A few from the Backyard... Need advice as well

[Joemess]

Well, I finally had a day that was sunny to play with the lens. Made myself take them in RAW so will learn to process. Let me know what you think. In one the sun was coming through the trees kinda weird and I had a hard time dealing with it, however I took the shot BECAUSE the sun was hitting the bird so strong....


Anyway, while they are better in some regards to what I was getting with Jpegs, I am still not satisfied with the results. Any and all critiques will be most appreciated.


Andrew

http://joemess.smugmug.com/photos/162659189-L.jpg

http://joemess.smugmug.com/photos/162659295-L.jpg

http://joemess.smugmug.com/photos/162659252-L.jpg

http://joemess.smugmug.com/photos/162659349-L.jpg

[Maestro]

Nice wren, titmouse and what I think is a red-bellied woodpecker. As far as the "getting the shot right" goes, I am not much of an advice giver as I am still working at it too. I have been dealing with some harsh light lately here in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. What I have been doing to help with the "hot" spots is always try to look at the histogram when I take my shots and if I see too many peaks to one end or the other I will try to recompose the shot, lower my EV (exposure value) or I will even play with the white balance. When I recompose I may also adjust my aperture value or raise/lower my shutter speed, probably both.

Your wren and woodpecker shots are more than acceptable if not just a tad dark. The titmouse shot has some definte hot spots which, since you shot in RAW, can probably be minimized. I am not a Photoshop guru by any stretch of the word but I was told just yesterday by someone who has a wedding photography business that Bridge in Photoshop is much better at processing the RAW image. I am going to try that out once my RAW images load into Photoshop. I will have a ton of RAW images to process after my trip. Good luck and keep posting.

[Netgarden]

Hi, I think they look pretty darn good in color, considering the bright light and shade combo. It is really hard to get that right, especially with moving birds. The first one I might have added a tad more contrast to set the bird off a little better. The second one could have been sharpened a little more. The third one a histogram adjustment, a little darker.

I use PSP which is similar to PS, and they have a burn brush that you can choose the size circle you want a little darker. I use it on the blown out spots sometimes. Or I go to adjust histogram and try moving the lever to the left a tad to slightly take the edge off the brightness. Whatever is fast is what I choose. ;~) Don't know if PS has a back light tool, but in PSP you can adjust a lever to stop down the backlighting, or open up a shady spot with the fill flash lever. PS may have those.

I did that on the left side of this photo, and also filled [lightened]the right side shady area of the tail:[sometimes backlighting is good as it makes a nice warm glow, so don't worry about the blown out indication on your LCD sometimes. If I listened to those warnings all my photos would be too dark.
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/photos/161656945-L.jpg

[Joemess]

Thanks for the comments guys.

Andrew

[Harryb]

Hey Andrew,

What about the shots are you unhappy with?

[Joemess]

Hey Andrew,

What about the shots are you unhappy with?

The best way to describe it is that they look flat... I konw that the elusive "pop" is something to strive for and I am sure that I will get it. But at the moment the colors seem muted. I am going to go back to the titmouse shot and see if I can reduce some of the blowouts.


Now, I know that I am my own worse critic... But like I said, its better than the jpg that was taken in conjunction with this shot.

Andrew

Andrew

[GonzoBernelli]

Because the background is so close behind the bird, can you open the aperture any more in future shots? This to reduce depth of focus and help isolate the bird from its background...

Other than that they are all find, except for the woodie which is a little too much in the shadows

[pyrtek]

Andrew, you certainly are being hard on yourself. :)

Getting your pics to "pop" is easiest achieved by shooting in better light,
even so, you certainly can get some "pop" out of these. Here's just one
example:


http://bertold.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p446943220.jpg

[Harryb]

The best way to describe it is that they look flat... I konw that the elusive "pop" is something to strive for and I am sure that I will get it. But at the moment the colors seem muted. I am going to go back to the titmouse shot and see if I can reduce some of the blowouts.


Now, I know that I am my own worse critic... But like I said, its better than the jpg that was taken in conjunction with this shot.

Andrew

Andrew

I agree with you about the pop. Check out this tute (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2292454/1).

[kgarrett11]

I agree with you about the pop. Check out this tute (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2292454/1).

Harry gave me the same advice and sent me that tutorial. When I used it there was a world of difference in the "pop". And it is very very easy too.

[Ric Grupe]

Make it easy on your self.

Check this out. (you may never want to shoot raw again)

http://www.pictocolor.com/editlabpro.htm

[ShepsMom]

Make it easy on your self.

Check this out. (you may never want to shoot raw again)

http://www.pictocolor.com/editlabpro.htm

Ric, i can't believe you just said that!! :thwak

[Joemess]

Make it easy on your self.

Check this out. (you may never want to shoot raw again)

http://www.pictocolor.com/editlabpro.htm


tempting as that may be, I had better learn with what have on the computer if this is to remain a happy home.... :wink


something to think about though

[raptorcaptor]

Nice wren shots! :thumb