Seagul shots

[Acip]

Like any of these?


http://heightenedperception.com/gallery/birds/image/800/IMG_0060.jpg





http://heightenedperception.com/gallery/birds/image/800/IMG_0068.jpg




http://heightenedperception.com/gallery/birds/image/800/IMG_0047.jpg





http://heightenedperception.com/gallery/birds/image/800/IMG_0045.jpg



http://heightenedperception.com/gallery/birds/image/800/IMG_0088.jpg





http://heightenedperception.com/gallery/birds/image/800/IMG_0066.jpg




Thank you. I appreciate criticism. Do they look sharp enough to you?

[Robert_Lay]

They are all good pictures, but they are all over-exposed. The highlights are burned out on each shot - some more than others.

Asking the critics to judge sharpness is not fair when presenting images at such low resolutions (800 px x 534 px). If you want critiques on sharpness you should pick an appropriate spot and post a full detail 100% crop.

**************100% Crop**************
See my tutorial on making a 100% Crop with Full Detail, somewhere in the following thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34606&page=2

Here is another, simpler way - Courtesy of Bobster:
A more controlled way of posting a 100% crop -
Select the marquee tool - then in the options palette select Style->Fixed Size - key in 200 px X 200 px.
Click with the marquee tool anywhere in your image, and drag this around the screen as with a normal marquee.
Use Image -> Crop to complete the process.

[KarlosDaJackal]

They are too hot, and from what you can tell at this size I'd say 50% are very sharp, and the rest are close.

[Acip]

Thank you very much for the feedback.

I think I see the how they are 'too hot' now. It is seen in the white feathers of the birds, right? I'm assuming that the white feathers are the highlights.

[KarlosDaJackal]

I'm assuming that the white feathers are the highlights.

Yes and you can tell they are blown out as they are completely white, there is no definition left in those feathers, its just turned into a white patch that looks very flat. Looks like the exposure was set for the darker background causing the blow out.

[SDavis Photo]

I also think the highlights are blown out. You may want to use a ND filter to help cut down on the contrast some.
This photo was made with a 4ND and underexsposed by 1/2 stop

[Robert_Lay]

The sample by SDavis Photo is a good example of proper exposure - based on the histogram. However, the histogram also indicates that there was noticeable processing.

[SDavis Photo]

The sample by SDavis Photo is a good example of proper exposure - based on the histogram. However, the histogram also indicates that there was noticeable processing.

Yes it was cropped and lighten just a tad, see uncut photo, please check histogram.

[Robert_Lay]

The histogram of this larger image by SDavis Photo also shows artifacts of processing.

For the benefit of anyone interested, the artifacts to which I refer look like a comb with teeth and spaces between the teeth - something that is never seen in the histogram of an unprocessed JPG coming from the camera.

[SDavis Photo]

The histogram of this larger image by SDavis Photo also shows artifacts of processing.

For the benefit of anyone interested, the artifacts to which I refer look like a comb with teeth and spaces between the teeth - something that is never seen in the histogram of an unprocessed JPG coming from the camera.

Don't think so but thats the way you feel thats ok...
That shot is from the card no processing or maybe it's the settings in the camera it self, shot in jeg, in landscape, Wouth that make a change in the histogram. I never made any so I don't understand, if you know why it would show up that way please tell me
thank you
Sam

[KarlosDaJackal]

Who cares about the graphs, it looks good! ;)

[SDavis Photo]

Who cares about the graphs, it looks good! ;)
Thanks
Sam

[Bill Boehme]

The histogram of this larger image by SDavis Photo also shows artifacts of processing.

For the benefit of anyone interested, the artifacts to which I refer look like a comb with teeth and spaces between the teeth - something that is never seen in the histogram of an unprocessed JPG coming from the camera.

Don't think so but thats the way you feel thats ok...
That shot is from the card no processing or maybe it's the settings in the camera it self, shot in jeg, in landscape, Wouth that make a change in the histogram. I never made any so I don't understand, if you know why it would show up that way please tell me
thank you
Sam

Sam, I understand what you are saying about not doing any special processing to the JPG image, but I think that you may have misunderstood Robert's comment. While you did not do anything to adjust the colors, brightness, or contrast, just resizing and and applying compression to an image when you save it can result in the loss of a considerable amount of data.

In this case, the image has been resized to 900 X 586 pixels and the file size is 12.23 KB, which is extremely small for an image of that size. A file size of 150 KB with moderate compression would be more typical of an image of that size. The primary indicators of deep JPG compression are:

Rough edged artifacts around areas of high contrast
Comb-like appearance in the histogram indicating that discrete brightness levels have been consolidated into fewer discrete levels.Your image is a good example of controlling exposure for the subject (although I am not sure that the ND filter was necessary) -- it is just that the final image was compressed to the point that much of what your good exposure achieved was lost in the process of resizing and compressing the image.

[SDavis Photo]

Your image is a good example of controlling exposure for the subject (although I am not sure that the ND filter was necessary) -- it is just that the final image was compressed to the point that much of what your good exposure achieved was lost in the process of resizing and compressing the image.[/quote]

Thanks for the help, I think I understand more now.
Sam

[Acip]

Yes and you can tell they are blown out as they are completely white, there is no definition left in those feathers, its just turned into a white patch that looks very flat. Looks like the exposure was set for the darker background causing the blow out.

You mentioned that the exposure was set for the darker background... Is this what the metering mode accomplishes?

[Bill Boehme]

Yes and you can tell they are blown out as they are completely white, there is no definition left in those feathers, its just turned into a white patch that looks very flat. Looks like the exposure was set for the darker background causing the blow out.

That assumption might be correct when talking about only the brightest areas of an image that have been clipped. However, in this case, the loss of detail can be observed throughout the tonal range. As I mentioned previously, the deep jpg compression has posterized the image (that is, the number of discrete levels has been compressed into just a few levels which means that fine details are lost in the process).