waxwing image test

[Steve Foss]

Thought I'd give this a try. April cedar waxwing on apple blossom. And who said they only eat the fruit?

[Steve Foss]

It worked! Thanks, BDR. I used photobucket. Simple!

[Slyster]

Amazing shot! Wow. What camera/lens?

[buzzsaw]

Catfish, make a post in the bird section with that GREAT picture!

[jonny_redhorse]

Great shot Steve!.......will be looking for more of your photos!....jonny

[hobbydog]

Nice pic. Hope you don't mind if I offer a little free advice. Now that you have a Digital Rebel you will be able to take some great pics. However, almost all digital photography can use a little sharpening and in some cases a little additional color. Looks like you used photoshop to resize so you should be able to sharpen. USM (unsharp mask) is the tool. In the image below I set the intensity to 35%, halo width to 5 and thresholds to 0. I also added a little color booster (maybe a bit too much). It takes less than a minute to touch a photo up and makes a good pic better.

Before....

After.....

[Slyster]

I have a Rebel as well.. and have done lots of tweaking in Photoshop.. in the end? After all my tweaking? Now I just leave them alone!

In my opinion.. the first one is best. Softer all around.. not artifacts (see the legs in the tweaked image- seems some odd effect being exaggerated there. But since I'm no guru.. I am going to try those steps on a few of my own images.

Was this pic taken with the standard 18-55mm lens that comes with the camera in most kits?

[jonny_redhorse]

I use adobe photo elements for saving, copying ,compressing,changing dpi for printing.etc but I also use "picasa"....great fast tool for sharpening and adding more "saturation"(photo elements also of course)...without these "extras" my pics wouldn't come out of the camera with the "oomph" that I would like with no post processing...seems as though most digitals don't have enough saturation for color but certainly is a personal choice...i like photos that "burst " with color..... don't want to "over do it" however either...just practice is what it's all about...johnny

[Steve Foss]

Dog:

Digital Rebel???? This was shot with the 10D, the forerunner of the Rebel, and I now am shooting the 20D.

Thanks for the free advice. I'll listen to any advice I can get, and I've learned the the free type is often better than the type you pay for.

I use Photoshop CS nearly every day with OSX 10.3 on a Mac G4, and know of what you speak. However, sharpening and color saturation are in the eye of the beholder. I use them frequently as needed. My Canon is set for the highest color saturation available, which often negates the need to further saturate in Photoshop, and I chose to leave this particular image without additional saturation and sharpness because of the subtlety of tone, shade and texture contained in waxwing plumage. On my monitor, your changes make the image look garishly colored and oversharp to my eye. But that, of course, will vary from person to person and eye to eye.

Also, you should note that different monitors render online and other images with slight differences from each other. In other words, what looks good on your monitor looks less good on mine, etc. What's important in the print world is that what I see on my monitor is what my printer prints.

I tone at least a dozen color images each week for the weekly paper I'm editor and page designer of (as well as a like number of B&W images), and do all the toning for my professional prints, but am always willing to take any advice that seems good to me. No one knows everything, after all.

I'd post the Web site with my nature prints for sale here, but it would be an unauthorized link. But you can string together my first and last name and add the word "images," and you'd likely have it. The Web site is brand new and has a bug or two, but nothing serious.

The 20D is a great body. Not that I'm degrading the Rebel. I used one for the paper for darn near a year, as well as a borrowed 10D, and the 6.3 megapixel Rebel is a great camera for the money. And the new Rebel XT has the better 8.2 megapixel sensor, as well as a few other updated features.

The image was also shot with a Tamron 70-300 mm macro. I now shoot primarily with a Canon 100-400 mm image stabilizer. Great glass for a lot less than a fixed focal length 300 mm f2.8. And the image stabilizer buys me at least three stops. Can't complain about that! Only things I'd have changed about that image capture was that it's a jpeg, not RAW, so my manipulation (and size enlargement) is limited, and I didn't use a polarizer, which would have softened the harsher white tones of the blossoms without overly darkening the bird's plumage. Didn't have time to slap on the polarizer, unfortunately, and still get the images.

[hobbydog]

I looked at the exif info and it said Rebel so I assumed...

Yes, monitors are as different opinions. My guess is that had you used your current lens (100-400 IS) the pic would have been much sharper on it's own....that is why you buy good glass and pay extra for IS is to get sharp pics. When I bought my D70 I started out with a $200 70-300 lens and later upgtraded to the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens and there was no comparison in sharpness and quality.

I am an engineer by trade and certainly not an artist. I struggle with what looks better when I post process. That is why photographers are always looking for critiques on their work.

waxwings are pretty cool birds though and this is a good shot in the blossoms. Let's see some more pics.

