This morning

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.
--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.

Wow! How nice.
Don't have any comments.

On 2015-06-14 22:03:17 +0000, PeterN said:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.

First, this s a great capture!!
Nicely done.

I see nothing unusual in the EXIF data other than the flash firing.
What flash did you use?

I believe all of my issues with this image lie with post processing and
what are artifacts introduced by either by over-sharpening, or issues
related to cropping and resizing. I suspect that you cropped to your
presentation size, or resized after the crop.

There is introduced noise in the irises and the tips of the feathers
which look over-sharpened especially around the eyes and beak.

I think you might have had a more satisfying result with a different treatment.

I think you can guess my next request. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 14 June 2015 18:01:44 UTC-4, peterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.

It's a close-up of a white owl, but on my screen (set for HD) the detail
seems to be made up of little dots. The sharp edges seem to have a granular
sharpening artifact and there is no real detail in the feathers, the eyes,
etc.
It's almost like the view you get when you use focus peaking in an EVF.

that's because it's oversharpened, which is what focus peaking does.

| I believe all of my issues with this image lie with post processing and
| what are artifacts introduced by either by over-sharpening

Interestingly, the thumbnail, still the original, is actually
nice and clear. Perhaps not quite as sharply defined as
one might like -- it's hard to tell with such a small image --
but I guess sharp definition might be difficult. It's like
taking a picture of a snow drift.

On 6/14/15 PDT 5:45 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I believe all of my issues with this image lie with post processing and
| what are artifacts introduced by either by over-sharpening

Interestingly, the thumbnail, still the original, is actually
nice and clear. Perhaps not quite as sharply defined as
one might like -- it's hard to tell with such a small image --
but I guess sharp definition might be difficult. It's like
taking a picture of a snow drift.

Thumbnail? Did not see one. The link posted took me straight to a normal
websized image.

Agree with Duck that there may be artifacting due to sharpening or
resizing.

On 2015-06-15 03:16:30 +0000, John McWilliams said:

On 6/14/15 PDT 5:45 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I believe all of my issues with this image lie with post processing and
| what are artifacts introduced by either by over-sharpening

Interestingly, the thumbnail, still the original, is actually
nice and clear. Perhaps not quite as sharply defined as
one might like -- it's hard to tell with such a small image --
but I guess sharp definition might be difficult. It's like
taking a picture of a snow drift.

Thumbnail? Did not see one.

Neither did I.

The link posted took me straight to a normal websized image.

Yup!

Agree with Duck that there may be artifacting due to sharpening or resizing.

That is my opinion. I suspect Peter is using one of his personal
"artistic" post procressing procedures.

It is quite possible to get reasonably defined plumage without
artifacts, even from a D300.
https://db.tt/69cZXLUi

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , John McWilliams
wrote:

Agree with Duck that there may be artifacting due to sharpening or
resizing.

may? the artifacts were significant.

In article , PeterN wrote:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.

As usual, way too much sharpening. Not sure why you do that, is the original so
fuzzy really? Or is it your own eyesight that is making you over-sharpen every
image?

You shot it at 1/60, f/13 and ISO 1000.

You would get the exact same light value with 1/320, f/5.6 and ISO 640, which
would help if your hands are unsteady. The 80-400 has image stabilization as
well.

--
Sandman

On 15/06/2015 8:03 AM, PeterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.


Oversharpened, leading to moiree-like effects with the feathers around
the beak and eyes. Other than that, a great shot!