silvereye

[avkomp]

went for a walk today. was very windy so all the birds were sheltering in the trees.

Pretty happy with this except for the OOF stuff in the forground but with the wind today I couldnt get an absolutely clear shot.

Steve

[LostDingo]

that is tack sharp

You have to give more details now Which lens? What f/stop? No flash?

Paul

[avkomp]

2005:11:14 15:08:55
nikkor 80-400mm vr @ 400mm
600mm (in 35mm film)
1/320 sec, f/8
Mode: Av
Metering: Center-weighted average
ISO: 200
AF mode: AF-S
White balance: SUNNY
Flash: NORMAL

was hand held and standing up.
sb800 @ -1ev for fill

actually I am amazed how sharp this turned out with the wind etc.
must send mr nkon kudos for VR technology!!

Steve

[kipper]

That's pretty good Steve. My only nit is the lower left leg is obscured by an OOF leaf.

[avkomp]

Noted in the nit section already daryl.

I love the shot except for that.
was going to crop it to portrait because of it

Steve

[kipper]

Oops, I missed that Steve.

Ok here is my only other nit, remove the catchlight from the flash

[Alpha_7]

Great sharp shot, in trying conditions, pity bout the OOF stuff but what can you do.

[avkomp]

Ok here is my only other nit, remove the catchlight from the flash

darryl, I kinda liked the catchlight.
wonder what others think, keep the catchlight or clone it??

Steve

[NikonUser]

Very nice photo. ('cept for the nits )

My vote is to clone the catchlight.

Paul

[Mj]

Actually I don't mind the oof bits... gives the shot some depth that I often find lacking in this kind of photography... often done tack sharp and very two dimensional as a result. Don't mind the catch light but might be worth cloning it out and having another look.

[elffinarts]

I didnt find the catchlight annoying at all but that's probably just me.
I do like that the OOF leaf in the foreground gives it more depth that as aforementioned is often lacking in this type of shoot. I think I know now what I want for my next lens! That clarity is gorgeous!

[kipper]

I only meant the catchlight produced by the flash, the natural catchlight produced by the sun is the one above the eye. I dunno, NSNers tend to always complain if there is multiple catchlights.

[avkomp]

In people I always thought a catchlight in the pupil sort of brightened the eye. a little sparkle.

I just had a brief look at cloning the central catch light out, leaving the other one, and vice versa.

of the 2 I preferred leaving the central one there but removing the other one. with both gone I felt it lost something.
decisions, decisions


steve

[elffinarts]

I only meant the catchlight produced by the flash, the natural catchlight produced by the sun is the one above the eye. I dunno, NSNers tend to always complain if there is multiple catchlights.

forgive my ignorance, NSNers?? Never heard the term before.

[DaveB]

NSN: NatureScapes.Net, one of the nature photography web communities.

As a general rule, images where the use of flash is obvious tend to look a bit more "fake" than others, and thus are usually regarded as "poorer" Nature images.
Of course some images (such as those of nocturnal animals) can only be taken with flash, so the effects of flash are not automatically "bad" in all images.

Incidentally, it was only a few days ago I was hearing of a judge in the Nature section of one of the national photo comps (this was at least a few years ago BTW) who gave an otherwise good image a very low score, apparently because he didn't like the fact that the swan had two catchlights in the eye. Other judges apparently noticed that one catchlight was from the sun, and the other was from the reflection of the sun in the water! In these competitions there are typically at least 3 judges working side-by-side for reasons like this.

So two catchlights is not automatically bad: the bottom line is whether the image represents a natural scene...
In this case the lower catchlight doesn't look particularly natural to me. But on the whole the image is great!

[avkomp]

DaveB: sometimes I think the NSN folks stick too closely to things like the rule of thirds for instance. In my opinion you tend to take this sort of thing under advisement, but shots can be nice shots if they are different.
I tend to regard 2 catch lights in a studio portrait as being unnatural. I dont mind seeing the catch light from a flash in a nature shot although I agree that it isnt natural.
Its interesting that opinion is divided fairly evenly as to whether to clone the catchlight or not in this case.

Steve

[Manta]

I really like this shot Steve, although I agree with you (and everyone else) about the oof area in the front. The shadows across the body are a bit annoying but, hey, what are you gonna do? Not take the shot at all? I'd be squeezing the shutter too.

Nice stuff.

[avkomp]

thanks Simon,

I did consider cropping as a portrait because of the OOF stuff but left it as is because I did kinda want the whole bird in frame.

Hopefully I can get out on the weekends soon and get a chance for some better shots.

Steve

[sirhc55]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this shot - if taken under difficult circumstances any problems are better than not having the shot at all.

I am sure Robert Capa would not have said to the soldier in ”Moment of Death” - excuse me could you do that again as my pic is out of focus

[avkomp]

sirch: the difference in the moment of death shot though is that it is one of those once in a lifetime photo journalist shots but this silvereye is just obscured. on the day it was the best opp. available and I wanted to get something. (digital is free!!) but if you wanted a shot of a silvereye that wasnt obscured, you could just wait until better conditions and eventually a shot would present.
Currently this is the nicest shot of a silvereye in my collection. But I want a better one.
They are very small fast and not that easy to get but with time and patience hopefully I can get one in the open with sweet light.
Steve

[kipper]

Dave, yes well when there are subjects such as this one has to realise that there is reflective mediums at work. I'm suprised that the judge didn't take note of the angle the photograph was shot at, and where the catchlight was.

In this shot for instance, you can see the photograph was taken at eye level and there is catchlight dead in the centre of the pupil and one above it. If there was a reflective medium reflecting the sun it would come from underneath and as such cause the catchlight to be below the pupil.

As for this swan shot, I don't know what sort of angle the shot was taken at but you would have assumed that the catchlight would of been well below the centre of the eye to possibly be unnatural. Unless the person was going scuba diving in the lake