a canoe I saw this innocent little guy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

Nice capture!

However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.

As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself,
is not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast enough
for the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is not
fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.


http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=ht...01_sanibel.jpg



Not

quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I cannot
deny it is a nice capture.


Thanks for your comments.

In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds,
many of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without
that I could not even get shots like this.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg

I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
could handle a crop with room to spare. I dare say I would have done
better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
performance on the D800.

I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
something better in PP.

I would add, if I can get an image such as this, using a D300 + 70-300mm:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil..._3491-E-1c.jpg
Then you should be able to get much better detail in your bird shots
with your far superior camera and lens. As I say, you are going about
this the wrong way and you are not actually achieving your goals using
the choices you have made. You have no problem capturing the subject,
but fall down with the quality of RAW captured, you might well have
done better with a 4/3 super-zoom of some type. Your equipment isn't
performing to its full potential, and I don't believe it is a problem
with lens or camera. These might be some hard truths, but you need to
rethink your methods.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN said:
On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:

As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the
200 by itself, is not long enough. The 80-400 is a
sharp lens, but is not fast enough for the early
morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is
not fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.

Makes good sense to me...


http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=ht...01_sanibel.jpg

Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that
image, but I cannot
deny it is a nice capture.

Thanks for your comments.
In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up
is for birds, many of which are completely or partiall
white. Hence my EC. Without that I could not even get
shots like this.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg

I'll grant that when I first looked at the Exif the idea of using spot metering on that
subject raised an eyebrow. Then of course I see what the intended subject matter
was, and can agree totally with Peter on how this configuration makes perfect sense.

I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
could handle a crop with room to spare.

The 70-200mm f/2.8G with a 1.7X TC is an excellent lens. I don't know
where you are coming from with this negativity, but it suggests that you've
never seen what the camera/lens combinations Peter has available can do.

I dare say I would have done
better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
performance on the D800.

That's a joke. Right?

I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
something better in PP.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2014-01-02 00:14:56 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-01-01 21:21:38 +0000, PeterN said:
On 1/1/2014 3:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:

As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the
200 by itself, is not long enough. The 80-400 is a
sharp lens, but is not fast enough for the early
morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is
not fast enough to capture most birds in flight.
I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.

Makes good sense to me...


http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=ht...01_sanibel.jpg

Not

quite the way I would have gone about PP on that
image, but I cannot
deny it is a nice capture.

Thanks for your comments.
In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up
is for birds, many of which are completely or partiall
white. Hence my EC. Without that I could not even get
shots like this.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibelbirds_3558.jpg

I'll grant that when I first looked at the Exif the idea of using spot
metering on that
subject raised an eyebrow. Then of course I see what the intended
subject matter
was, and can agree totally with Peter on how this configuration makes
perfect sense.

I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
could handle a crop with room to spare.

The 70-200mm f/2.8G with a 1.7X TC is an excellent lens. I don't know
where you are coming from with this negativity, but it suggests that you've
never seen what the camera/lens combinations Peter has available can do.

I am well aware of what that particular combination can do. However,
Peter is not extracting the full potential of the very good & capable
equipment. That is why am somewhat bewildered at the poor quality of
what we are seeing. The images captured with the equipment he has
should be superb, they are not.

Why do I have the feeling that if you had gone on the same trip as
Peter using your similar equipment, shooting at the same subjects, we
wouldn't be having this discussion regarding image quality? I suspect
you would have given us very good quality images of the same subjects.


I dare say I would have done
better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
performance on the D800.

That's a joke. Right?

Not quite a joke, in the case of Peter's images on this trip I am
perfectly serious. Personally I would prefer to use a D800 and both of
the lenses he has on his current trip. I don't have that luxury.
This is a D300 + 70-300mm shot. Peter should have been able to produce
a far better quality image of the same subject, showing the feather
detail he values so much, with any of his D800 combo choices.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil..._3491-E-1c.jpg


I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
something better in PP.


--
Regards,

Savageduck