PDA

View Full Version : Good for comp? CC please



Noelle_Zaleski
03-13-2008, 12:57 PM
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/noellezale/decem%2007/seagullweb2.jpg

D._Craig_Flory
03-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Hi Noelle;

You have the bird flying out of the image to the left side of the presentation. The main part of the bird is on the 1st quadrant while the best position would be the 3rd or 4th quadrant.

Andrea_Chapelo
03-13-2008, 02:10 PM
Noelle, I don't know anything about comp..but I like it.:D

Noelle_Zaleski
03-13-2008, 02:15 PM
Craig, if I change the placement do you think it's a possibilty?

D._Craig_Flory
03-13-2008, 02:28 PM
Hi Noelle;

I see this as a good image to combine with another. Ron Jackson did a terrific combination of a scenic he did with an image of two little girls pulling a wagon. The end result is fantastic. But I'd like to see what some of the heavy hitters like Keith or Dave have to say.

Do you have any more images from that day and area ?

Noelle_Zaleski
03-13-2008, 02:31 PM
Yes, I do. I have a tug boat, some beach wood and more segulls ofcourse.

Noelle_Zaleski
03-13-2008, 02:40 PM
Actually I like him solo, let's see what others might say.

D._Craig_Flory
03-13-2008, 02:43 PM
Hi Noelle;

Please post some of those.

Check out this image of an Eagle in Alaska done by Pa. member Joe Campanellie: http://www.ppaofpa.org/Images-2007%20Comp/Flying%20Solo%20.jpg .

Now, check out a whole bunch of his Alaska images on their web site.
http://www.campanellies.com/mp_client/pictures.asp?action=viewphotos&size=thumbnails&thumbpagenum=1&eventid=25122&eventstatus=0&categories=no&keywords2=no&groupid=%200&bw=false&sep=false&ckw=false

Keith_A_Howe
03-13-2008, 02:46 PM
Noelle,
Three questions, first is the bird tack sharp? If not then I wouldn't recommend investing any time in working on this image for comp. If the bird is sharp then what are you PS skills and can you extend the background sky in front of the bird without it looking patched? It needs a lot more area in front of the subject. My last question is what are your expectations? The direction of the light is not adding to the impact on this image. It appears on my moniter that the feathers on the side are losing detail. If the light had been coming from extreme camera left, the image would have been more dynamic. I realize you couldn't control subject placement in relationship to light direction in this image. So then what we look for as a judge, is did you recognize when it was an impactful lighting situation and choose that image to present. So if your expectations are to merit, I don't see it in this image. If your expectations are to get your feet wet and to fill your case with a fourth print, then this is a good choice. You will not be embarassed with your score.
Remember, I am only one opinion and a judging panel is made up of 5 opinions.

Keith

Mark_Levesque
03-13-2008, 02:53 PM
I don't see enough impact in this shot for it to merit, Noelle. If you really like it and want to include it in your case, I'd move him back in the frame so he's flying into it (select him with the lasso tool, ctrl-j, move the new layer to the upper right hand corner, then mask with a soft brush until it looks natural. Then patch out the bird in the original location.)

Noelle_Zaleski
03-13-2008, 03:02 PM
Kieth and Mark, thank you so much for your CC. The bird is sharp accept for that left wing which aggravates the **** out of me!!

As far as extending there is plenty of space in front of the bird in the original image.

I do not plan on just entering just to fill a case. Yes, I want to get my feet/wings wet but I want it to be the best I can do! Your cc and others gives me the drive to get back out there and feed the seagulls more cheerios so they pose for me.
I just have the issue where I am not getting the whole bird 100% sharp and I cannot figure out why.


Maybe I need to change my focus points?

Jeff_Dachowski
03-13-2008, 03:07 PM
Noelle,
the only way to get the bird sharper is to shoot at a higher f stop. Which means you need to crank up your iso so that he is not blurry from movement. One attribute of a longer lens is that it has a shallower depth of field when compared to a wide angle lens. I think the placement needs to be elsewhere in the frame, but I can accept a little bit of out of focus when it comes to this type of work when executed properly.

Jeff

Noelle_Zaleski
03-13-2008, 03:24 PM
Thanks Jeff, I just looked and I shot him at 5.6, SP 1600, ISO 4oo. I am always afraid of cranking up the ISO for the noise factor.

Mark_Levesque
03-13-2008, 04:05 PM
Am I reading this right, that it's f5.6, 1/1600? If so, just go to f11 and it will be tack sharp.

Noelle_Zaleski
03-13-2008, 05:12 PM
yes, that is correct! will do Mark.

Mark_Levesque
03-13-2008, 05:49 PM
Well, as gulls are slow fliers, you really don't need such a short shutter speed to stop them. Unless you are hand holding a 1000mm lens, LOL. You might even be able to get away with ISO200, depending, which should solve any noise issues.

Noelle_Zaleski
03-13-2008, 06:14 PM
I wish I had a 1000mm lens but I probably could not hand hold it. Thanks for the advice!!