Are these oversharpened? Composition not great but would appreciate serious critques Third one is the poorest (IMO) but found the "wirey" hair to be interesting from a biologist's standpoint.
My very best
Well geez they are down-right awful!!! Whaddya thinking??!!
Joking really, these shots are good. I really think #1 has great appeal. Wonderful blues with a reflection and good subject. The composition is nice too!! Number two is kinda cool action but the bird might a bit small in the image, but colours are nice.
And number #3 is a great country shot. You got great colours that work well together, and wonderful subject looking right at ya (heck, even posing for you!!). The deer, the blue sky, puffy clouds, grren country grass.....man this should be in a childrens book of cute creatures.
Honestly great shots!! And #3 is the best in my eyes.
Ya'all are kinder than I am--guess I like abuse. Do appreciate the feedback, however and will input into my learning processes.
Joel, you are correct on #2--and it is already cropped by almost 50%! The followup photo shows the typical fish-in-mouth shot. Didn't want to mention that the first two were taken with a Tokina 300mm 2.8 with 1.4 extender until after I received feedback. Again, I seriously appreciate the input.
My very best,
Yes, the Tokina 300 Pro ATX 2.8 is an AF model. Unfortunately, it doesn't offer the AF-S setup like my Nikon 17-35 and Nikon 28-70. So the focusing is slow. Notice that I don't show any flying bird photos!! Have had it for a few years now and with my film cameras I simply focused manually. The glass itself seems to be quite decent, however. Am sort of salivating for the Nikon 200-400 though. Ah, heck. Why not simply go for the 500mm?
My very best,
Like they say, Jerry, there just HAS to be one in every crowd, and it is my turn in the barrel I think :wink:
First off, take a look at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. It is HSM and focuses very quickly. I, long ago, had the Tamron version of the Tokina 300mm and while quality was good, focus was, well, "not fast". The internal motors make a huge difference.
Now, to the images.
First off, I wish I could see them bigger, because some of what I say may simply be an artifiact of size. On #1, the only thing that strikes me is the very light band running across the birds body, about in the middle and almost horizontal. That may be the way the light hit, but for me it looks strange. Other than that I don't see "oversharpening".
#2 is cool, and the only sharpening artifacts I notice are the "black spots" which don't obviously look to me like weeds in the water. If this was oversharpened, however, I would expect to see some "jaggieness" i nthe water droplets.
#3 is the one that bugs me. The clouds look to me almost "splotchy" on the edges, which is something I see when I push sharpening too far.
Now, these are really, really picky, overall I would not be at all unhappy to either have taken or shown these. But I figure if you asked, you wanted to hear.
If not, feel free to ignore me, most other folks do anyway :lol: :lol: :lol:
(figured I'd say that before Frank did....self-preservation you know)
One last comment. I really like it when folks ask like this as it forces me to look at things, including my own, from a different perspective.
Really do appreciate your input and found them to be very thoughtful. In pic #1 I will have to return to the original file and take a look re the larger line you refer to. I know that the smaller diagonal lines along the rear third are real and are reflections off the ripples on the water. Re #2. It was almost a 50% crop so likely all kinds of artifacts show up--but the weeds (roots & twigs sticking up, really) in #1 and #2 are real. I was tripping all over the things as the tide moved in and I moved back every few minutes. The pics of the two birds were taken minutes apart with the 2nd one being in heavy shade.
Boy, you really did catch me on #3. The clouds were added after the pic was finalized so they, indeed, are artifacts! I just couldn't stand the full blue Montana sky with no clouds. Sorry to be such a fraud and apologize.
Thanks very much for the excellent input.
My very best,
here is the original out of camera (with all settings off) pic of the Great Egret. Sized only and converted to jpeg. Obviously it was severely cropped in the photo I posted, but the white horizontal/slightly diagonal line occurs in the original. Weird?
My very best,
This is a great analysis of Jerry's shots. The best in the whole thread. 8)
Second, to Jerry:
The diagonal line, as Bob pointed out, is definitely a reflection from a ripple in the water. I actually kind of like these. With respect to your 300 2.8 lens, if all you are going to do is shoot stationary birds, I wouldn't buy a new lens, unless you are just desperate for more length. You obviously know how to get the most out of the Tokina, and it is sharp as a tack.
If you are considering a lens for flying birds, I would look hardest at the 200-400VR. I have the Nikkor 300 2.8 AF-S II, and I absolutely love it, but if I had it to do over again, I'm not sure that I wouldn't pick the 200-400VR. The reason is the flexibility. Having said that though, the 300 2.8 AF-S II is a killer flying birdie lens, and can be had at a good price now that the VR version has been released.
Thanks to all for the excellent dissections of the photos. Just what I wanted and I learned something from each and every post.
Flew, appreciate the comments regarding the Tokina. However, the 200-400 will be on my short list for certain. Have been following carefully the posts re the latter. As you likely have figured out by now, my primary interest is in macro work although I like to photograph anything in nature. Unfortunately, people I simply cannot do!
Thanks again for the thread.
Jerry, I KNEW there was something wrong about those clouds, but I didn't think it was THAT wrong :lol: :lol: . And here I thought it was just an artifact, when, in fact, it was an ARTIFACT :wink:
Frank, the poor guy asked for a critique, and it was really tough for me to be so serious for so long. It physically hurt...I'm not used to that stuff. But, in truth and all seriousness, I think it is a very good exercise to look at images from a different point of view, and I think it gives me a better idea of what to look at in my own. Of course these didn't look too blue either :lol:
If I could find a rich patron, or about 20 $1,000 bills laying around, I'd grab the 200 f2, the 200-400 and the Nikon 500. Given that I don't expect such to happen tomorrow, I'll just "make do" with my Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and Sigma 500 f4.5 HSM. No matter how you cut it, all of these are too danged heavy to do any REAL hand-holding....