first sample with 600 f4 and 1.4x (20d) spoonbills feeding

ALFONSO, great work with your 600mm.

Question: How do you add the Copyright tranparency on your images. I am looking for the same but not there yet.

Thanks for your help.
 
just click the text tool and type in the © and whatever ya may want,
then double click on the photoshop layer to bring up the layer styles and click
on "bevel and emboss" to the left, slide the "size" to 1
and adjust the "opacity " for highlights and shadow on the bottom of the pane.

Click ok and on the palette layer not under the "opacity" but UNDER the "fill" slide
to the left (5% or more)

It sounds complicated but it's very easy.
--
Alfonso Bresciani
P_o_m_p_o M_u_l_t_i_m_e_d_i_a
============================================
===
You will know fear...Then you will know pain.
Then you will use a Mac.
http://www.pompo.com
 
I disagree. For 300mm worth of reach to produce that subject size,
it would likely have been nearly a 100% crop, which would be
nowhere near as detailed as that image since the birds would
probably just have filled up the center metering circle, not the
entire frame. It would have been lacking detail and thus softer in
appearance. 100% center crops of wildlife due to lack of
sufficient reach always look bad. In this case, the shot looks
great.
(300/840) 3504 = 1251 pixels. 1251 original pixels downsampled to 900 sharpens up a good deal. If we started with 400mm, we'd have

(400/840) 3504 =1669 pixels. 1669 original pixels downsampled to 900 sharpens up as well as possible.

So let's say, 400mm; what would you say, then?

--
John
 
I'm just speaking from experience using a telephoto on wildlife here. You can see lots of texture and detail in the feathers of the spoonbills, despite being downsampled. This tells me the subjects took up a large part of the frame. A center crop will lack such detail. When compared at the same pixel dimensions, it's obvious which is a center crop and which isn't. I don't think it makes sense to argue that the value of a super telephoto is diminished with a downsampled web shot. It's no different than being 4x closer with 1/4 the focal length.

Notice how the birds below are the same size in pixels, but the first one has way more texture and detail since the subject comprised more of the original frame. An 800 pixel downsampling still retains incredible detail that the center crop never had.

Nearly full frame:



Nearly center crop:


I disagree. For 300mm worth of reach to produce that subject size,
it would likely have been nearly a 100% crop, which would be
nowhere near as detailed as that image since the birds would
probably just have filled up the center metering circle, not the
entire frame. It would have been lacking detail and thus softer in
appearance. 100% center crops of wildlife due to lack of
sufficient reach always look bad. In this case, the shot looks
great.
(300/840) 3504 = 1251 pixels. 1251 original pixels downsampled to
900 sharpens up a good deal. If we started with 400mm, we'd have


(400/840) 3504 =1669 pixels. 1669 original pixels downsampled to
900 sharpens up as well as possible.


So let's say, 400mm; what would you say, then?

--
John
--
Wildlife galleries
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/
 
Notice how the birds below are the same size in pixels, but the
first one has way more texture and detail since the subject
comprised more of the original frame. An 800 pixel downsampling
still retains incredible detail that the center crop never had.
The top image is aliased, so it looks sharper than it is actually detailed.

--
John
 
You have some nice shots, but I don't think the first one you posted is your best one. The others look better. The first one seems to suffer from a bad color cast. It could be somewhat due to early morning light if that's when you took the shot, but I don't think your camera accurately captured it (white balance). Appears too yellow to me...

I like spoonies but I seldom get a good chance to capture them in photos. It would be nice to have the 600 f4. Have fun with your new toy. I am using a 100-400L on these...









http://www.pbase.com/tim32225/birds
--
Pbase homepage at http://www.pbase.com/tim32225/root

 
Wow your pics are incredible!!

You must have read my mind on the first one...I'm not sure about the

color balance either on that one. It was shot at sunrise so it is a bit too warm.
If we shoot a white subject with warm light are we supposed to balance it
to white or is the white supposed to be a bit warmer???

Should I change it to a cooler color balance?
--
Alfonso Bresciani
P_o_m_p_o M_u_l_t_i_m_e_d_i_a
============================================
===
You will know fear...Then you will know pain.
Then you will use a Mac.
http://www.pompo.com
 
Arguably, the early morning and late evening light is magic for photography.

I believe that the color tones present at those times when the light is very soft, and may actually cast a mild pink or yellow cast, should be preserved. The object is to portray the colors exactly as they were seen with they eye at the time. However, often if white balance is not exact (and it's diffiuclt to get it that way unless you set custom white balance) the camera will not accurately reproduce those colors as you saw them.

It's tricky trying to remember exactly how warm the actual scene was, after the fact, and herein lies our challenge. Often it's impossible to be sure that you tweaked the photo just right and that you are presenting the scene exactly as it was in true life.

What I do is try to get the white balance as close as possible, and if I have time, that involves setting custom white balance. But the problem is that the light is always changing, so even that is no guarantee for very long.

I guess the rule of thumb is after you have taken enough photos in that soft light, you get a feel for what looks right. It's also sometimes an eye-opener to compare photos you've just post processed to some you did on a different day in simiilar light, in order to help you judge if the colors are rendered accurately.

This photo below is a good example... taken at Merritt Island National Wildlife Perserve at about 7:40 pm as the sun was setting. I remember the white balance being a little bit off, and needing to adjust if. I believe what I ended up with is accurate, but it's impossible to be absolutely certain.



--
Pbase homepage at http://www.pbase.com/tim32225/root

 
I agree with you on this below.

I was thinking instead of shooting just raw to add small jpg and custom white balance.

The way I can use the jpg as a reference to tweak the raw. Like you said the challenge is getting the right
custom balance at sunrise or sunset when the light keeps on changing.

I believe that the color tones present at those times when the light is very soft, and may actually cast a mild pink or yellow cast, should be preserved.
 
Wow, incredible shots - how did you get so close?! Where was this?
You have some nice shots, but I don't think the first one you
posted is your best one. The others look better. The first one
seems to suffer from a bad color cast. It could be somewhat due to
early morning light if that's when you took the shot, but I don't
think your camera accurately captured it (white balance). Appears
too yellow to me...

I like spoonies but I seldom get a good chance to capture them in
photos. It would be nice to have the 600 f4. Have fun with your
new toy. I am using a 100-400L on these...
--
Wildlife galleries
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/
 
The birds are pretty close, if you get lucky you don't need
a long long lens...amazing place indeed.

Most of shots taken with 600 f4 + 1.4x
Some straight 600

--
Alfonso Bresciani
P_o_m_p_o M_u_l_t_i_m_e_d_i_a
============================================
===
You will know fear...Then you will know pain.
Then you will use a Mac.
http://www.pompo.com
 
I was asking about the guy with the 100-400, Tim32225.

As for Lake Martin, they're close, but the challenge is finding an open view... usually those views are further back. The ones up front seem to want more nesting privacy. My open views required me to scoot down on my butt into the swamp which resulted in a massive ant attack, but while they were biting me, I got a few shots:


The birds are pretty close, if you get lucky you don't need
a long long lens...amazing place indeed.

Most of shots taken with 600 f4 + 1.4x
Some straight 600

--
Alfonso Bresciani
P_o_m_p_o M_u_l_t_i_m_e_d_i_a
============================================
===
You will know fear...Then you will know pain.
Then you will use a Mac.
http://www.pompo.com
--
Wildlife galleries
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top