Make = Canon

Model = Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL

Orientation = top/left

X Resolution = 300

X Resolution = 72

Y Resolution = 300

Y Resolution = 72

Resolution Unit = inch

Resolution Unit = inch

Software = Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh

Software = Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh

Date Time = 2004-05-29 14:53:05

Date Time = 2005-08-06 16:23:26

Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 344

[Camera]

Exposure Time = 1/200"

F Number = F5

ISO Speed Ratings = 100

Exif Version = 0220

Date Time Original = 2004-05-29 14:53:05

Date Time Digitized = 2004-05-29 14:53:05

Components Configuration = YCbCr

Compressed Bits Per Pixel = 3

Shutter Speed Value = 7.64 TV

Aperture Value = 4.64 AV

Exposure Bias Value = 0EV

Max Aperture Value = F4.5

Metering Mode = Pattern

Flash = Off

Focal Length = 183mm

User Comment =

Flashpix Version = 0100

Color Space = sRGB

Exif Image Width = 600

Exif Image Height = 610

Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 1096

Focal Plane X Resolution = 3443.946

Focal Plane Y Resolution = 3442.017

Focal Plane Resolution Unit = inch

Sensing Method = One-chip color area sensor

File Source = DSC

Custom Rendered = Normal process

Exposure Mode = Auto exposure

White Balance = Auto white balance

Scene Capture Type = Normal

[interoperability]

Interoperability Index = R98

Interoperability Version = 0100

Related Image Width = 3072

Related Image Length = 2048

[Thumbnail]

Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)

X Resolution = 72

Y Resolution = 72

Resolution Unit = inch

JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 1246

JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 7633

[buzzsaw]

Okay catfish and Hobby, you guys know way too much about camera's!

We can all learn from your knowledge.

[nofishfisherman]

I use photoshop daily to retouch photos as I am a graphic designer and I think that the retouching of the bird above is over saturated. The lighting on the back and leg are just not natural any more. Some retouching of photos can be very useful but you have to be careful not to push it to far. When in doubt leave the photo alone, a bad photoshop job will distract from what was an obviously good photo to start.

[jonny_redhorse]

Guess it's all in the "eye of the beholder"....just like in an art gallery observing an oil painting...each of us see our own"beauty" and "excellence" on an individual basis(within reason of course)..."is the cup half full or half empty" i guess....holds true in photography for sure....as an example of what critiques know......awhile back I saw a segment on art on TV....they took a 3 year old... gave him some paint....told him to "do his thing!"....the persons then took this young kids itinerant "scratchings" and put the kids so called art and put it in a $1,000.00 matted picture frame...put it in a prestigious art exhibition and stood back and watched.....some of the worlds most prominent and prestigious art critiques and knowlegeable artists commented on this "unknown " artist!....end result.....various quotes:...."superb work!".."enchanting' ...a new picasso for sure!"...and after awhile they told the art crtiques what they did!.....lol!....what does that tell you about art and beauty in the eye of the critique?..lol!...johnny

[Steve Foss]

Dog:

I'll have to look back in the records, but I had thought it was the 10D. Doubt you're wrong with that electronic data, though, so I must have written it down wrong.

And how do you get exit data from an online image? That's something I don't know. I assume you pulled it off and used a photoshop feature but, if so, it's one I don't know yet.

As for your being an engineer and not an artist, I'm one of those guys who firmly believes that the value of art rests COMPLETELY in the eye of the beholder, so what's right for you is just as important as what's right for me, even though I took the image. And people who know scientists and engineers realize that engineers are the people who do, while scientists are the people who propose. Give me a doer any day. That's art in practical action.

And I'm always looking for feedback, even if I don't always take the advice.

[Steve Foss]

As requested, here are a few more.

Doe in marsh grass, Moose River (Canon 20D, Canon 100-400 IS)

Enquiring grouse, near Ely (Canon digital rebel or 10D, Canon 100-400 IS)

October Chickadee, Meander Lake (Canon EOS Elan IIe, Fujichrome Velvia 50 ISO, Nikon Coolscan slide scanner)

[hobbydog]

Quote:

---

Dog:

I'll have to look back in the records, but I had thought it was the 10D. Doubt you're wrong with that electronic data, though, so I must have written it down wrong.

And how do you get exit data from an online image? That's something I don't know. I assume you pulled it off and used a photoshop feature but, if so, it's one I don't know yet.

---

You can download a free copy from the link below. Once you load it you can just right click on the picture and it will give an option to view with opanda exif.

http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/

exif is the data that is embedded in the jpg or raw. virtually all digital camers embed some of the data that are available. Shutter speed, aperature, focal length, ISO are some of the basic ones. If you edit or crop them in some programs you will lose the exif data. As in your case, when you modified the pic it will also give the info on what program you used to modify and when you made the mod. There are many other exif viewers out there...just do a google search and you will find a lot of them.....I just find this one to be one of the better viewers.

