Heavy Handed?

Sometimes I get carried away and overdo. Do these look heavy handed to you folks? Feel free to critique other problems you may see, as I'm a noob still and have only had my dslr for a week now.

Taken with a Canon 60D with a Canon 55-250mm is, ISO100, 171mm, f/5.6, 1/400sec.

Edit: I suppose my post processing steps would help. I did a few lighting and exposure touch ups in LR then took them to PS and used some actions I have for a little more contrast, sharpness, and pop.

Your editing doesn't look anywhere near as heavy as that bird.....

They look good to me - just a bit cramped in the cropping.

Titus213 wrote in post #11620730
Your editing doesn't look anywhere near as heavy as that bird.....

They look good to me - just a bit cramped in the cropping.

Thanks! I was bummed I chopped off the top birds tail. The buggers certainly weren't afraid of me and kept creeping closer making it difficult to get a shot from a distance, which probably explains their obtuse shape!

please do this with a crow next time, i think they look splendid

I think the pp is a little over the top and unnatural. The very best post processing I've seen you can't tell it's been post processed.

i think he was intending for the bird to be a bit unnatural, to catch all the detail in the feathers,there is so much rich beautiful texture on the bird, which i think he did quite well, but it could definitely be brought down a tad for a more natural look.

oceanbeast wrote in post #11625762
i think he was intending for the bird to be a bit unnatural, to catch all the detail in the feathers,there is so much rich beautiful texture on the bird, which i think he did quite well, but it could definitely be brought down a tad for a more natural look.

You can get detail by reducing the contrast and without the blown out effect that's evident here. The problem is the lighting in these pictures aren't balanced so it looks unnatural

It just looks a little over-sharpened to me. Everything else seems fine.

Here's an example I did that uses lower contrast to get more detail. The original was too dark around the face and the eyes were barely visible.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

All great feed back guys, thank you. I guess you could say that my "style" generally is very sharp, detailed, and a bit un-natural, I can imagine a lot of photographers hate that.

Drumsfiled, your photo of the bird is very pretty and very natural, but I get an itch to make it "pop" more, which is what gets me into trouble. Could you elaborate on what the "blown out" effect is you speak of? I thought that was when you have hot spots and overexposed areas? I see a few on the birds feet and beak, is that what you mean? Sorry if I sound dense, but I'm new to all this. I can post the SOOC pictures when I get home tonight to compare.

Oh and I am a she, not a he

By "blown out" I mean your shadows and darks are brightened to a higher degree than your lights creating an unbalanced contrast graph. The results can be an increase in detail, but if overdone can feel unnatural. In your example it looks like you've increased the values of the shadows and darks in order to compensate for the bright highlights. (Think reverse S graph)

BTW I saw your flicker, your album looks great.

drumsfield, i would also like to see more on your technique, though the bird seems a little dark you are right he is super sharp, what lens did you use?

I used a Canon 100-400mm

no doubt some of the sharpness can be attributed to that beastking of a lens.

Boring SOOC shots: