Young Watcher

jomach · Oct 29, 2025

The young heron watches the water until it sees a fish and moves from its position when challenged by another bird. Comments and suggestions welcome. Processed in NxStudio.

joe

View attachment 7ea8ccbb1950489eb6bab2c3f3ebf285.jpg

Thank You

--
I love to make pictures and talk photography
Joe's Faves: https://www.flickr.com/photos/machadojr/
<>
Sony image site https://creatorscloud.sony.net/disc...4c96-4569-90bf-3cf40c81fb4b?gp_need_tab=false
<>
2009 Professional Photographers of Oklahoma Electronic Imaging Division First place
<>
2013 Professional Photographers of Oklahoma Electronic Imaging Division First place

David Lal · Oct 29, 2025

jomach said:
Comments and suggestions welcome. Processed in NxStudio.

I am sorry Joe but the whole image seems soft and or fuzzy on my 27" 4k screen. I don't see any EXIF data so it is difficult to diagnose the problem.

On a more positive note, I like that you gave a bit of a narrative associated with the image.

ASR45 · Oct 29, 2025

We see lots of herons where I live, we also have Eurasian cranes as I live in a conservation area, thanks for posting.

David Lal · Oct 29, 2025

ASR45 said:
We see lots of herons where I live, we also have Eurasian cranes as I live in a conservation area, thanks for posting.

That's interesting - so do I: South Downs National Park. Quite a stream of visitors to our back garden. No Eurasian cranes though.

jomach · Oct 30, 2025

Thanks David, I did use Photoshop as well, that is why no exif, exported from NxStudio, added gaussian blur. Thanks for commenting, much appreciated.

joe

jomach · Oct 30, 2025

Thank you Alan. Let's see some Eurasean herons sometime...

joe

David Lal · Oct 30, 2025

jomach said:
Thanks David, I did use Photoshop as well, that is why no exif, exported from NxStudio, added gaussian blur. Thanks for commenting, much appreciated.

I am not sure why you would deliberately have blurred the image?

I'd have gone completely the other way. Personal tastes are different, of course but my eye prefers contrasty, sharp images. For birds especially I like to see well-defined plumage or in mammals, good hair detail. My work flow involves separation of images into at least two layers with a lot of luminance-only unsharp mask applied to the lower layer then careful blending of top and bottom layers.

I am a Paintshop Pro user. That strips out the EXIF from my images too (even if that's not what I want).

jomach · Oct 30, 2025

David, here is the exif for that image, thanks for your support.

joe

440348b42b5a467f836d4e86e8df4efe.jpg.png

Thank You

--
I love to make pictures and talk photography
Joe's Faves: https://www.flickr.com/photos/machadojr/
<>
Sony image site https://creatorscloud.sony.net/disc...4c96-4569-90bf-3cf40c81fb4b?gp_need_tab=false
<>
2009 Professional Photographers of Oklahoma Electronic Imaging Division First place
<>
2013 Professional Photographers of Oklahoma Electronic Imaging Division First place

David Lal · Friday at 4:09 AM

jomach said:
David, here is the exif for that image, thanks for your support.

Well Jo, I am not keen on any of the superzooms such as your 28-300. Great for convenience but at best, mediocre image quality. Especially at either extreme end of the focal length range. Nonetheless, I would have expected better IQ.

Therefore the fuzziness I saw in your image must have been due to the postprocessing you applied. Perhaps the final result was exactly what you intended, in which case, fair enough but could you have made a processing mistake?

Topi · Friday at 7:23 AM

David Lal said:
jomach said:

David, here is the exif for that image, thanks for your support.

Click to expand...

Well Jo, I am not keen on any of the superzooms such as your 28-300. Great for convenience but at best, mediocre image quality. Especially at either extreme end of the focal length range. Nonetheless, I would have expected better IQ.

Therefore the fuzziness I saw in your image must have been due to the postprocessing you applied. Perhaps the final result was exactly what you intended, in which case, fair enough but could you have made a processing mistake?

I had a look at the picture in the gallery, and it is over 100 megapixels (I kid you not). I also think it was crop from another shot, with two herons on the beach. So it could be an uprezzed crop of the original picture.

-Topi

David Lal · Friday at 8:12 AM

Topi said:
I had a look at the picture in the gallery, and it is over 100 megapixels (I kid you not). I also think it was crop from another shot, with two herons on the beach. So it could be an uprezzed crop of the original picture.

Ah yes, possibly so. Well, to my eye, the technique did not work. For me, the best way to do wild life is with modest lenses and having the patience to become physically really close to the subject.

Search

Young Watcher

jomach

Well-known member

David Lal

Veteran Member

ASR45

Veteran Member

David Lal

Veteran Member

jomach

Well-known member

jomach

Well-known member

David Lal

Veteran Member

jomach

Well-known member

David Lal

Veteran Member

Topi

Veteran Member

David Lal

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts