Stretching It Out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IzzieK

This time, I am more inclined in the original shot, Barbara (sorry Manfred) because with the edit, it loses the softness of that part of the head that I find nice (?) I do not know the right word there...but what I mean is that with the sharpness of the head, the shot now became a bit harsh-looking (?) I hope despite the muddle of terminology I cannot find to describe it, you understand what I mean...

---

Thanks Izzie!

I've looked at this image several times without commenting because I still don't know what to say. I'd have never intentionally composed/cropped it this way yet I like it. I guess for the simplicity and that both composition and technical execution focuses attention on the details. That said, if you're going to compose in such a manner, then you really need to nail the details. The color is fine. The feather detail on the wing is a bit soft. Manfred's advice to make it a little more crisp is well aimed.

You are one crazy lady. Shooting half a bird.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernFocus

I've looked at this image several times without commenting because I still don't know what to say. I'd have never intentionally composed/cropped it this way yet I like it. I guess for the simplicity and that both composition and technical execution focuses attention on the details. That said, if you're going to compose in such a manner, then you really need to nail the details. The color is fine. The feather detail on the wing is a bit soft. Manfred's advice to make it a little more crisp is well aimed.

You are one crazy lady. Shooting half a bird.... ;)

---

Thanks Dan, I hear ya about the details and will continue to work on those. I am one crazy lady and I like it that way!:D

Manfred, I have a 27" screen...and I understood what you mean, but yesterday when I was looking at both the images full 100% and comparing them, I noticed the softness of the brown head and along the neck areas in Barbara's image and I like that better. With your explanation and side by side comparison, plus looking at the original and your edit later on I still feel that something is lost there. The neck areas are OK, but the browns in the head wasn't. I still like the original. So perhaps it is the way of looking at in in my crappy screen. Your screen will probably have a higher resolution than my NEC one as it is an old one. Or even the Samsung 24" beside it. When I calibrate my monitors sometimes the images on my Samsung looks better than my NEC. Thank you for your explanation. I really do appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Totally understood, Izzie, but neither of us are likely seeing the image the same way and image size has a very large part to play in how a sharpened image is viewed. First of all, it has to viewed at 100%, so in this case, it has to be opened in Lightbox and zoomed in to maximum size. That is how I viewed the image when I sharpened it.

If you are viewing on a large screen (I use a 27" screen), then we might be looking at more or less the same image. If your screen is smaller than mine, then you will likely see a sharper image than I do. The way sharpening works it enhances areas where tonal contrast exists. What that means is that where light and dark areas of the image meet, the darks are darkened and the lights are lightened. When viewed on a smaller screen the scaling comes in as does a bit of an optical illusion, these dark and light areas appear more contrasty when your browser downscales and the end effect is that the image will look sharper on a smaller screen.

There is always the "personal taste" factor as well, some people like things to look sharper than other people do.

Like so much in photography, there is no right answer, but it is important to understand why different people with different equipment might view this differently. The only way that we could have a meaningful discussion on the merits of the sharpness is if both of us were looking at the same print.

Regardless, when I look at the original, it needs some sharpening, the amount and where the sharpening takes place is variable (this is the part referred to as "in-process sharpening". If I had the original file, I would probably soften the neck a touch, but the eye, head and body, I would probably treat the way I did.

Here is a side by side comparison of the before and after. Again, these should be viewed at 100% in Lightbox.


https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7614/...35250c39_o.jpg

---

I'm with Izzie on this question of sharpness but it is clearly an eye-of-the-beholder matter. I don't see this image as documentary ornithology - it's an artistic rendering - to me, sort of a Goose Degas. As a matter of taste, I find the initial version more engaging - if anything would just add a little sharpness/clarity to the eye.

Beautiful job Barbara! I somewhat agree with Manfred that it could be sharper but I honestly think it's fine like it is, and I much prefer the warmer hues in your original version. Beautiful job on a great piece of art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downrigger

I'm with Izzie on this question of sharpness but it is clearly an eye-of-the-beholder matter. I don't see this image as documentary ornithology - it's an artistic rendering - to me, sort of a Goose Degas. As a matter of taste, I find the initial version more engaging - if anything would just add a little sharpness/clarity to the eye.

---

Thanks Mark!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Texas Dave

Beautiful job Barbara! I somewhat agree with Manfred that it could be sharper but I honestly think it's fine like it is, and I much prefer the warmer hues in your original version. Beautiful job on a great piece of art.

---

Thanks Dave!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downrigger

I'm with Izzie on this question of sharpness but it is clearly an eye-of-the-beholder matter. I don't see this image as documentary ornithology - it's an artistic rendering...

---

Exactly so. My preference/tendency would be towards a sharper image. But it's up to Barbara to work out what she wants to convey with the image. Clearly by her choice of crop she's gone beyond simple documentary photography. There's no right answer. The value of our input to one another is to provide various perspectives for consideration. It's all good...

I think I have said this many times, there is no "right answer", and it is up to each photographer to portray their work in the way she or he sees fit.

Just to generalize, I find that most people do not sharpen their images enough, if they are shooting RAW. Eyes seem to glaze over when this subject is mentioned. It's a very powerful piece of workflow that is absolutely needed when we post-process our images, but is a step most people seem to be afraid of. Fine features like hair, fur and feathers always need a bit of careful sharpening to bring out the delicate details.