Previous Thread Image Limit Reached: >>4474697Incidental Northern Mocking bird outside my balcony. Didn't have a picture of one yet.
The composition here looks boring. Should I crop more?
>>4487837It's a boring photo, cropping won't help. You should have gotten closer to eye level. Put your camera right above the water level next time. The light isn't doing you favors either.It's not your fault, this is a genre where true real keepers are very few and far between and more luck than anything. Just get out there more and consider the forecast. You can use windy.com or nws hourlies for cloud coverage forecasts. Fog looks cool too.
It really was ambush making these threads good wasnt it?
>>4487958noI greatly enjoy seeing a bunch of non-perfect photos and common birds too, the web is already filled with great shots
>>4487967>i don't like real photographyyou came to the right place
>>4487971I knowCan you define real photography?
>>4487971This isn't a thread for photography it's a thread for bird posting and discussion. This may be a photography board but every thread doesn't have to be about photography.
Got a lot of good shots today. Will make edits over the next day or two. Really happy with the male and female mergansers I got. They'll be near the end.
>>4488104>Green Heron>Mostly blueWhat did ornithologists mean by this
Fast moving Red-crowned Amazons. Couldnt zoom in fast enough to get more detail of the in-flight group, but I got some great perched ones later in my set.
>>4488128This is beautiful
>>4488130>smudgy>oversaturated>haloing>banding>mostly empty blue sky
>>4488131>bird posting thread>see beautiful birds>mad cause it's not national geographic qualityAnon go be upset somewhere else
>>4488132>critiquing a photograph on a photography board means you're upsetYou seem upset.
>>4488131Yeah, that kind of happens when you're shooting up into basically nothing except tree tops. Here's a rare Mandarin Duck I got today. Lighting was poor and it was stationary under an acorn tree for most the time I spent observing it.
>>4488148Still smudgy. Stop denoising so much, it looks like an AI upscale.
>>4488164Thats just the plumage in poor light; its not going to look good, denoise or not.
>>4488165>there's no noise because there was poor lightIs it opposite day today? I know how cameras work anon. You focused slightly behind the bird toward the tail and the leaf layer and you denoised. It makes everything look flat and boring and smudgy and makes the bird look waxy.
>>4488167I don't think you're comprehending. You're also being unreasonably argumentative. Poor lighting will hide details. Denoising will clear the noise and make the poor details more visible. The "smudging" is not because of the denoising, it's because of the poor lighting. My focus was fine.
>>4488176You're completely ignoring the fact that I accurately noticed how heavily denoised your photo is. Next you need to accept the fact that you missed focus. As for the subjective side of things, I think it's a flat boring photo. It's over processed in the exact same way as the rest of your shots here. Back to objectivity:>shadows pushed way too high to try and compensate for poor exposure>saturation and vibrance pushed to make up for washing out your colors with previously mentioned step>heavily denoisedThis is why you have haloing and banding on top of your flat artificial looking snapshots. Just trying to help but you're too high on the fumes generated from polishing turds.
>>4488177I can give you the raw. Put up or shut up.
>>4488184You focused on the leaves on this plane. Behind the bird.
>>4488185AF box was on the eye and at f/10; focus was fine. You're now complaining about editing and won't take the raw because you're an armchair warrior. I'm disengaging from this conversation with you.
>>4488186>posts a 509x334 image with an orange box on it to "prove" he focused properlyLmao you already posted it at 3000x2000 so we can see you focused on the leaves behind the bird. You just keep outing yourself as a notphotog too; Learn how to use your eyes instead of relying on computers, retard. Your full auto approach is why your shots look like ass, shitty compositions aside.
first time out with new cam
>>4488301
>>4488316
>>4488394
>>4488395Ostriches be curious
>>4488413Dang, reversed the posting order
>>4488770Are you special or something? Downsampling improves bayer bullshit
>>4488771downsampling to 4mpx? u serious nigga?
>>4488771LOOK AT MY RESAMPLED BIRD
>>4488800kek what a retard
>>4488801what happen
Revision on a take from a few weeks ago
>>4488961It's a juvenile
>>4489010nice shot.Curious, what focal length and how far away?
