Anyone want to critique this shot?

05/30/2005 02:01:32 AM · #1

I'd appreciate any feedback you might have on this shot. It was taken at Snead's Ferry in NC (USA). There were brown pelicans everywhere at this particular dock, and I wanted to capture a relative close-up of one.

Thanks in advance for any & all comments.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/30/2005 02:06:53 AM · #2

Left you a comment. See if you can upload the original sized to 640X so we can compare.
EDIT: one thing could be you saved it at 69k instead of optimal 150k that sometimes can make a difference because of compression.

Message edited by author 2005-05-30 02:08:53.

05/30/2005 02:11:29 AM · #3

Here's the original, sized down to 640x. (Thanks for your assistance & commentary!)

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/30/2005 02:19:18 AM · #4

I'm going to PM you my email address. Can you send me the original picture in it's original size. I want to try something and I will post it here. If that's OK with you.

Message edited by author 2005-05-30 02:19:33.

05/30/2005 02:28:23 AM · #5

Sure - NP - Thanks!

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/30/2005 03:14:30 AM · #6

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/30/2005 04:33:08 AM · #7

Originally posted by SDW65:

Now, THAT's sweet! One nit: the bright patch on the water under the beak is out of place in the overall context...

Robt.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/30/2005 08:01:18 AM · #8

Fixed the bright patch, robert. Does it look better?

05/30/2005 08:45:17 AM · #9

Major improvements guys - thanks. What did you do?

dmurphy

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z3

05/30/2005 10:38:59 AM · #10

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Major improvements guys - thanks. What did you do?

I am wondering what he did aswell

dmurphy

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z3

05/30/2005 08:52:38 PM · #11

bump

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/01/2005 09:04:08 PM · #12

For those of you who were interested in what SDW65 did to make my mediocre pelican shot look so good, here's the PM he sent me describing what he did (Thanks again Scott!):

"First I had to get rid of the green/red artifacts that was throughout the
picture. If you have your camera set to high saturation I would suggest set
it to normal or low and let your editing software improve saturation. I
don't know if that was what caused it or if it was a result of low light.
When you have a picture to turn out like that you have to go in a different
direction in editing than you may have wanted too. Normally you would want a
crisp picture of fowl/ducks but in this case I had to go with a soft feel.
The way I got rid of the green/red artifacts was using PS/CS desaturation on
the red and green channel. I had to use the magic wand to keep from
disturbing the color of the head, eyes, an bill. After selecting those areas
I used invert to select all of the image except those areas and desaturated.
Now that left me with a monotone image except for the color of the bird. The
color was good because it draws attention to the sharpness and beauty of the
bird. I then done a contrast layer. You do this by duplicating the
background layer. Then use filter > blur > gaussian blur @5.0 pixels and
blend with screen at 100%. Then repeat but blend with multiply and adjust
the slider till you have a picture that not to dark but matches the
desaturation. Now I had to work on the bill of the bird. It had rough
artifacts as well. A good way of doing this is to blend by selecting the
area you want to work on with the magic wand or magnetic tool. Then go to
brush and lower the occupancy down to 10% then select the color you want by
using the eye dropper and get the lightest red and click. Now you can brush
that in kind of like an airbrush but the main color will show through so it
looks natural. Then I had to reproduce the top of the bill with its yellow
color and I did it the same way by putting the eye dropper on the head
feathers lightest color.
Now you have to make an impact on the picture and I did this by dodge and
burn in the water and on the birds feathers. By doing this it draws the eye
through the water to the bird and to the colored head, eyes, and bill.
I hope this helps. I know its a lot but it only took me about 20 minutes or
so. My suggestion to you is attempt to reproduce this effect on a copy of
your original. You will get a variety of results each time. Never will it
come out the same. Yours may even be better.
Scott W."

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

06/01/2005 09:17:31 PM · #13

Hmm...I look at the two and I like the original crop better than the 'shopped' version. The shopped version looks dark and fake. The original looks vibrant and real.

The shopped version looks fuzzy and distant and the original looks crisp and 'there.'

Message edited by author 2005-06-01 21:18:58.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/01/2005 09:22:02 PM · #14

Originally posted by dmurphy[/quote:

I am wondering what he did as well

He made a picture something it wasn't.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/01/2005 10:17:50 PM · #15

Originally posted by SDW65:

Fixed the bright patch, robert. Does it look better?

much better...

R.

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/02/2005 12:12:33 AM · #16

Kudos to you Scott on the wonderful repair/recovery on this shot and the detailed explanation you provided him. This certainly takes a decent amount of time, and its via help like yours that we often learn the most.

dfriedland

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

06/02/2005 01:19:58 AM · #17

Thia would be worth posting in the tutorial section...
Thanks!