[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots

On 7/18/2012 11:05 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:36:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-18 17:59:32 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-18 17:03:01 -0700, Savageduck said:

On 2012-07-18 16:01:44 -0700, tony cooper said:

On my shots...

The Lorikeets really are a very bright bird color-wise. (Check out
web images) However, I used a flash because they were in the back of
the enclosure, and no bouncing surface was available. Consequently,
I've got almost-blowout from flash effect on the feathers. f/4
1/125th. Saturation was not kicked in post.

All I can say is, regardless of cause, the final effect is one of both
birds appearing over saturated to the point of being unpleasant.
Perhaps there might have been a fix available in post. I am sure it is
possible to reach a better solution.

try this for a fix in post:
http://db.tt/C2TKTOz8

Just a different version of garish. The feathers aren't good enough
to start with. As far as I'm concerned, if it's a bird the feathers
have be detailed.

I think if you made a side-by-side comparison the fix might be more
apparent, including an improvement in feather detail.
http://db.tt/C2TKTOz8

Nah. Look at the feathers on both bird's chests and the blue feathers
in the lower body.

In your version, the branch has detail (too much, in fact) and becomes
more prominent than the subjects.

What I did like about the photo was the composition. Nice diagonal of
the front bird, interesting "V" in the middle, and decent balance.
None of this forgives a photo that looks more like a paint-by-numbers
kit.

It might be interesting if processed as an abstract and *really*
goofed up.

Maybe PeterN can goof it up.

Yup!


I could not download your image, so here is one of mine, that I did to
an extreme.

http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/public/21526966_dVBkNG#!i=1978586733&k=gK4wnD2

--
Peter

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:02:53 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/18/2012 11:05 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:36:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-18 17:59:32 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-18 17:03:01 -0700, Savageduck
said:

On 2012-07-18 16:01:44 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On my shots...

The Lorikeets really are a very bright bird color-wise. (Check out
web images) However, I used a flash because they were in the back
of
the enclosure, and no bouncing surface was available.
Consequently,
I've got almost-blowout from flash effect on the feathers. f/4
1/125th. Saturation was not kicked in post.

All I can say is, regardless of cause, the final effect is one of
both
birds appearing over saturated to the point of being unpleasant.
Perhaps there might have been a fix available in post. I am sure it
is
possible to reach a better solution.

try this for a fix in post:
http://db.tt/C2TKTOz8

Just a different version of garish. The feathers aren't good enough
to start with. As far as I'm concerned, if it's a bird the feathers
have be detailed.

I think if you made a side-by-side comparison the fix might be more
apparent, including an improvement in feather detail.
http://db.tt/C2TKTOz8

Nah. Look at the feathers on both bird's chests and the blue feathers
in the lower body.

In your version, the branch has detail (too much, in fact) and becomes
more prominent than the subjects.

What I did like about the photo was the composition. Nice diagonal of
the front bird, interesting "V" in the middle, and decent balance.
None of this forgives a photo that looks more like a paint-by-numbers
kit.

It might be interesting if processed as an abstract and *really*
goofed up.

Maybe PeterN can goof it up.

Yup!


I could not download your image, so here is one of mine, that I did to
an extreme.

http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/public/21526966_dVBkNG#!i=1978586733&k=gK4wnD2

That's kinda cool.



More than "kinda", I think.

I hope someday to free up my thinking like it appears PeterN has his.

--
Frank ess

On 7/21/2012 1:38 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:02:53 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/18/2012 11:05 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:36:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-18 17:59:32 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-18 17:03:01 -0700, Savageduck said:

On 2012-07-18 16:01:44 -0700, tony cooper said:

On my shots...

The Lorikeets really are a very bright bird color-wise. (Check out
web images) However, I used a flash because they were in the back of
the enclosure, and no bouncing surface was available. Consequently,
I've got almost-blowout from flash effect on the feathers. f/4
1/125th. Saturation was not kicked in post.

All I can say is, regardless of cause, the final effect is one of both
birds appearing over saturated to the point of being unpleasant.
Perhaps there might have been a fix available in post. I am sure it is
possible to reach a better solution.

try this for a fix in post:
http://db.tt/C2TKTOz8

Just a different version of garish. The feathers aren't good enough
to start with. As far as I'm concerned, if it's a bird the feathers
have be detailed.

I think if you made a side-by-side comparison the fix might be more
apparent, including an improvement in feather detail.
http://db.tt/C2TKTOz8

Nah. Look at the feathers on both bird's chests and the blue feathers
in the lower body.

In your version, the branch has detail (too much, in fact) and becomes
more prominent than the subjects.

What I did like about the photo was the composition. Nice diagonal of
the front bird, interesting "V" in the middle, and decent balance.
None of this forgives a photo that looks more like a paint-by-numbers
kit.

It might be interesting if processed as an abstract and *really*
goofed up.

Maybe PeterN can goof it up.

Yup!


I could not download your image, so here is one of mine, that I did to
an extreme.

http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/public/21526966_dVBkNG#!i=1978586733&k=gK4wnD2

That's kinda cool.



Thanks

--
Peter

On 7/21/2012 1:50 PM, Frank S wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:02:53 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/18/2012 11:05 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:36:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-18 17:59:32 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-18 17:03:01 -0700, Savageduck
said:

On 2012-07-18 16:01:44 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On my shots...

The Lorikeets really are a very bright bird color-wise. (Check
out
web images) However, I used a flash because they were in the
back of
the enclosure, and no bouncing surface was available.
Consequently,
I've got almost-blowout from flash effect on the feathers. f/4
1/125th. Saturation was not kicked in post.

All I can say is, regardless of cause, the final effect is one
of both
birds appearing over saturated to the point of being unpleasant.
Perhaps there might have been a fix available in post. I am sure
it is
possible to reach a better solution.

try this for a fix in post:
http://db.tt/C2TKTOz8

Just a different version of garish. The feathers aren't good enough
to start with. As far as I'm concerned, if it's a bird the feathers
have be detailed.

I think if you made a side-by-side comparison the fix might be more
apparent, including an improvement in feather detail.
http://db.tt/C2TKTOz8

Nah. Look at the feathers on both bird's chests and the blue feathers
in the lower body.

In your version, the branch has detail (too much, in fact) and becomes
more prominent than the subjects.

What I did like about the photo was the composition. Nice diagonal of
the front bird, interesting "V" in the middle, and decent balance.
None of this forgives a photo that looks more like a paint-by-numbers
kit.

It might be interesting if processed as an abstract and *really*
goofed up.

Maybe PeterN can goof it up.

Yup!


I could not download your image, so here is one of mine, that I did to
an extreme.

http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/public/21526966_dVBkNG#!i=1978586733&k=gK4wnD2


That's kinda cool.



More than "kinda", I think.

I hope someday to free up my thinking like it appears PeterN has his.

Thanks for your words. All you need is to consider the image as being
made to please you. Nobody else, including, but not limited to,
competition judges. My curiosity about what each filter does, adds to my
fun.


--
Peter