2017 PROJECT 52, Second Quarter by Janis (purplehaze)

[purplehaze]

Thanks, Sandy. I think it is the highlights that are most distracting, so in this version I left the background exposure where it was in version 2 and pulled down the the highlights and midtones with a luma curve. I think I have been looking it at it too long now to be objective, so may have to revisit it in a week or so.

[Cantab]

Janis, I think your most recent version works well. Congratulations on sticking with it!

[purplehaze]

Janis, I think your most recent version works well. Congratulations on sticking with it!

Thanks, Bruce.

[skitterbug]

I know what you mean about working with a pic for a length of time. There comes a point when one has to "walk away" for a bit to gain perspective. Yes! I like the changes you made!

[bnnrcn]

IMO this is the best Janis

Thanks, Sandy. I think it is the highlights that are most distracting, so in this version I left the background exposure where it was in version 2 and pulled down the the highlights and midtones with a luma curve. I think I have been looking it at it too long now to be objective, so may have to revisit it in a week or so.

[purplehaze]

Thanks, Sandy and Binnur. I forgot to mention that I also reduced clarity and structure on the background, which helped quite a bit.

[joebranko]

I love #1 Janis, ( the second shot is beautiful also but #1 is my fave) I love the colour the composition and the bokeh.

[purplehaze]

Thanks, Joe!

Time to catch up on and finish this thread.

The following images were shot the same weekend as the above flora, but as I didn't process them until the following week, I'll call them

Week 25

These bird shots taken with the 70-200 mm may be interesting to compare with those taken with the 300 mm in the same location a couple of weeks later.

#1 Sentinels



f/9, @1/320, 200 ISO, 200

#2 Coming in for a landing

I find it curious that, at this relatively low shutter speed, the bird in flight is in sharper focus than the ones that are standing. Don't really know how to explain that.



f/9 @ 1/640, 200 ISO, 200 mm


#3 Take-off



f/8 @ 1/800, 200 ISO, 200 mm

[Geoff F]

These work well. Nice composition and a tricky exposure which has managed to retain feather detail.

[bnnrcn]

All very nice Janis #1 is special for me, very nice composition,exposure and DOF.

[Urbanflyer]

Love the flower! One approach to the BG, since you obviously know how to mask, is to apply a slight gaussian blur to the image with the mask. Reducing the opacity to something that looks right to you after that might also be worth trying. I would be tempted to remove the distinct lines of grass that still offend after that.

[Wavelength]

WOW; i love your latest set of images

[george013]

Thanks, Joe!

Time to catch up on and finish this thread.

The following images were shot the same weekend as the above flora, but as I didn't process them until the following week, I'll call them

Week 25

These bird shots taken with the 70-200 mm may be interesting to compare with those taken with the 300 mm in the same location a couple of weeks later.


#2 Coming in for a landing

I find it curious that, at this relatively low shutter speed, the bird in flight is in sharper focus than the ones that are standing. Don't really know how to explain that.

Looks like a "wrong" focus. You focused to far behind for some reason. Check the focus point in ViewNx or CaptureNx. And did you use af-c?

George

[Cantab]

Looks like a "wrong" focus. You focused to far behind for some reason. Check the focus point in ViewNx or CaptureNx. And did you use af-c?

George

Janis, I agree with George that the issue appears to be one of focus. The focus is accurate for the bird in flight but the stationary birds are just a bit out of the DOF.

This is a really good set of photos.

[John 2]

Thanks, Sandy. I think it is the highlights that are most distracting, so in this version I left the background exposure where it was in version 2 and pulled down the the highlights and midtones with a luma curve. I think I have been looking it at it too long now to be objective, so may have to revisit it in a week or so.

Like that Janis. You obviously have Nik software. A effective quick fix for BGs like this is just to reduce the structure to -100% in Vivesa. No need to mask. It hardly affects a sharp subject but blurs the BG quite a bit. Don't know why but it works.

Nice Pelican series as well. Agree that you needed more DOF in the second. My pick is the first image. A bit of cold shoulder going on there.

[purplehaze]

Re the pelican shots, thanks Geoff, Binnur, Nandakumar, George, Bruce, and John. Quite right about the focus point, George. (Thanks for reminding me I could check it in ViewNX; I haven't actually used that app for a few years now.) I actually did realize after posting that that must have been the problem, as the rock is also out of focus. The focus was squarely on the flying pelican's body, but I would have thought that f/9 would get me the other birds, too. That's the kind of thing I am going to need tons more experience to learn, and with each lens. As to your other question, I am pretty sure I was using continuous focus.

Re the flower shot, thanks for the suggestion, Judith, but I still have not got around to learning Photoshop, and don't otherwise have access to a Gaussian blur that I know of. Point filed for future reference, though. Same for your suggestion, John; I will try that out the next time I am editing.

Still haven't identified that flower, btw, so if anyone knows what it is, please share. I have been through all the images of wild orchids on the Manitoba Orchid Society site and don't see it there, so I no longer think it is an orchid, but I still haven't been able to find my Manitoba wildflowers guide.

[george013]

On a second thought I don't think it might be that useful if you know where that focus point was. It's the position of that point related to the sensor, not the subject. Meaning only useful if you pushed the button directly, without delay. If you know what you did, it may help you to analyze the problem.
About the dof, that's a problem with modern lenses without a dof scale. You need an "off-camera" dof scale or calculator. Using f9 at 200mm gives a dof before the subjetc of 0.42m at a focus distance of 10m, 1.63m at a focus distance of 20mm and 3.54 at a focus distance of 30m. I hope your lens has a distances scale.

I can't help you with that flower.

George

[purplehaze]

Good point, George. But based on the numbers you have provided, I'm thinking the other birds may well have been outside the focus range. Yes, the lens has a distance scale. I need to get in the habit of checking it, so I get better at judging distance with my own eye.

[george013]

Good point, George. But based on the numbers you have provided, I'm thinking the other birds may well have been outside the focus range. Yes, the lens has a distance scale. I need to get in the habit of checking it, so I get better at judging distance with my own eye.

You must guess the distance either from the distance scale on the lens or another way and use a dof calculator with the camera setting and focus distance.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
I don't know if you're familiar to the dof scale on the lens. I just googled and think this link explains it well. For zoom lenses it's a little bit different. In my time there where no zoom lenses or to pricey for me.

George

[skitterbug]

Hi Janis ~ Excellent set of pics but I reckon I like #3 best simply because you caught the bird in motion and have crisp results. Water coming from its feet....... All motion stopped but still focused nicely. Looks like you had a fun day by the water!