HOME | DD

ScottEllington In reply to morbiusx33 [2012-08-09 17:27:06 +0000 UTC]

Thank you very kindly, Sir!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ScottEllington In reply to FountainheadPhoto [2012-02-12 17:56:05 +0000 UTC]

Oddly, the EXIF did't print. WTF! 1/2000s f/8 ISO200 (Manual 0EV)
This was 11:58:52 04FEB, A week before I set Autofocus-Lock-On to the OFF position.
Low Noon is an alternative title, in contrast to the movie; you wait forever for the ulimate confrontation, then the sequence of several shots culminates in a squandered, rare opportunity as your autofocus lags behind the target's new location. This was the best of 583 surviving images (of about 800) shot over 5 hours. Its like the reverse of the Inverse Square Law, the subject may move at a constant speed, but as it gets closer, the rate of change gets vastly faster. My target was that catchlighted eye. It's usually a streak.

Manipulations:
Cropped about 40% of the frame in Lightroom 3.6 (on trial).
3 layers; background/pelican/sky in Photoshop 5.5.
Filled the pixelated and lightly-clouded sky with the darkest-blue sample in the frame.
Desaturated the noisy bluish shadow in the under-wing, and raised the saturation of the background image.
Unsharp Masked the bird-only layer and dropped its opacity to 80%. Colors pop and details maximized (to taste).

The resulting image isn't quite natural. Atmospheric context is removed, and the pelican's elevation/distance is ambiguous (2m above me and 30m+ away), but plausible.

Thanks for looking in!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FountainheadPhoto In reply to ScottEllington [2012-02-13 15:15:13 +0000 UTC]

Hmm, well that's just a subtle touching-up job. There's nowt wrong with that, Scott. It usually turns out the images you most like seem to have a subtle flaw that irks anyway. For me, subtle editing that isn't obvious when viewed as a photograph(as opposed to zooming until you can see quarks) which doesn't change the essence of the composition is fair game in my book.

Although. With the masses having easy access to all kinds of editing software nowadays it seems that everyone just can't help having a little fiddle in their quest for perfection, myself included. It's fun to tinker.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ScottEllington In reply to FountainheadPhoto [2012-02-13 17:52:09 +0000 UTC]

All valid points and true. I'm just looking for a balance I can live with. (It changes every time.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FountainheadPhoto In reply to ScottEllington [2012-02-15 13:03:05 +0000 UTC]

This is the balance. Spot on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ScottEllington In reply to FountainheadPhoto [2012-02-15 16:27:04 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! It is hoped that practice makes better, and the attention you've already devoted to my attempts fuels the living hell out of greater investment. Double-thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FountainheadPhoto In reply to ScottEllington [2012-02-15 18:01:21 +0000 UTC]

You're enlightened, therefore your ability to see the world slightly askew and capture it with a camera gives you the advantage over many.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ScottEllington In reply to FountainheadPhoto [2012-02-15 18:09:31 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I'd like to think so, the problem is that the subject and the mentor is birds, which see better, move faster, and they fucking FLY!
A man should know the limitations of his kind, and aspire to incorporate the freedom of his betters; in this case, boids.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FountainheadPhoto In reply to ScottEllington [2012-02-15 18:35:18 +0000 UTC]

ha! Keep on keeping on, old boy*. You're doing nature justice.

*English term, not to be misconstrued as ageist

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ScottEllington In reply to FountainheadPhoto [2012-02-15 18:46:00 +0000 UTC]

Nun taken. *smirk*

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FountainheadPhoto In reply to ScottEllington [2012-02-15 18:56:39 +0000 UTC]

Touché.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0