Stretching It Out

[Barbara Ponder]

[Shadowman]

Nice composition and exposure.

[Barbara Ponder]

Nice composition and exposure.

Thanks John!

[chauncey]

Your taking some really nice pictures that could be improved with a more vibrant PP.

[Barbara Ponder]

Your taking some really nice pictures that could be improved with a more vibrant PP.

Thanks for the critique! How and where would I add the vibrance. Still working on those PP skills. I added to the water, it was brownish but was afraid to go too much on the gander. I need to go back and see if I can figure it out.

[John 2]

Now that's a strange one but really quite nice. As William has pointed out, a bit more depth to the browns in the bird would be good but I like it.

[Barbara Ponder]

Now that's a strange one but really quite nice. As William has pointed out, a bit more depth to the browns in the bird would be good but I like it.

Thanks John headed to see about adding the vibrance, one of my tasks for today

[Brownbear]

Beautiful and unique!

[bnnrcn]

Very nice

[Downrigger]

Handsome and striking, Barbara. As for more vibrance, I'll have to see it to understand why it is called for. I think this has a very nice suite of hues.

[Wavelength]

Excellent

[Barbara Ponder]

Beautiful and unique!

Thanks Christina!

[Barbara Ponder]

Very nice

Thanks Binnur!

[Barbara Ponder]

Handsome and striking, Barbara. As for more vibrance, I'll have to see it to understand why it is called for. I think this has a very nice suite of hues.

Thanks Mark!

[Manfred M]

Great shot Barbara.

I just love the way you've captured the flow and curvature. Your use of negative space has worked very well too.

I don't have an issue with the saturation you gone with, I don't think I would add a lot more if it were my shot. What does catch my attention though is that you might want to sharpen a bit more. The image, is focused and I don't see any motion blur, just seems to need a touch more detail.

I'm thinking something along the lines of this:

[Whistletown Wilds]

I like the shot it's what I called a 2 looker , that means I went back and studied it awhile good job, different !

[IzzieK]

This time, I am more inclined in the original shot, Barbara (sorry Manfred) because with the edit, it loses the softness of that part of the head that I find nice (?) I do not know the right word there...but what I mean is that with the sharpness of the head, the shot now became a bit harsh-looking (?) I hope despite the muddle of terminology I cannot find to describe it, you understand what I mean...

[Manfred M]

This time, I am more inclined in the original shot, Barbara (sorry Manfred) because with the edit, it loses the softness of that part of the head that I find nice (?) I do not know the right word there...but what I mean is that with the sharpness of the head, the shot now became a bit harsh-looking (?) I hope despite the muddle of terminology I cannot find to describe it, you understand what I mean...

Totally understood, Izzie, but neither of us are likely seeing the image the same way and image size has a very large part to play in how a sharpened image is viewed. First of all, it has to viewed at 100%, so in this case, it has to be opened in Lightbox and zoomed in to maximum size. That is how I viewed the image when I sharpened it.

If you are viewing on a large screen (I use a 27" screen), then we might be looking at more or less the same image. If your screen is smaller than mine, then you will likely see a sharper image than I do. The way sharpening works it enhances areas where tonal contrast exists. What that means is that where light and dark areas of the image meet, the darks are darkened and the lights are lightened. When viewed on a smaller screen the scaling comes in as does a bit of an optical illusion, these dark and light areas appear more contrasty when your browser downscales and the end effect is that the image will look sharper on a smaller screen.

There is always the "personal taste" factor as well, some people like things to look sharper than other people do.

Like so much in photography, there is no right answer, but it is important to understand why different people with different equipment might view this differently. The only way that we could have a meaningful discussion on the merits of the sharpness is if both of us were looking at the same print.

Regardless, when I look at the original, it needs some sharpening, the amount and where the sharpening takes place is variable (this is the part referred to as "in-process sharpening". If I had the original file, I would probably soften the neck a touch, but the eye, head and body, I would probably treat the way I did.

Here is a side by side comparison of the before and after. Again, these should be viewed at 100% in Lightbox.

[Barbara Ponder]

Great shot Barbara.

I just love the way you've captured the flow and curvature. Your use of negative space has worked very well too.

I don't have an issue with the saturation you gone with, I don't think I would add a lot more if it were my shot. What does catch my attention though is that you might want to sharpen a bit more. The image, is focused and I don't see any motion blur, just seems to need a touch more detail.

I'm thinking something along the lines of this:

Thank you Manfred for the critique, suggestions and for actually taking the time to work on the image. I truly appreciate it! It was great advice and I will look at doing what you suggested.

[Barbara Ponder]

I like the shot it's what I called a 2 looker , that means I went back and studied it awhile good job, different !

Thank you Sherwood, I have a tendency to do odd positions and crops, it my "thing" i suppose.