Berry,Berry Cold!
Posted 02/12/2010 - 17:29
Link
Lovely shots especially the first one it's a beautiful and well taken shot. In fact I would say it's the best bird shot I have seen in a while.
I really like the red berries they give the shots a festive feel. The second one looks slightly odd as the birds eye looks very sharp but the body and beak look a bit soft. . The bokeh looks unusual what lens did you use?
I really like the red berries they give the shots a festive feel. The second one looks slightly odd as the birds eye looks very sharp but the body and beak look a bit soft. . The bokeh looks unusual what lens did you use?
Posted 02/12/2010 - 17:45
Link
Lovely colours and most interesting bokeh, Roger.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050
http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050
http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Posted 02/12/2010 - 19:14
Link
Thanks both.
Both taken on the K7, with 55-300, @300.
No.1, ISO200, 1/500th., @f6.3.
No.2, ISO200, 1/200th. @f6.3.
Does an explanation for the bokeh lie herein?
Coker.
Both taken on the K7, with 55-300, @300.
No.1, ISO200, 1/500th., @f6.3.
No.2, ISO200, 1/200th. @f6.3.
Does an explanation for the bokeh lie herein?
Coker.
The more I look, the more there is to see!
Posted 02/12/2010 - 19:50
Link
Neither of these shots looks very sharp to me, which might mean they are tightly cropped.
#1: For an ISO200 shot, I think there is rather more noise in the dark area above the starling's head than I would expect, unless it is a very tight crop.
#2: Looks a little 'odd' but I can't say what is odd about it. It looks almost like a watercolour from a Victorian book of British wild birds. I think its beautiful.
To get both a male and a female blackbird in the same shot has got to be a rarity.
Well done.
I think both images might benefit from some noise reduction and sharpening.
Did you use RAW or JPG?
#1: For an ISO200 shot, I think there is rather more noise in the dark area above the starling's head than I would expect, unless it is a very tight crop.
#2: Looks a little 'odd' but I can't say what is odd about it. It looks almost like a watercolour from a Victorian book of British wild birds. I think its beautiful.
To get both a male and a female blackbird in the same shot has got to be a rarity.
Well done.
I think both images might benefit from some noise reduction and sharpening.
Did you use RAW or JPG?
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Posted 02/12/2010 - 21:14
Link
I've been thinking about the bokeh in these images...
In both shots, the birds were in small trees, in front of, by about 3-4 metres, of a taller beech "hedge" that had lost its leaves, leaving the background of a maze of twigs behind the plane of focus.
Could it be that the spaces in between all these twigs have become small "lenses", rendering the out of focus discs visible in the images.
Or not!?
Coker.
In both shots, the birds were in small trees, in front of, by about 3-4 metres, of a taller beech "hedge" that had lost its leaves, leaving the background of a maze of twigs behind the plane of focus.
Could it be that the spaces in between all these twigs have become small "lenses", rendering the out of focus discs visible in the images.
Or not!?
Coker.
The more I look, the more there is to see!
Posted 03/12/2010 - 21:31
Link
The composition of both shots is great, especially the 2nd one! However, I have serious issues with other things they are both softer than I would expect, and the bokeh ... oh the bokeh ... what has happened to it? It's almost painful to look at! Very busy and distracting, abundant CA, and quite noisy too. Are these 1:1 crops? That would explain both the noise and the softness.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Posted 03/12/2010 - 22:15
Link
I'm with Peter - they are not sharp. Bird photos really need to be tack sharp. I have tried and failed, so I know how hard it is to do.
I like the second one more, simply because it is a tad sharper, but it still has an unreal quality to it.
I like the second one more, simply because it is a tad sharper, but it still has an unreal quality to it.
Posted 03/12/2010 - 23:08
Link
I think that where my problem lies is that I'm trying to combine my love of both birds & photography....But on a pretty tight budget & several attempts to run before I can walk!
What I have learnt from both this Post & "Dunnock", is to accept my limitations, both in equipment & skills.
I can keep saving for the former & keep honing the latter, with the help from all my colleagues here.
I don't know about other Pentax sites.
This one will do me!
Many thanks for your interest, efforts, understanding & patience.
I will continue to offer up my efforts for your Comments & Criticism.
A strategic withdrawal from
Coker.
What I have learnt from both this Post & "Dunnock", is to accept my limitations, both in equipment & skills.
I can keep saving for the former & keep honing the latter, with the help from all my colleagues here.
I don't know about other Pentax sites.
This one will do me!
Many thanks for your interest, efforts, understanding & patience.
I will continue to offer up my efforts for your Comments & Criticism.
A strategic withdrawal from
Coker.
The more I look, the more there is to see!
Posted 03/12/2010 - 23:19
Link
No, Gareth.
Nothing wrong with such a combination, per se.
It just seems I'm over-reaching myself in those two respects.
The kit used, for all images on both posts is:
Pentax K7.
Pentax 1:4-5.8 55-300mm ED, @ 300mm.
Hand-held.
Photoshop Elements 9.
So, no excuses!
Roger.
Nothing wrong with such a combination, per se.
It just seems I'm over-reaching myself in those two respects.
The kit used, for all images on both posts is:
Pentax K7.
Pentax 1:4-5.8 55-300mm ED, @ 300mm.
Hand-held.
Photoshop Elements 9.
So, no excuses!
Roger.
The more I look, the more there is to see!
Posted 03/12/2010 - 23:45
Link
Not much you can do about the bokeh, apart from avoiding backlit twiggy trees I suppose a faster lens might smooth it out a bit more (DA*300 owners any comment?).
For the sharpness you may need to stop down the lens a bit more? I've never used this lens but these were almost wide open which would normally increase softness and sometimes CA as well. You could probably slow down your shutter to compensate, I don't do birds but is 1/500 necessary?
For the sharpness you may need to stop down the lens a bit more? I've never used this lens but these were almost wide open which would normally increase softness and sometimes CA as well. You could probably slow down your shutter to compensate, I don't do birds but is 1/500 necessary?
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Posted 04/12/2010 - 00:04
Link
Thanks, Gareth & Tim for your help & supportive advice.
Expensive lenses are out of the question, so I'll just have to get closer.
Stalking?
That sounds very much like an incitement to crime!!!
But I'll do my best.
With your continuing help & encouragement.
Thanks again.
Roger.
Expensive lenses are out of the question, so I'll just have to get closer.
Stalking?
That sounds very much like an incitement to crime!!!
But I'll do my best.
With your continuing help & encouragement.
Thanks again.
Roger.
The more I look, the more there is to see!
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1547 posts
16 years
Wiltshire
[IMG]http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af340/rogerhlane/SnowBirdsBerries013cropreadj.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af340/rogerhlane/SnowBirdsBerries015.jpg[/IMG]
C&C please.
Coker.