A few from the Backyard... Need advice as well
Well, I finally had a day that was sunny to play with the lens. Made myself take them in RAW so will learn to process. Let me know what you think. In one the sun was coming through the trees kinda weird and I had a hard time dealing with it, however I took the shot BECAUSE the sun was hitting the bird so strong....
Anyway, while they are better in some regards to what I was getting with Jpegs, I am still not satisfied with the results. Any and all critiques will be most appreciated.
Andrew
Anyway, while they are better in some regards to what I was getting with Jpegs, I am still not satisfied with the results. Any and all critiques will be most appreciated.
Andrew
“Tug at a single thing in nature, and you will find it connected to the universe.
[John Muir]
[John Muir]
0
Comments
Your wren and woodpecker shots are more than acceptable if not just a tad dark. The titmouse shot has some definte hot spots which, since you shot in RAW, can probably be minimized. I am not a Photoshop guru by any stretch of the word but I was told just yesterday by someone who has a wedding photography business that Bridge in Photoshop is much better at processing the RAW image. I am going to try that out once my RAW images load into Photoshop. I will have a ton of RAW images to process after my trip. Good luck and keep posting.
www.capture-the-pixel.com
I use PSP which is similar to PS, and they have a burn brush that you can choose the size circle you want a little darker. I use it on the blown out spots sometimes. Or I go to adjust histogram and try moving the lever to the left a tad to slightly take the edge off the brightness. Whatever is fast is what I choose. ;~) Don't know if PS has a back light tool, but in PSP you can adjust a lever to stop down the backlighting, or open up a shady spot with the fill flash lever. PS may have those.
I did that on the left side of this photo, and also filled [lightened]the right side shady area of the tail:[sometimes backlighting is good as it makes a nice warm glow, so don't worry about the blown out indication on your LCD sometimes. If I listened to those warnings all my photos would be too dark.
Andrew
[John Muir]
What about the shots are you unhappy with?
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
The best way to describe it is that they look flat... I konw that the elusive "pop" is something to strive for and I am sure that I will get it. But at the moment the colors seem muted. I am going to go back to the titmouse shot and see if I can reduce some of the blowouts.
Now, I know that I am my own worse critic... But like I said, its better than the jpg that was taken in conjunction with this shot.
Andrew
Andrew
[John Muir]
Other than that they are all find, except for the woodie which is a little too much in the shadows
Getting your pics to "pop" is easiest achieved by shooting in better light,
even so, you certainly can get some "pop" out of these. Here's just one
example:
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
I agree with you about the pop. Check out this tute.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Harry gave me the same advice and sent me that tutorial. When I used it there was a world of difference in the "pop". And it is very very easy too.
Powered by Smugmug
Three passions wildlife, golf and the STEELERS
Equipment
Nikon D4, D300
Check this out. (you may never want to shoot raw again)
http://www.pictocolor.com/editlabpro.htm
Ric, i can't believe you just said that!! :thwak
www.intruecolors.com
Nikon D700 x2/D300
Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
tempting as that may be, I had better learn with what have on the computer if this is to remain a happy home....
something to think about though
[John Muir]
My website | NANPA Member