Coots in the mist

[Craigie]

A very cloudy today, so I did some work on a couple of images I took earlier in the week.
Not my normal type of image, as I prefer sharpness and detail in my images (though not always achieved). Both were taken at the same time, but with different FL.
The scene was, the lower end of the pond was frozen and there was a low lying mist, so I took a few shots (knowing I would not get much detail in the Coot).
#1 is B&W
#2 is Colour.
C&C required

1 f7.1 1/1250sec ISO 640 FL 600mm


2 f7.1 1/1250sec ISO 640 FL 267mm.

[Shadowman]

Nice, I like the second because more of the face is revealed.

[madcrow]

Very atmospheric and nice light. #2 a crop off the top and RH side, I think, would help.

[Geoff F]

You might be lacking in fine feather detail from that angle but at least you managed some interesting reflections.

[Craigie]

Nice, I like the second because more of the face is revealed.

Thanks for commenting John it is appreciated.

[Craigie]

Very atmospheric and nice light. #2 a crop off the top and RH side, I think, would help.

Thanks Maurice for your comments and suggestion.
I left the original uncropped as I want the walkway left in, to give the image an extra level of interest.

2a cropped

[Craigie]

You might be lacking in fine feather detail from that angle but at least you managed some interesting reflections.

Thanks Geoff, for viewing and commenting.

[JohnRostron]

The backlighting on these is very atmospheric, especially in #1.

John

[Dave A]

I quite like #1.

Dave

[Craigie]

The backlighting on these is very atmospheric, especially in #1.

John

Thanks John for viewing and commenting.

[Craigie]

I quite like #1.

Dave

Thanks Dave.

[Wavelength]

Now a days birdies are in some dancing moods....

[ucci]

walk way or what ever it is across the top is quite disI have to go with Maurice. The walkway or what ever it is across the top of frame is distracting and I found it pulled my attention away from the main subject. That being said for what it is worth I think I prefer the B&W. My reason is that B&W seems to better portray just how cold it was when it was taken.

[NorthernFocus]

Good job recognizing an opportunity with the low lying mist/fog, Gary. And the bird's reflection on the ice adds a dimension. Both shots could be improved by placing the bird off-center. Conventional wisdom would be to do so such that the bird faces or "moves" into the frame.

I agree with others that as captured the structure at top of no.2 is distracting. It draws attention due to the pattern and trying to figure out what it is. If you wanted to make this an "environmental" or "wildscape" shot then include enough of the walkway to make it clearly part of the image. This is an example of the old adage, "if it doesn't add to the scene then it takes away"(or something to that effect).

You also have some halo issues around the coot. In a high contrast scene like this they could either be due to over sharpening or corrected CA leaving a halo. Sharpening is easily corrected (unless it was done in-camera and shooting jpeg). Eliminating the CA can be very expensive

[Craigie]

Now a days birdies are in some dancing moods....

A bit of Ice Ballet

[Craigie]

walk way or what ever it is across the top is quite disI have to go with Maurice. The walkway or what ever it is across the top of frame is distracting and I found it pulled my attention away from the main subject. That being said for what it is worth I think I prefer the B&W. My reason is that B&W seems to better portray just how cold it was when it was taken.

Thanks Ken for viewing and commenting, much appreciated.

[Craigie]

Good job recognizing an opportunity with the low lying mist/fog, Gary. And the bird's reflection on the ice adds a dimension. Both shots could be improved by placing the bird off-center. Conventional wisdom would be to do so such that the bird faces or "moves" into the frame.

I agree with others that as captured the structure at top of no.2 is distracting. It draws attention due to the pattern and trying to figure out what it is. If you wanted to make this an "environmental" or "wildscape" shot then include enough of the walkway to make it clearly part of the image. This is an example of the old adage, "if it doesn't add to the scene then it takes away"(or something to that effect).

You also have some halo issues around the coot. In a high contrast scene like this they could either be due to over sharpening or corrected CA leaving a halo. Sharpening is easily corrected (unless it was done in-camera and shooting jpeg). Eliminating the CA can be very expensive

Thanks Dan for your constructive critique as always I do appreciate it.
I always shot in raw and do all PP in PS.
Is it better to enable CA in camera or do it in PP ?.
Is

[NorthernFocus]

...Is it better to enable CA in camera or do it in PP ?.

I'm not sure whether in-camera CA correction alters RAW files or only jpeg. But IMO it is better done in PP because you may be better off leaving CA uncorrected.

The problem is the same either way. CA correction typically removes the hue/fringing but on high contrast images often leaves a light halo. Many recognized/followed photography bloggers will advise not to worry about CA characteristics of lenses because it can be corrected with PP. But they overlook this aspect. It is image dependent and doesn't always create the halo effect. I've encountered this a good bit because I've had two lenses that are particularly poor at controlling CA. One of them is the lens I'm currently shooting, the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6. The other was (disappointingly) the pro level 200-400mm f4. The only true solution is shooting with lenses with well controlled CA. Prime lenses typically outperform tele zooms in that regard. That's why I made the statement about it being expensive.

All that said, awareness is a good part of the battle. If you discover that CA is an issue with one of your lenses, you can alter your processing to minimize the effects. If correcting the CA results in a light halo you can be very selective with sharpening so as not to enhance the CA. Or it may be less noticeable to leave the CA uncorrected. However, in addition to color fringing uncorrected CA can also result in high contrast edges appearing soft. Again it is image dependent but easily determined by toggling the CA correction tool in your RAW converter.

Please be clear I'm not saying definitively that these images suffer from CA. Reduced as they are it is indistinguishable whether it is CA or sharpening artifact. You would have to go back to the unsharpened RAW image to determine whether it is CA. Viewing at various resolutions and toggling CA correction on/off can be instructive.

[Craigie]

I'm not sure whether in-camera CA correction alters RAW files or only jpeg. But IMO it is better done in PP because you may be better off leaving CA uncorrected.

The problem is the same either way. CA correction typically removes the hue/fringing but on high contrast images often leaves a light halo. Many recognized/followed photography bloggers will advise not to worry about CA characteristics of lenses because it can be corrected with PP. But they overlook this aspect. It is image dependent and doesn't always create the halo effect. I've encountered this a good bit because I've had two lenses that are particularly poor at controlling CA. One of them is the lens I'm currently shooting, the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6. The other was (disappointingly) the pro level 200-400mm f4. The only true solution is shooting with lenses with well controlled CA. Prime lenses typically outperform tele zooms in that regard. That's why I made the statement about it being expensive.

All that said, awareness is a good part of the battle. If you discover that CA is an issue with one of your lenses, you can alter your processing to minimize the effects. If correcting the CA results in a light halo you can be very selective with sharpening so as not to enhance the CA. Or it may be less noticeable to leave the CA uncorrected. However, in addition to color fringing uncorrected CA can also result in high contrast edges appearing soft. Again it is image dependent but easily determined by toggling the CA correction tool in your RAW converter.

Please be clear I'm not saying definitively that these images suffer from CA. Reduced as they are it is indistinguishable whether it is CA or sharpening artifact. You would have to go back to the unsharpened RAW image to determine whether it is CA. Viewing at various resolutions and toggling CA correction on/off can be instructive.

Thanks Dan for your concise and informative reply.
I will try your suggestion of going back to the unsharpened RAW image.