|
|
|
|
|
luissantos84
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2011, 13:45 » |
|
they will say noise, artifacts and his neck over exposed, pure white actually.. it was a 400mm picture at 1000s was it on tripod? did you tried some at iso 100 instead of 200?
|
|
|
|
|
wake6
New Member
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2011, 14:00 » |
|
The initial pictures showed the neck as over exposed so I reduced the exposure. When developing the Raw file I made sure that I didn't have the red dots (in Adobe camera raw) showing over exposure of the neck. But I did think that they looked over exposed. I will try a new conversion and see if I can get it looking better.
It was a hand held exposure with a high shutter speed as I did not expect the heron to stay still as long as he did - I thought I might get an in flight shot.
I did do some denoising but was afraid of over doing it and losing detail. Should I have denoised it further?
|
|
|
|
|
click_click
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2011, 14:17 » |
|
This is not an easy shot. The bird keeps moving and lighting conditions change.
However, you should have exposed to the brightness of the neck. Even if it's not 100% white you already lost a lot of detail in the feathers.
That kills the shot.
There are too many properly exposed shots out there, why make your life harder than it is?
Wildlife requires a ton of time and patience. You're trying to get your foot in the door and I would try to work on something that has more commercial value.
Istock wants to see your creative side as well.
|
|
|
|
|
luissantos84
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2011, 14:21 » |
|
don´t know much about taking noise but if you can do it without any artifacts etc on picture yep do it.. regarding the neck I really think that won´t be the problem, I think noise is the issue, overall I like the picture it is right on his habitat.. for application I don´t know.. but if you take the noise it does look nice and perhaps show you are a "nature" photographer but are they looking for it these days? I have a few heron birds on IS too but they were right on the beach on Maldives, more like 50mm not 400  |
|
|
|
|
Shank_ali
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2011, 14:37 » |
|
It would fail.The artifacts present do not look they came from shooting ISO 200 on your Canon 7D.Have you used any type of noise reduction ? |
|
|
|
|
Freedom
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2011, 14:49 » |
|
It is a good sharp shot. All the problems can be corrected through proper editing.
However I do not advise that you use a bird photo for your application since there are too many blue heron photos and yours is not outstanding. Try to submit something which is technically 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
luissantos84
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2011, 16:29 » |
|
still a lot of noise and underexposed, go with a middle version  |
|
|
|
|
markrhiggins
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2011, 17:01 » |
|
you can use the raw converter recovery tool for the neck or use two exposed (through raw) versions and combine. It is however a static bird. You need a nest, flight, feeding chicks, eating fish or something else going on. Not enough on its own
|
|
|
|
|
luissantos84
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2011, 17:14 » |
|
you can use the raw converter recovery tool for the neck or use two exposed (through raw) versions and combine. It is however a static bird. You need a nest, flight, feeding chicks, eating fish or something else going on. Not enough on its own
LOL make it with an Ipad |
|
|
|
|
wake6
New Member
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2011, 11:20 » |
|
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/35528366/GreyHeron3.jpgPoint taken about the fact that it needs to be doing something more interesting for stock. Is this likely to also apply for an application? Is this version better quality wise? It is exposure wise midway between the other too and has some noise reduction. I will have a go at doing two exposures and then merging them. Thank you everyone for your patience and taking time to comment. I have learnt more about my own photography this week than I have in years of reading and taking pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
traveler1116
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2011, 11:22 » |
|
Too dark. Maybe too much noise reduction.
|
|
|
|
|
luissantos84
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2011, 11:40 » |
|
Too dark. Maybe too much noise reduction.
yep, pull exposure a little up like 0.10 or some fill light on camera raw |
|
|
|
|
CoisaX
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2011, 11:44 » |
|
My 2 cents: - Try other type of images for first evaluation. Dont mean that birds don't sell. - Forget that image. I don't know what lens used, but 1/1000 @ f/7.1 and with -1 stop of compensation ( dunno if on raw ) made it very dark and PP will lead u to: A) - More light -> More Noise -> More noise reduction -> Less sharp / Less Detail b) - Less light -> Less Noise, More Sharp -> Too dark I take birds photos too, with sigma 120-400 (!!) and work always around 1/400 for 400mm, even with OS on ( except on tripod/base ) and ISO 200 on a 450D, which gimme more sharp photos. When birds are on bushes I set partial metering and sometimes set +1/2 stop compensation on camera. Even SS accept some of my bird work. On istock is on "approval drama"  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
jsnover
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2011, 14:00 » |
|
This isn't a strong image with which to apply - focus isn't the best and the lighting is flat. But even if you downsize to improve sharpness and fix the post processing you still have a rather busy composition of a not-much-in-demand subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Shank_ali
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2011, 23:20 » |
|
Quick hint on istockphoto application.3 various images(portrait/still life/conceptual/macro/landscape/night/fashion/sport) with the theme of K.I.S.S throughout.
|
|
|
|
|
wake6
New Member
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2011, 04:30 » |
|
Thank you all for taking the time to look and comment. Back the drawing board.
I do have some bird in flight photographs. I think grain could be a problem as fast shutter speeds are needed. Is it worth my while looking at these or should I move onto other subjects?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 04:34 by wake6 »
|
Ignore |
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
luissantos84
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2011, 07:34 » |
|
7D is 18 megapixels right? downsize it to 12 or 10 see how it goes.. it will bring overall better sharpness (not that your picture need, it doesn´t) but it will reduce a little the noise.. what are you planning to send more?
|
|
|
|
|
zager
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2011, 08:03 » |
|
True, regular animals, flowers, landscapes and stuff you have at home is easy to shoot and difficult to sell. As for technical quality I'd add a little saturation and a bit of dramatic lighting to version 4. Still it's center shot and that kills the dynamics.
Keep in mind this: Buyers mostly use your images to say something in advertising. Almost no-one buys documentary images in microstock agencies. If you want to make money, make less of great shorts rather than plenty of average shots/subjects.
|
|
|
|
|
wake6
New Member
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2011, 10:08 » |
|
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/35528366/CommonTern1.jpgShould I start a new thread for a new picture? I don't want to fill up the group with my threads. This bird in flight shot was taken at ISO400 - usually the in flight shots are at a higher ISO because I like to freeze (or nearly freeze) the wings but there was quite a lot of light when I took this.
|
|
|
|
|
jsnover
|
|
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2011, 12:25 » |
|
This won't get you accepted to iStock. It's not a horrible shot, but it's not really sharp and isn't all that interesting as a photo.
|
|
|
|
|
click_click
|
|
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2011, 12:42 » |
|
Try to stay away from animal shots or at least away from wildlife.
iStock has a great interest in unique and highly commercial images.
Wildlife won't be the ideal choice to show off for an application.
Show them that you can make them a lot of money with highly attractive and properly exposed shots.
|
|
|
|
|
wake6
New Member
|
|
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2011, 13:31 » |
|
Thank you everyone for putting me straight. I will change tack. I have learnt a lot this week. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
