This morning

On 2015-06-15 15:11:40 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/14/2015 7:29 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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.

Thank you

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

SB800

That is my workhorse flash.

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.

Both

If done well, reasonable cropping and resizing shouldn't have caused
the issues that are visible. A severe crop is another issue.

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

I did not see the noise, but I did over sharpen, more than I intended.

Yup!

There are some artifacts introduced by using a low quality JPEG.

What do you call a "low quality JPEG"?

Your level of JPG compression might be the reason we never see full
potential of your D800.

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

Yep!

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

Check your email.

Thanks I will see what I can do.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/15/2015 2:38 AM, Sandman wrote:
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?


Oversharpening due to processing error.

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.

But a much lower DOF. Also, I wanted som background. Turned out I left
in too much and decided to remove it in ACR.

Because of shooting conditions that day, I used ISo 1000, which I
frequently do. Also I have found that f13 is a good all purpose
aperature. YMMV.

Thanks you for your comments.


--
PeterN

On 6/15/2015 4:23 AM, Noons wrote:
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!

Thanks for your comments. As I have said to others, your point about
over sharpening, is well taken.

--
PeterN

On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, dadiOH wrote:
PeterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.

It is a nice photo of a difficult subject. I agree with others about the
sharpening. In addition...

1. I would have liked more modeling; i.e., a less flat, frontal light


Me too. I suspect that a second flash at lower power would have helped.
In my presentation version, I will probably paint in some more depth by
very slightly varying the exposure ofthe white fethers. I still have to
learn more about how to o that.

2.. I would have prefered some background; i.e., more ambient light, less
flash. I can't tell for sure but it appears in some areas that the
backgound has been painted out.

That was personal preference. I removed most of the background in ACR,
using HSL by completely desaturating and decreasing lumenesence in green.
I was left with a slight blue tint in the feathers, so I slightly
decreased saturation and incrased lumenescense in blue.

Thanks for your comments.
--
PeterN

On 6/15/2015 11:24 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-06-15 15:11:40 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/14/2015 7:29 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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.

Thank you

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

SB800

That is my workhorse flash.

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.

Both

If done well, reasonable cropping and resizing shouldn't have caused the
issues that are visible. A severe crop is another issue.

I would call the crop here, modrate, but ther was resizing involved,
deliberately using an inappropriate algorithm.


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

I did not see the noise, but I did over sharpen, more than I intended.

Yup!

There are some artifacts introduced by using a low quality JPEG.

What do you call a "low quality JPEG"?


2


Your level of JPG compression might be the reason we never see full
potential of your D800.


Could be. But I don't like any of my images being riped off. As we all
know there are many people who do such things. We had an incident last
year, when someone was caught entring images made by others, in
competitions.


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

Yep!

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

Check your email.

Thanks I will see what I can do.




--
PeterN

On 2015-06-15 16:00:57 +0000, PeterN said:
On 6/15/2015 11:24 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-06-15 15:11:40 +0000, PeterN said:
On 6/14/2015 7:29 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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.

Thank you

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

SB800

That is my workhorse flash.

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.

Both

If done well, reasonable cropping and resizing shouldn't have caused the
issues that are visible. A severe crop is another issue.

I would call the crop here, modrate, but ther was resizing involved,
deliberately using an inappropriate algorithm.

Agreed, a moderate 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 did not see the noise, but I did over sharpen, more than I intended.

Yup!

There are some artifacts introduced by using a low quality JPEG.

What do you call a "low quality JPEG"?

2

WTF is "2"?

Your level of JPG compression might be the reason we never see full
potential of your D800.

Could be. But I don't like any of my images being riped off. As we all
know there are many people who do such things. We had an incident last
year, when someone was caught entring images made by others, in
competitions.

However, one can be a tad over paranoid.

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

Yep!

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

Check your email.

Thanks I will see what I can do.

OK! take a look at what I sent to your email.
As I said there I only had to do minimal post as the NEF was very, very good.

I kept as close to your crop as I could and I have sent you a 5.3 MB
3456 x 4320 JPEG, and an 883 KB 1200 x 1500 JPEG.

....and I am not going to post anything here without your approval.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-06-15 15:40:33 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, dadiOH wrote:
PeterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.

It is a nice photo of a difficult subject. I agree with others about the
sharpening. In addition...

1. I would have liked more modeling; i.e., a less flat, frontal light

Me too. I suspect that a second flash at lower power would have helped.
In my presentation version, I will probably paint in some more depth by
very slightly varying the exposure ofthe white fethers. I still have to
learn more about how to o that.

Not necessary, the original NEF was good, very good.

2.. I would have prefered some background; i.e., more ambient light, less
flash. I can't tell for sure but it appears in some areas that the
backgound has been painted out.

In Peter's original NEF the background is just fine.

That was personal preference. I removed most of the background in ACR,
using HSL by completely desaturating and decreasing lumenesence in
green.
I was left with a slight blue tint in the feathers, so I slightly
decreased saturation and incrased lumenescense in blue.

Also unnecessary, you are over cooking things.
Thanks for your comments.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2015061509424978034-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

There are some artifacts introduced by using a low quality JPEG.

What do you call a "low quality JPEG"?

2

WTF is "2"?

the quality level he chose, which is *very* low.

http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2011/08/photoshopsave_mini.jpg

On 2015-06-15 16:42:49 +0000, Savageduck said:

OK! take a look at what I sent to your email.
As I said there I only had to do minimal post as the NEF was very, very good.

I kept as close to your crop as I could and I have sent you a 5.3 MB
3456 x 4320 JPEG, and an 883 KB 1200 x 1500 JPEG.

...and I am not going to post anything here without your approval.

I lied. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the eye-beak area from
your 1.5MB post and my 883kb version, for a whole rendition, I await
your approval:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_181.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-06-15 17:06:18 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015061509424978034-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

There are some artifacts introduced by using a low quality JPEG.

What do you call a "low quality JPEG"?

2

WTF is "2"?

the quality level he chose, which is *very* low.

....and given that the posted file was still 1.5 MB there was no saving,
and the presentation in this NG was ruined.


--
Regards,

Savageduck