If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:03:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: : My memories of Melbourne date back to February 1974 when I got the : worst Sunburn of my life at India Atlantic Beach. Hammonasset Beach State Park, Connecticut, 1963: Sunscreen? I ain't got no sunscreen. I don't need no sunscreen! I don't have to put on any steenking sunscreen!! Bob |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
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 -- Regards, Savageduck |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
On 2012-07-18 17:03:01 -0700, Savageduck said:
On 2012-07-18 16:01:44 -0700, tony cooper said: The marmosets are about the size of a hamster. They have very, very fine hair, so the flash washed out the fur a bit. f/5.3 1/125th. Again, nothing to bounce off. The marmosets are a tough shot to capture under those circumstances. Both shots taken at the Melbourne Zoo on a camera club field trip. Two other photographers in the group snapped the marmosets and had the same flash effect in their shots. A third person shot without flash, but ended up with a blurred shot. ....and even then it is possible to squeeze a bit out of the original in post: http://db.tt/22eMHFXI -- Regards, Savageduck |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections.
On 2012-07-18 21:00 , otter wrote:
On Jul 18, 4:13 pm, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012-07-18 00:01 , Eric Stevens wrote: I had descriptions for each of my images when I sent them in. Fixed. The comments are not attached to the right shots (the second & third shots have incorrect comments). Done. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
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 It might be interesting if processed as an abstract and *really* goofed up. Yup! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
On 2012-07-18 18:36:52 -0700, Savageduck said:
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/GOOF! Oops! try this: http://db.tt/L9QfEglj It might be interesting if processed as an abstract and *really* goofed up. Yup! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
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 "Free Range!" "Wotsit?" Who is going to be the first recognise it? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
On 2012-07-18 20:05:19 -0700, tony cooper said:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:36:52 -0700, Savageduck wrote: It might be interesting if processed as an abstract and *really* goofed up. Maybe PeterN can goof it up. Yup! A 'Duck goof-up; http://db.tt/1L4jazRi -- Regards, Savageduck |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:07:24 -0400, tony cooper
wrote: On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:51:09 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: 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 "Free Range!" "Wotsit?" Who is going to be the first recognise it? I see that the Rainbow Lorikeet is considered to be a pest in New Zealand. They are classified as a Unwanted Organism under the Biosecurity Act. Yep. They come and sit on the edge of the verandah roof just out of my office (4' away) and make cheeky faces at me. I don't mind them. Strangely, all of the images of the Rainbow Lorikeet that I find on the web have that same mottled chest that I have in my image, but thought it was due to being out of focus. Also all of the images look over-saturated. Maybe my image is more true-to-life than I thought. This image is from http://abbfab.files.wordpress.com/20...w_lorikeet.jpg an Australian avian biologist's paper on "rainbow effects in parrots' plumage". Now, here is a real cheeky character. https://www.google.co.nz/search?num=...ac.L-zxyXgMcQg or http://tinyurl.com/7osafxd It will literally dismantle your car (or camera) under your nose. I kid you not. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs, etc - Cooper's Comments on in-house shots
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:46:10 -0400, tony cooper
wrote: Bob Flint. I wish you guys who photograph ducks and plants and flowers and such would identify them. What are those things, and will they end up on my table? I do recognize the bean in the second image. Or is it a snap pea? OK, I'm going for pea. The first things are yellow plum tomatoes... lots of them... kind of boring but they manage to meet the mandate... second plants are regular peas... whats more a pair than peas in a pod? The laminated wood doesn't look edible, but it makes an interesting picture. I wish I gave myself more time for this picture, I snapped off a dozen and worked on them - would have planned a final shot of the best image but I left it too late. Interesting combinations of shapes available... these are actually drawer parts in the making... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections. | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 1 | July 17th 12 08:43 PM |
[SI] Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections. | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 17th 12 08:43 PM |
[SI] Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections. | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | July 17th 12 08:43 PM |