Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Paul

Some Close Up critters

8 posts in this topic

These are not macros. I shot these from a distance of over 75 feet away. they are heavily Cropped to bring out the details. Any CC would be appreciated on these shots.

Chipmunk

chipmunk.jpg

Personally Favorite, A squirell

squirell-1.jpg

Male American Gold Finch

gold-finch.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First is my favorite, Paul. Tough to get every element when you have to crop so much, but still nice. C&C? Keep workin' on gettin' closer! Composition is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like #1 the best.

Do you guys have guidelines as how much you dare crop for say an 8x10 photo starting with an 8 or 10 meg dsl? I know it would depend on how sharp you got the shot the in the first place?

XT had asked a while back about when a shot is cropped 50% or 100%, what does that mean, I was curious also but don't think I saw an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ken. On your third image you have some haloing around the bird as well. Normally caused by over sharpening and with the heavy crop it just exaggerates it.

I just seems so easy to just take the crop tool and get what you want, but pixels are pixels. There is only so much data available and when you take away 60% or 70% of it...well you just have to get closer, buy a bigger lens, or live with what you have.

I honestly think this is one of the toughest things for folks new to digital to learn. An experienced eye will see all these little things in a digital file, haloing, over sharpening, shadow recovery, dodging and burning. The longer I do this the less I spend in manipulating files. Just as in film days getting it right in the camera, exposure, focus, etc. gives you a much better file that requires very little in PP.

Sorry to get slightly off track in C&C but I think it is good for ALL of us to think about these things on occasion. I know I have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DMN it is a matter of simple math. Lets say I start with a file 3504 X 2336 or about 6.4mp (just happened to have one). If I now use the crop tool, which keep in mind only is for cropping your photo to a format to fit print paper, how much do I lose? How much did you crop away? The remaining amount of pixels remaining from the original is the percentage I cropped away. Most folks just make a guess, hence the 50% crop.

The more you take a way the fewer pixels you are left with. I print about 3 or 4 files per week at 20"x30" or 24"x30" sizes with 2mp to 4 mp files. My labs RIP or software that up sizes handles these with no problems. Obviously the larger the file the more pixels we have and the end result is better.

Many on line labs will tell you when you upload your photo the largest print size that will give good results. They usually have a little bar indicator that shows you visually what you can get from the file. Each lab is slightly different based on their software.

One good reason to always keep a copy of the original file, if at a latter date you want to print larger it is better to work from the un-cropped file, more pixels again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan's on the money.

I recently took a photo and cropped away 70 percent from my 8.2 Mp camera's file and what was left made a fine, sharp 8x10 print, and I could go about 11x14 but no bigger with it.

I did that by cropping it how I wanted, dropping resolution to 240 ppi and then locking that resolution but increasing size to 8x10. That forced photoshop to add pixels (interpolate), and I selected the "bicubic smoothing" option, later sharpening to taste.

Much depends on the lens you used to make the capture. The sharpest lenses will allow you to crop more aggressively at more extreme ranges from the subject. I used the 400 f5.6L for the image I mentioned. With the 100-400 I couldn't have done it (I've tried before) because the zoom doesn't resolve the image quite as sharply at extreme range as the prime does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dbl and stf, it is starting to make more sense.

I have been cropping I think to say 8X10 with the boxes for resample unchecked and watching resolution. I will have to look tonight and maybe start a new thread, I don't want to hijack Pauls thread here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have to look tonight and maybe start a new thread, I don't want to hijack Pauls thread here.

That'd be good! gringrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Could be that others cheated also.   I was relying on memory about the BMW connection and hypothesized that Mercedes would also have been a possibility.   I did say "maybe mercedes".     In any case, VW cheated on emissions for many years with the assent of the highest levels of management.     Apparently making a small diesel that runs ok and doesn't make too much pollution at an acceptable cost is really hard.
    • License what technology, this kind?        https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/04/27/after-vws-record-fine-mercedes-benz-parent-daimler-could-be-next.html     "In light of the ongoing governmental information requests, inquiries and investigations, and our own internal investigation, it cannot be ruled out that the authorities might reach the conclusion that Mercedes-Benz diesel vehicles have similar functionalities," Daimler said in its newly released quarterly report. The maker first acknowledged in January that authorities had begun probing its handling of diesel emissions. That was the same month that VW agreed to settle a criminal probe by the U.S. Justice Department, a federal judge this past week approving the payment of a $2.8 billion fine. Almost 40 times the legal limit In the VW case, the mainstream German automaker rigged the software controlling two diesel engines to recognize when a vehicle was undergoing emissions tests and then adjust pollution levels. In real-world situations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asserted, those powerplants would produce up to 40 times the legal limit for pollutants like smog-causing oxides of nitrogen. Since the scandal broke in September 2015, regulators in the U.S. and the European Union have begun rechecking the emissions claims made by other manufacturers, including Daimler, General Motors, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and others. In January of this year, the EPA took aim at FCA, alleging that it may have used its own, rigged software on products like the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel which "appeared to cause the vehicles to perform differently when being tested" than when in use in real-world conditions. That same month, Daimler said that what the EPA was concerned about "apparently includ(ed) functionalities that are common in diesel vehicles, as undisclosed Auxiliary Emission Control Devices (AECD)." While the German parent of both the Mercedes-Benz and Smart brands did not confirm it had broken the law, it laid open the possibility that its own diesel emissions strategy could be in trouble. "If these or other inquiries, investigations, legal actions and/or proceedings result in unfavorable findings, an unfavorable outcome or otherwise develop unfavorably, Daimler could be subject to significant monetary penalties, remediation requirements, vehicle recalls, process improvements and mitigation measures," Daimler stated.
    •   Wow, Del I forgot all about that little discussion you started two years ago.  All the fun folks were in on it, even the LIMITOUT. That's what happens when you have short term memory loss and and pictures bring on new thoughts and emotions.  Let's just call this threat the "What a dang waste and shame!" More of an aftermath threat?  K
    • When we had are seasonal campsite I had lots of squirrels. I used all metal feeders. Come Sept them squirrels went in the freezer and cooked up for the wild game feed!
    • If you have been following the story, the reason VW got in this mess is they didn't want to license technology from BMW (or maybe Mercedes) and chose to develop their own.   When it couldn't be made to work properly, they chose to cheat rather than bite the bullet.    Long discussions of what happened as the story broke    
    • I had one of those.  Mine never quite ran right, although I lived with the quirks for years.  I have a pdf of service manual if you want it.   Mine ran rough intermittently at certain rpm.
    • If they make it better because of stupid government mandates it wouldn't bother me at all.   In fact, the Dodge ram diesel that I used to have had something from Daimler Benz that allowed it to meet the standards without DEF. I would not be surprised if they did something similar with those diesels and if they did I applaud them. The best thing anyone can do with the diesel trucks is delete the emissions and unlock the power and economy that are robbed from them.   
    • pellet gun does the job here  
    • I have to many squirrels, need the feeders with the metal holes.
    • build it and they will come. 
  • Our Sponsors