Free model

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

Free model

Postby yeocsa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:42 pm

Image

These seagules are familiar with people and come asking for food. They make good "free" models for practice shots - particular exposure on the white feathers which I have been having problems with.

D70 + AFS 300 F4. 1/400 at f8.

regards,

Arthur
yeocsa
Senior Member
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby redline on Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:48 pm

was this handheld?
so how was the white affecting your expoure?
Life's pretty straight without drifting
http://www.puredrift.com
redline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: Melbourne

Hi

Postby yeocsa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:01 pm

redline wrote:was this handheld?
so how was the white affecting your expoure?


Hi

Yes, shot capture handheld. From the picture you can see the birds' forehead is very white without details. Unlike the areas around the eyes where the details are of the features are nicely rendered. I would like to see some details at the forehead.

regards,

Arthur
yeocsa
Senior Member
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby redline on Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:04 pm

yeah just check your highlights when your shooting in direct sunlight and dial down on exp. til you get what you like.
Life's pretty straight without drifting
http://www.puredrift.com
redline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby big pix on Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:15 pm

Good shot ....... but are you shooting in raw with auto WB......

big pix
Cheers ....bp....
Difference between a good street photographer and a great street photographer....
Removing objects that do not belong...
happy for the comments, but
.....Please DO NOT edit my image.....
http://bigpix.smugmug.com Forever changing
User avatar
big pix
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4513
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW.

Hi

Postby yeocsa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:29 pm

Hi

Thanks. Great idea to use the highlights. I have a question. Will raw save the blown out highlights?

regards,

Arthur
yeocsa
Senior Member
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby redline on Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:38 pm

don't think so Arthur,
can't bring back details thats not recorded, loved to be proven wrong though
Life's pretty straight without drifting
http://www.puredrift.com
redline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby shutterbug on Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:42 pm

yummy, can have a few for dinner :lol:
User avatar
shutterbug
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:32 am
Location: A Pub in Sydney / Bankstown

Postby SoCal Steve on Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:49 pm

If the highlights are truly blown in all three RGB channels you can consider them chopped off and gone forever. It there is some data left in one or more of the color channels you have something to work with and may be able to "fix" your highlights to some a proportional degree.
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
User avatar
SoCal Steve
Senior Member
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Hi

Postby yeocsa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:54 pm

SoCal Steve wrote:If the highlights are truly blown in all three RGB channels you can consider them chopped off and gone forever. It there is some data left in one or more of the color channels you have something to work with and may be able to "fix" your highlights to some a proportional degree.



Hi

In that case, it is better to underexposed the picture.

regards,

Arthur
yeocsa
Senior Member
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby SoCal Steve on Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:05 pm

Right. You don't want to waste a lot of your shadow detail, but a little underexposure is the definitely preferable to any overexposure.
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
User avatar
SoCal Steve
Senior Member
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby dooda on Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:29 pm

In situations like this one way to take care of the shot is to spot meter off of the brightest spot (here that would be the forhead). BTW I really like this shot. Would be real keeper if the forehead wasn't blown...
love's first sighs are wisdom's last

Dave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/
User avatar
dooda
Party Animal
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada

Re: Hi

Postby gstark on Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:44 pm

Hi Arthur

yeocsa wrote:Thanks. Great idea to use the highlights. I have a question. Will raw save the blown out highlights?


Possibly, but as a general rule, if the highlights are blown, then they're blown.

Have you tried swapping different curves in underneath the image, using something like Curve Surgery? If you shoot in raw, then you might be able to grab more detail by altering the exposure or underlying curve in your initial PP phases.

Otherwise, the advice the others have given is good, and you'll need to adjust your in-camera exposure to compensate.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby gstark on Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:50 pm

Dave,

dooda wrote:In situations like this one way to take care of the shot is to spot meter off of the brightest spot (here that would be the forhead). BTW I really like this shot. Would be real keeper if the forehead wasn't blown...


That depends upon the overall contrast range that the image traverses. In this case, I think there's probably a stop or so to play with.

If the contrast range blows out the highlights too far though, then one needs to look for other means of balancing the exposure; popping the on-camera flash may help for subjects that aren't too far from the camera, but in this case, would that startle the subject and cause it to take flight?