Quote:

---

And I'm always looking for feedback, even if I don't always take the advice.

---

Aint that the truth.

[Steve Foss]

I know from my RAW photography (all my nature photos are now shot in RAW) that a lot of info is embedded in that format, but had no idea the same was true of jpegs.

Alas, here was a piece of information I would willingly have used (see, I take advantage of SOME info ), but it appears the exif software only works on those silly Windows machines, and I am a Macintosh user. Hobbydog, if there's exif out there for Mac, let me know and I'll owe you one. For example, I had forgotten I'd shot those scenes at ISO 100, which your exif indicated. And that means I can make bigger enlargements off a digital image than if I had shot it at the 400 ISO setting (higher ISO means grainier image). Since it's one of the images available on the Web site for sale, it's good to know I can bump the enlargement size up one more notch using photoshop's interpolation (adding pixels to enlarge an image) feature.

And, before all you Windows machine users load your weapons, hold on there pardners. I'm not trying to start a PC vs Mac war, which would be as silly as arguing the merits of Canon vs Nikon.

[hobbydog]

Quote:

---

Hobbydog, if there's exif out there for Mac, let me know and I'll owe you one. For example, I had forgotten I'd shot those scenes at ISO 100, which your exif indicated. And that means I can make bigger enlargements off a digital image than if I had shot it at the 400 ISO setting (higher ISO means grainier image). Since it's one of the images available on the Web site for sale, it's good to know I can bump the enlargement size up one more notch using photoshop's interpolation (adding pixels to enlarge an image) feature.

And, before all you Windows machine users load your weapons, hold on there pardners. I'm not trying to start a PC vs Mac war, which would be as silly as arguing the merits of Canon vs Nikon.

---

First of all Nikon beats Canon and why would anyone own a Mac OS

Here a couple you can try....

http://homepage.mac.com/aozer/EV/

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/macgadget/2003/20030527.shtml

Speaking of ISO....have you evere tried Neatimage (they make a mac version). There is a free version. It cleans up noise on higher ISO settings. I haven't mastered it yet beyond the default basic settings but have seen the outputs from some who have...it is another tool in the toolbox. The image below is one of the few I have played with. I intentionally shot high ISO on this day to see what it could do. The pic below is not a great shot (they flew seconds after I got this one shot)but you can see the noise in this pic and what it looked like after running it through neatimage.

http://www.neatimage.com/mac/

[Steve Foss]

Thanks Dog, I'll give those a try. I especially am interested in the noise/grain program you mentioned. Results you posted look good, and while I rarely shoot at 800 or 1600 iso, I occasionally do when shooting sports for the paper. The 20D sensor is much better than the original Rebel and 10D sensor, and reduces noise significantly at higher iso settings. I'd been toying with the idea of buying that type of software, but hadn't known there was free stuff out there.

Good stuff. Thanks again. You seem a good sort, even if you don't understand that Canon and Mac are the top performers. Heck, there are a couple Nikon/Windows people right here in Ely, and they haven't sprouted two heads or anything. Of course, Ely's most famous nature photographer switched from Nikon to Canon a year or so ago.

[hobbydog]

Quote:

---

Thanks Dog, I'll give those a try. I especially am interested in the noise/grain program you mentioned. Results you posted look good, and while I rarely shoot at 800 or 1600 iso, I occasionally do when shooting sports for the paper. The 20D sensor is much better than the original Rebel and 10D sensor, and reduces noise significantly at higher iso settings. I'd been toying with the idea of buying that type of software, but hadn't known there was free stuff out there.

Good stuff. Thanks again. You seem a good sort, even if you don't understand that Canon and Mac are the top performers. Heck, there are a couple Nikon/Windows people right here in Ely, and they haven't sprouted two heads or anything.

Of course, Ely's most famous nature photographer switched from Nikon to Canon a year or so ago.

---

Switched? maybe started using Canon, but I don't think he "switched". Maybe get to see him at the family reunion this weekend and will have to ask about that.

[Steve Foss]

Well, I know he's using Canon because we've spoken about it, and it was my information it was a switch.

I was going to give him a good-natured hard time last time I saw him about taking so long to come over from the dark side, but he's done such phenominal and inspiring work with his Nikon tools over the years that it seemed a fatuous remark, so I squelched it before it came out of my mouth. As you've probably noticed, I spend a fair amount of time with my own foot in my mouth, so that was a rare moment of discretion.

Not that it matters much one way or another, just an interesting side topic. Also interesting to see if he's still using Nikon in any way. It would, after all, be hard to totally give up the one you'd been with for decades. It was hard passing on my Canon film cameras, but I did relinquish them to my stepdaughter, who is an aspiring photographer herself and can't afford the switch to digital yet.