Photoclubalpha

....but, after one of my customers was late and OH wasn’t ready (regular occurrence) the sun was settling behind trees at the local reserve.

I was thinking of starting a 'Birds 2013' thread but realised I may be viewed as a 'Parvenu'

I got what we, hereabouts, term ‘A Bag of Spanners’. You get your ‘bag’ home, keep pulling out the goods and eventually find that you’re lucky to have one or two that are of any use………

These two are borderline - A young Mute Cygnet and a Canada Goose (the dainty kind not the big ones)






This is a about the best of the bag.



It was nice to get out, though.


Pat

Pat,
A great bag of "spanners" if you ask me. May I inquire why you thought the first two
are borderline? I found them to be more than acceptable from my baseline but I am
tremendously curious to know why you consider them baseline. I am hoping to improve
my analytical skills.

With best regards,
Sury

sury wrote:Pat,
A great bag of "spanners" if you ask me. May I inquire why you thought the first two
are borderline? I found them to be more than acceptable from my baseline but I am
tremendously curious to know why you consider them baseline. I am hoping to improve
my analytical skills.

With best regards,
Sury

A good question and I'm glad you've asked. The first two are a little 'soft'. The feather detail isn't there and the eyes aren't pin sharp. I choose images by looking at the eye (always the eye) at 100% magnification and in RAW to see how they hold up as far as definition is concerned. If you were to sell images the quality would have to be high enough to do a good print. These first two don't pass muster on any of these points but are possibly just about acceptable for web viewing. I can still see the difference at 72 dpi web size.
The last was OK at 100% and there is feather detail. All of them needed more post processing than I would normally have to do - exposure adjustment, clarity, sharpening etc.
Hope this is of help. I'm very self critical which isn't a bad thing - it means you keep trying hard. Being married to another photographer is a great help - we criticise each others stuff and, wonder of wonders, never fall out over it It's good to bounce ideas and exchange external viewpoints.

Pat

Pat,
Thank you. That is very helpful insight (at least for me). I always look at an image at 100%, abd if it is not
sharp at 100% I consider that as a "failed" shot. But then I started looking at some of the shots and though
failed the sharp at 100% criterion I still liked them, with attended softness and all. I will start applying another
criterion that I gleamed from your response. Will I "buy" it as it taken? Not that I intend to sell anytime, but
as a standard to apply to judge and learn from the application of those criteria. Then there is the collective
wisdom of this forum that has been of tremendous help. Once again thank you for your detailed explanation.

With best regards,
Sury

You're welcome, Sury. The above 'eye' requirements obviously applies to bird shots that are fairly close. If it's a different type of shot then the sharpness would apply to the main subject matter - whatever it is.
If it's a foggy shot don't ask me how I do that one


Pat