If the gull is anything like those in Bondi or Balmoral, the answer would be "no", but Arthur's gull may be of a more shy, retiring nature. :)
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby dooda on Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:58 pm

Gary,
Sorry, what do you mean by contrast range--Dynamic range--or something completely different?
Are you saying that by spot metering off of the brightest spot you may underexpose the rest? Or that spot metering off of the brightest point won't necessarily expose the brightest areas well? Just wondering because this is a strategy I occasionally employ when I'm trying to avoid blown higlights.
love's first sighs are wisdom's last

Dave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/
User avatar
dooda
Party Animal
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada

Re: Hi

Postby yeocsa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:00 pm

gstark wrote:Hi Arthur

yeocsa wrote:Thanks. Great idea to use the highlights. I have a question. Will raw save the blown out highlights?


Possibly, but as a general rule, if the highlights are blown, then they're blown.

Have you tried swapping different curves in underneath the image, using something like Curve Surgery? If you shoot in raw, then you might be able to grab more detail by altering the exposure or underlying curve in your initial PP phases.

Otherwise, the advice the others have given is good, and you'll need to adjust your in-camera exposure to compensate.


Hi

Thanks. I will try your suggestion.

regards,

Arthur
yeocsa
Senior Member
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby MCWB on Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:23 pm

I agree with Dave, spot metering is definitely the way to go when you have high contrast between subject and background; also RAW gives you much more exposure flexibility. Metering on the head may underexpose the background, but it's better than blowing the highlights on your main subject. FWIW it's not blown too badly, the image still works for me. :)
User avatar
MCWB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Epping/CBD, Sydney-D200, D70

Postby SoCal Steve on Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:07 pm

I neglected to say that it is still a very nice image, yeocsa. The white balance looks a little blue to me, but I don't know my birds so that may just be realistic. No one else mentioned it.

Shoot in Raw and use your Histogram to make sure that you keep your highlights from clipping.
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
User avatar
SoCal Steve
Senior Member
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby leek on Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:17 pm

Nice pic Arthur...

What I want to know is: when seagulls spent so much time searching through rubbish bins how do they stay so sparkly white? :lol:
Cheers, John
Leek@Flickr | Leek@RedBubble | Leek@DeviantArt

D700; D200; Tokina 12-24; Nikkor 50mm f1.4,18-70mm,85mm f1.8, 105mm,80-400VR, SB-800s; G1227LVL; RRS BH-55; Feisol 1401
User avatar
leek
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3135
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Lane Cove, Sydney

Postby Justin on Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:43 pm

I prefer the free models in the aerobics oz style thread 8)
D3 | 18-200VR | 50:1.4 | 28:2.8 | 35-70 2.8 | 12-24 f4
picasaweb.google.com/JustinPhotoGallery
"We don't know and we don't care"
User avatar
Justin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Newtown, Sydeny

Postby kipper on Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:48 pm

I was also going to say, the shadows look slightly on the blue side on the right hand side.
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
kipper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Postby darb on Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:44 pm

nice sharp image, makes me want to find my .22
User avatar
darb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:03 am
Location: allll ovvverr (live in perth)

Postby digitor on Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:23 pm

dooda wrote:Gary,
Sorry, what do you mean by contrast range--Dynamic range--or something completely different?
Are you saying that by spot metering off of the brightest spot you may underexpose the rest? Or that spot metering off of the brightest point won't necessarily expose the brightest areas well? Just wondering because this is a strategy I occasionally employ when I'm trying to avoid blown higlights.


A technique I use, is to spot meter off the brightest highlight in which I want to preserve some detail, (forgetting any specular reflections) and give it about +2 - +2.5 stops on the meter. That's a good starting point. (I could call this the zone system, but I won't) Season to taste!

Good luck
What's another word for "thesaurus"?
User avatar
digitor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:53 pm
Location: Tea Tree Gully, South Australia

Hi

Postby yeocsa on Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:23 am

kipper wrote:I was also going to say, the shadows look slightly on the blue side on the right hand side.


Hi. I was using AWB. Bluish - from the blue sky?

regards,

Arthur
yeocsa
Senior Member
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques