This morning

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

I meant the embedded thumbnail.

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

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.

On 6/14/2015 7:25 PM, 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.
--
PeterN

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.


I posted a low quality JPEG.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I posted a low quality JPEG.

yes.

On 6/14/2015 7:27 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
PeterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg

Helpful comments appreciated.

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

Thank you

--
PeterN

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

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


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


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.

--
PeterN

On 6/14/2015 8:45 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.



The book says overexpose white. If I do that feather detail ios lost.
This image I under exposed .7 and underexopsed the flash by 1.3


--
PeterN

On 6/14/2015 11:16 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
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.

Both

Thanks foryour comment.

--
PeterN

On 6/15/2015 12:40 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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.

Nope. Part error, part due to resizing using an inappropriate algorithm,
and posting a very low quality JPEG.


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


To my repolished eye, the white detail in the feathers are blown out,
and I would have tone down the background. The oof specular highlights
lead me away from the bird.
--
PeterN

On 6/15/2015 12:41 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , John McWilliams
wrote:

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

may? the artifacts were significant.


Yes, and mostly deliberate.
Thanks for your comment.

--
PeterN