>>44890231/500, ISO 500, f/8, 371mmHad to of been inside 15 feet, though I can't recall specifically
Did some Friday after work birding down at our local costal park. Got an uncommon gull for this area.
>>4487815look at my birds bitches
>>4489302
>>4489324
>>4489325this concludes my birds series I shot today on my phone
>>4488975really nice, anon. you've got talent. probably the only one in this thread.
Recently went to Puerto Rico.Saw this hummingbird on a walk, and was lucky I had my camera in hand.
>>4489436
common koel
>>4489329Samefag
>>4489436>>4489437Nice, especially the first, but they could use some increased luminosity
>>4489578Thanks.New-ish to editing and color blind, so I've got a lot working against me (also this was at F11, 1/5000th on a 100-400 + 2x tele)Not sure if I should just crank the exposure or something else here...
>>4489674In low light situations, there are a couple things you want to typically adjust for.1. Shoot wide open to get the maximum amount of light possible2. Adjust shutter speed (subject dependent). You'll obviously get more exposure with a longer shutter speed, but with a target like your humming bird you're limited to a faster shutter speed.3. Look at your histogram, ideally it should be 2/3 on the right. If it's not, you're probably underexposed and should adjust your exposure compensation on your camera to bring it up. There's also an artistic aspect to exposure compensation, where some might purposefully under or over expose to get their intended shot.
>>4489720I'm not new to photography, just to editing and posting my pics lol.F11 is as wide as my lens goes with a 2x converter, and 1/5000 is needed to freeze hummingbird wings. This was also 12800 or 16000 iso IIRC.Since I'm colorblind I have to edit with histograms so I never know if what I'm doing is right, haha.Thanks for the tips though.
>>4489817Anyways, enjoying taking photos while colorblind feels like this.(Pigeon walking around the walls of Castillo San Felipe del Morro in PR)
>>4489818sick. I am going to PR this winter. bringing camera of course. I prefer wimbrels
>>4489817You're doing pretty well considering you're colorblind. If it's Deuteranopia you're pretty fucked, but if it's just some minor red-orange colorblindness then it shouldn't be a huge deal.>F11 is as wide as my lens goes with a 2x converterAre you shooting a 400mm f/5.6? with a 2x? Can't really get any better of a setup for 800mm without spending $10,000>This was also 12800 or 16000 isoThis is completely personal opinion, but if I was shooting this high of an ISO I would be turning NR off completely and shooting B&W. The chroma noise disappears and the luma noise is tolerable. In some cases it can look like a faux B&W film this way (but grain looks way better than luma noise ever will). Yes you lose the vibrant colors, but you're colourblind anyway so if anything it would be far easier for you to see what the photo looks like for other people.
>>4489860Yep, snoy 100-400. I can't afford a 300 f2.8I prefer it over the 200-600 because of size/weight, and I use it for landscape as well.I'm not afraid of iso, and I did not denoise or really crop this image at all. It was actually fairly ETTR'd so 16,000 looks ok. Just seems a bit blocky because of the compression down to 4-ish mbPicrel is a cat in my hotel room.
>>4489857Nice!I had a lot of fun. It's great for birds, but I kind of regret not going out specifically to shoot wildlife.I just got a bunch of random pics on resort or around old San Juan.Also, it's much pricier than say, Mexico. I was blindsided a bit.Picrel random bird on an umbrella at the resort. Not sure what this is, but they were everywhere.
>>4489881Looks to be a species of grackle. Not sure which, there's a handful of black variations depending on region.
>>4489817How does it look better than m43 ISO 800?
>>4489875Great shot desuI don't know much about color blindness, but if it's only affecting the perception of colors it shouldn't be an issue regarding fixing what I pointed out on the previous shots - which is only related to tonality (underexposure). But I'm not colorblind so I could be wrong
>>4490118Not sure if gearbaiting, but better dynamic range because FF is 3-4x the sensor size so noise is amplified.Anything beyond the 2 stop DR difference is due to ETTR (more signal to overwhelm the noise. High ISOs from any sensor can look pretty much fine with sufficient light.
