The gallery one for me is the better balanced.

Regards
David

I'm not aiming at either! It's just a shot from my garden

Here's one with the grass removed, this is based on #1 and is probably the closest to 'natural' colouring.




Regards
David

I would hesitate in attaching any 2x teleconverter to a Sigma 150-500. You will lose 2 stops of light (massive on a lens like this) and the IQ will be adversely affected.

Better to go with a 1.4x if you can find one.

Regards
David

This is a tremendous image Carl, you have caught the bird perfectly. If it were mine I would tone down the colours a bit, but I can't fault the shot, it's brilliant.

Regards
David

Hi Roger, it was a 'grab' shot actually! I was testing the focussing of the 150-500 on my K-5iis. After reviewing it I quite liked the grass where it was and couldn't decide whether it was 'right' or not.

I went back later to re-shoot it, but the light had changed and the grass had moved. I couldn't get the same 'look' so packed it in for today!

Cheers
David

PS some very helpful comments, please keep them coming!

Lovely shot, I like the DOF and sharpness.

Regards
David

There have been some interesting threads on here lately about processing and what looks 'right' or 'not right'.

To add to the debate, I've shot a single image today in my garden and processed it 5 different ways. I'm interested in three things:

1. Do you like the image?
2. Which version do you like best?
3. Should I have removed the grass that's in front of the flower before shooting it or not?

Here are the images, they are of a Wild Aquilegia, growing in the area of my garden that I let grow as a wildflower meadow. The shot was taken with the K-5IIs and Sigma 150-500, set at 500mm, F6.3.

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



Lots of comments please!!

Best wishes
David

The composition / scene is great, but I agree with Alan and Carl above, the processing has completely ruined it.

The greens are too 'yellow' and the scene doesn't look natural. I think there's scope also for bringing out more detail in shadow areas and for giving the image a touch of sharpening - it looks very soft.

I would suggest either finding the best image of the 5 in exposure terms and processing that one normally, or choosing maybe 3 of the 5 and combining them as layers rather than HDR processing them and see what comes out.

This has potential to be a lovely landscape shot, but not in it's current form. As mentioned on previous threads, this is only my personal opinion, I'm sure a lot of others will like the shot as it is.

Regards
David

All very nice shots, I rather like no 2, but I think the first one's my favourite of the three. It's nice to see grass that looks a true shade of green.

Regards
David

It seems that you might be getting a touch defensive here Nigel? If you put your images on the Forum you must expect comments, sometimes praise and sometimes criticism.

I don't think anyone has written anything unreasonable and everyone's opinions are valid. In terms of what I've said, the blue of the sky looks wrong to me, the shade of blue is too bright and has too much Cyan. That's my opinion, whether you feel it's right or wrong! I didn't say the sky was too bright in comparison to what's below (as you've mentioned above), I said the blues were too bright, i.e. the wrong shade and intensity.

Personally, my feeling is that one of the best ways to learn is to receive comments and constructive criticism but it does require an open attitude and a willingness to accept other views. One thing I learned very early on this forum is that there is a huge range of opinions and everyone has wildly different opinions of what is right or wrong in an image. It does seem however that the majority on this post are in agreement.

Regards
David