Black Turnstone


Posted by Steve Metildi on Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:38 am

All times are UTC-05:00

Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 15 posts | 
Image

Image


(Thanks for viewing and comments--posted w/ less sharpening, easy to do with dark subject against lighter background)

Just your basic Black Turnstone today in some overcast lighting.

1D MK II, 300 f/2.8 w/ 1.4 TC, 1/500 sec, f/8, -2/3 exp comp, no flash

Steve


Last edited by Steve Metildi on Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:31 am, edited 4 times in total.

Posted by:
Steve Metildi
Lifetime Member
Location: Orange County, CA
Member #:00266
Posts: 10
Joined: 3 Mar 2004

   

by KK Hui on Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:32 am
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42681
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
Love the soft light and exposure is on the mark too, Steve!
Perhaps a little over sharpened in this case ... :roll:
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by Steve Roman on Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:45 am
User avatar
Steve Roman
Lifetime Member
Posts: 5525
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Location: Dripping Springs, Texas
Member #:00416
Great composition, super head turn, very nice detail from head to feet, good whites, great light, attractive perch rock, good background, nice angle = NOT your basic Black Turnstone. :shock:

Sharpening is not bad if you just remove the halo under the beak.
Steve Roman
Champlin, MN
[b]NSN 0416[/b]
 

by jorgedelucca on Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:53 am
User avatar
jorgedelucca
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1524
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Very nice pose and composition! It does appear a tad over sharpened, I see the halo around beak and slight one around body.
Jorge Delucca
Oklahoma City, OK
http://www.deluccaphotography.com
 

by Rob Palmer on Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:01 am
User avatar
Rob Palmer
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8350
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Very nice. :D
Rob Palmer
[url]http://www.falconphotos.com/gallery/7385039_qUuth#!i=774854059&k=Uuoef[/url]
 

by Mike Danzenbaker on Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:10 am
Mike Danzenbaker
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 1 Sep 2003
Member #:00559
Steve,

I'll disagree and say it doesn't look oversharpened to me (just because there's a halo visible (tiny in this case) doesn't mean it's oversharpened, it means that either the radius was set too high or more finely selective sharpening is in order).
"Animal instinct is more amazing than human ingenuity."

Mike
http://www.avesphoto.com
 

by Steve Metildi on Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:22 am
Steve Metildi
Lifetime Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 3 Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Member #:00266
Mike Danzenbaker wrote:Steve,

I'll disagree and say it doesn't look oversharpened to me (just because there's a halo visible (tiny in this case) doesn't mean it's oversharpened, it means that either the radius was set too high or more finely selective sharpening is in order).
Mike, thanks for viewing/commenting. I replaced the original that was slightly oversharpened and I think you only saw the repost. I've added the original back. It's easy to oversharpen at 12:30 AM.

Steve
 

by Alan Murphy on Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:18 pm
User avatar
Alan Murphy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 27330
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Houston, Texas
Member #:00014
Steve, oversharpened or not, the top one pops IMO. Great shot.
Alan Murphy
NSN 0014
www.alanmurphyphotography.com
 

by Campbell on Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:47 pm
User avatar
Campbell
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Evanston, Wyoming
I like the top one too. Looks great.
Jason Vaclavek
NSN 0062
http://www.JCVPhoto.com
 

by Steve Roman on Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:54 pm
User avatar
Steve Roman
Lifetime Member
Posts: 5525
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Location: Dripping Springs, Texas
Member #:00416
Mike Danzenbaker wrote:Steve,

I'll disagree and say it doesn't look oversharpened to me (just because there's a halo visible (tiny in this case) doesn't mean it's oversharpened, it means that either the radius was set too high or more finely selective sharpening is in order).
Mike , I never said it was oversharpened, I said the a sharpening was not bad and just to remove the halo under the beak. :D
Steve Roman
Champlin, MN
[b]NSN 0416[/b]
 

by Jim Urbach on Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:09 pm
User avatar
Jim Urbach
Lifetime Member
Posts: 29711
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Sanford, Florida
Member #:00049
Steve, I prefer the top image. My only suggestion would be to clone out the distracting ocean wave in the BG in front of his chest.

Jim
Enjoy viewing

Jim Urbach

http://www.jimurbach.smugmug.com


http://jimurbach.smugmug.com
 

by Mike Wilson on Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:02 pm
User avatar
Mike Wilson
Forum Contributor
Posts: 16364
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
An excellent Turnstone image. I was shooting these guys yesterday too. Sure looks flashed to me.
Mike Wilson
San Diego, Ca
[url=http://www.naturescapes.net/membership.htm]NSN 0047[/url]
 

by KK Hui on Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:33 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42681
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
Thanks for the re-post, Steve!
It looks much better without the halo around it ... :lol:
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:50 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86788
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
An excellent shot of one of my favorites.
 

by Steve Metildi on Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:45 pm
Steve Metildi
Lifetime Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 3 Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Member #:00266
Mike Wilson wrote:An excellent Turnstone image. I was shooting these guys yesterday too. Sure looks flashed to me.
Mike, when I was working this image I thought for sure it was flashed at -2 1/3 or -2 2/3 but when I reviewed the EXIF data it says "Flash: Off" and the RAW file doesn't look flashed.

Steve
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
15 posts | 

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group