somersettr wrote:
I had been wondering about commenting on your images and had decided not to but, given the comment above, it might be helpful. Please take this as constructive criticism! No offence intended!
Your images do all have a particular look which I think is partly down to your cropping and partly down to processing. In summary, the images are very "crunchy". It looks to me as if you might be cropping too much leading to rough details. You are also cropping very tightly with the main subject almost filling the entire picture. Sometime, less is better, with more of the surrounding environment or space for the bird/insect/subject to fly into or look into. I also think that you are over-sharpening. I don't know what you are using for sharpening but I think less would definately be better!
I hope that helps and is taken in the spirit intended!
Thanks I will take that constructive advice on board. Definately have been cropping the images too much. I usually try not to oversharpen just run it through DXORaw but maybe running it though Topaz again to get a little bit more noise out using the low light option is maybe sharpening it also at the same time and is just too much.
Was kind of kidding about the Nikon users, it was more some were upset that I thought the A1 images looked better.
Redeemed777 wrote:
Thanks I will take that constructive advice on board. Definately have been cropping the images too much. I usually try not to oversharpen just run it through DXORaw but maybe running it though Topaz again to get a little bit more noise out using the low light option is maybe sharpening it also at the same time and is just too much.
Was kind of kidding about the Nikon users, it was more some were upset that I thought the A1 images looked better.
BTW what was the issue that you fixed where the images were not showing in the proper resolution ? (I commented on the Nikon forum).
I see a lot of images seem to be < 2000px wide - even some of Geoff's and given they come from an A1 I would expect them to be more like 5000px or greater. Unless everyone is cropping the heck out of their images.
duncang wrote:
BTW what was the issue that you fixed where the images were not showing in the proper resolution ? (I commented on the Nikon forum).
I see a lot of images seem to be < 2000px wide - even some of Geoff's and given they come from an A1 I would expect them to be more like 5000px or greater. Unless everyone is cropping the heck out of their images.
Very strange, not sure if it's a problem just in your viewing of them, or Flickr only showing the 2000px wide image. All my most recent pics are not cropped as heavy to try to avoid this. Are they still coming up only 2000px wide?
duncang wrote:
How are you finding the 400 with swallows ?
Are those heavy crops or it is just something to do with the viewing that they are ~2000px wide?
It is excellent for swallows if you can get close enough. I think some sequences had a higher hit rate than the 600GM but probably not much of a difference.
My images shouldn't be 2000 wide they should be 1400 wide. That is the size I output from LR to not have too large of an image displayed on here. Many people complain when the image is too large and they have to scroll (depending on their computer's screen size and resolution settings).
If you go to my Flickr page (although not all of these are up on Flickr yet) you can always click on Download and "View All Sizes" there you should see the full cropped resolution if it was 6K or less. The original cropped dimensions won't show if larger than 6K as that is just a feature of Flickr when you don't allow downloading of your images.
But yeah, a lot of these swallow ones are big crops. Especially the last sequence of the dip and shake. The location I shot at yesterday limits my ability to get close. I was just lucky to be able to borrow the 400GM from a fellow shooter for an hour or two so I shot what I could. This location is better suited for 600mm or 840mm. Although 840 is tough for swallows...I did pull off a couple sequences though.