Those little chirpsters defy gravity
where are birds in winter
>>4487815Eurasian blackbird
Still practicing, I haven't started doing post production but here are a few I recently took
1/2Lucky I got this close. Shot on a d610 with a 300 and a 2x teleconverter
2/2He left to get dinner
Great horned owl at dusk. D610 with a 300
>>4490833I hadn't considered using a teleconverter and was hesitating buying a 600mm lens. Thank you for telling anon
>>4490842Yea fren I wanted to expand into some bird stuff because I see a ton of them while landscape hunting, but I didn’t want to spend $5k on some crazy 600. I got an old af nikkor 300 1:4 and I use the tc200 to reach out to 600. In daylight with that bitch as wide open as possible I was able to get some fun photos. Just make sure you get a tripod/monopole. My hands shake too much to even use that 300 sometimes. With that tc 200 it’s impossible for me to purely freehand https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/tc200.htm
>>4491533Attempted to get a little artsy with a badly lit image. There was an Osprey circling trees to grab branches for what I'm assuming was building a nest. Captured the above but it was strongly backlit and couldn't pull out much detail. There was also an unidentified raptor sitting in the tree while it was swooping in. Couldn't quite make out what kind but I know some Merlins were in the area. Decided to turn it into a black and white. Here's the Osprey in question from a better lit position.
>>4490863>i just need more reeeeeeach!Reach is why all of /p/'s photos suck. The more reach, the shittier the photo.
Not a bird shooter. But too beautiful to not snap a pic.
Cedar Waxwing
>>4491723>crop hard>ai upscale>push shadows to 100%>sharpen sharpen sharpenvomit.gif
>>4491724literally none of that
>>4491727>lying this hardYou sharpened the noise and even a noob can see the shadows raised to oblivion. The left part of the photo is toward the edge of the lens and the right is toward the center
>>4491724>ai upscalednah>shadows pushedyes it's nuked which is why it's flat and neon>sharpenyes way too much and globally. probably trying to compensate for the head being out of focuslooks like a tiny sensor with a shitty zoom lens pointed at a back lit birb. basically >>4491539 is right, this is the power of reach. polishing a turd instead of taking a good photo but noobs need to start somewhere
>>4491733>a good photodefine that
>>4491734i can define a bad photo for you:backlitmissed focusupward angleshadows pushednoisyoversharpenedtoo much saturation/vibranceharsh and artificial lookingboring compositionhuge out of focus foreground objectssee the blue around the leaves on the left? that's not even chromabs it's the actual color of the sky trying to come through and it looks gross. the sky wasn't white in reality it was blue but it's been exposed incorrectly which is why the shadows were raised. which is why the dark areas are so noisy. which is why it looks flat and artificial and harsh and neon. and if it wasn't noisy enough focus was missed so the sharpening slider was mashed
>>4491739That wasn't the ask. If you can't define what's considered good then good becomes subjective and you're attempting to gatekeep at that point like a good little commie.
>>4491740>npc can't extrapolate that information for himself despite being given a list of flawsmaybe taking a photo that isn't backlit, doesn't have missed focus or an awkward upward (or downward) angle, and is exposed properly with good composition is headed in the right direction.>muh commieyou're a snapshitter who is now relying on word games to cope
>>4491741>npc can't extrapolate that information for himselfYou can't and you're deflecting. It's ok to go away. Being an adult is knowing when you're wrong.
>>4491727Anon, those of us who know how to use cameras know with 100 percent certainty that the subject was underexposed in the original photo. We can see that you raised the shadows and that you missed focus. As an amateur, having these things pointed out to you is a resource and denying it just means you'll stay a snapshitter forever. Stop trying to save bad shots and start learning how to take good ones.
>>4491724This, but I don't see any evidence of upscaling of any kind let alone AI. A lot of my shots looked like this 20+ years ago. Another example here >>4491534. Birds don't look like this in any lighting, this is raised shadows.
>>4491747Infinitely better than anything else ITT for a variety of reasons.
>>4491749thanks. i used to go birding as a kid but recently took it back up as a 34 year old
i wish the light was right for this mfer
