Baby Swans' First Swim C&C

quilmore

conkeroo

Very nice shot quilmore. I like the extra space in the foreground containing the distorted reflection. Nicely composed. And the main focus of the shot stands out enough not to get lost in the other elements. If I may though, maybe a tad contrasty and sharp but great stuff aside from that.

kjt

Nice shot Quilmore. As conkeroo said the foreground is nice but maybe a tad bit too tall. Also the image does seem too sharp as already mentioned. Did you do much in ps?

Freddie59

Superb. No other word for it.

quilmore

thanks for the good vibes!
this is as-shot, only cropped a bit and resized, no sharpening or curves
d300, 70-200, A-Mode, f2.8, 1/500, C-POL, 3-D matrix mettering, strong direct sunlight at about 5:30pm today (now I realize I've sharpened twice the one above )

ttcomet

I really like the second unshrpened version I think it is a great shot.

kjt

The second shot is far better imo The water & reflections looks nice and dreamy, the background is soft and the swan is sharp without being too sharp.

Nice!

Ravage1616

Have to agree with guys on what they said! Prefer the 2nd photo. Nice work!

conkeroo

Much better, not so harsh now. Just a thought, do you meter your shots? Ive only just noticed the swans head looks a little blown out. Slightly more underexposed would have nailed this perfectly but im knitpicking now!! Just my opinion.

quilmore

let's see now
as said, the camera was in 3-D matrix, not the one I like the most but I forgot to have a look at it at the time
this version is -1 EV (one of the good thinks of always shooting JPG+NEF...) and very gently sharpening


I knew that posting pictures for C&C were productive and I could learn from it, but this is a masterclass you're giving me today

conkeroo

Hope you havent taken offense, im not tearing into your work but when I learned to correctly meter, seriously, it made such a difference. Anyway like I said its a great shot.

quilmore

conkeroo, don't get me wrong!
I love what all of you have made me go trough today
I was so happy with my first post, and now its obvious that the last one, after all of your views and suggestions is really much nicer

conkeroo

Good stuff.

kjt

quilmore wrote: »

conkeroo, don't get me wrong!
I love what all of you have made me go trough today
I was so happy with my first post, and now its obvious that the last one, after all of your views and suggestions is really much nicer

Glad your happy with it!
That's what I love about popping a picture up here for c&c, people can interpret your image a completely different way that you haven't seen before, suggest trying a tighter crop or something else that adds much more to your image.

Long live C&C!!

AnimalRights

Why I find sometimes that the less "afterwork" on a picture the better.
I started the thread and seen 1st pic and knew it was OTT but by pic 3 it's all good again.

Great picture!

magicbastarder

i'd dial back the contrast slightly.

Fenster

Too contrasted, blown out highlights and over-sharpened. I'm not too keen on the subject or composition either. A swan photo isn't a good swan photo unless it's something completely different as we see so much of them!

Fajitas!

Did you read the thread? Or did you click the quick reply as soon as you saw the first image?

You'd swear there was something wrong with photographing swans. Where's that rolleyes smiley gone?

AnCatDubh

3rd one is by far the best - there are two aspects of the exposure, if you check the histogram your distribution of light appears across the entire range and unfortunately get blown out at both the light and dark ends of the range.

This will give you problems when doing anything more than tinkering with exposure compensation. +/- 1/3 or 1/2 should be ok, but basically you have some areas in the image which won't shift out of the pure black or pure white. The camera based histogram immediately post take can be really useful. I'd imagine the sun at 5:30 was still very strong and is the source of the problem in this regard.

I think we all have learned a little from this thread - very helpful indeed. nice one!

EDIT: Oh - one other issue and in moving it towards the 'perfect' shot - again its the sun here but the shadow cast takes from the image (imo). I appreciate that there's not a awful amount that you can do about it though - but still just thought i'd mention as you may keep an eye on your vantage point next time out, avoiding or at least reducing the impact of the shadow casts.

Cheers.

AnimalRights

Fajitas! wrote: »

Did you read the thread? Or did you click the quick reply as soon as you saw the first image?

You'd swear there was something wrong with photographing swans. Where's that rolleyes smiley gone?

#1 I nearly made that mistake!
#2 Can't wait 'til I get my first opportunity to photo these most beautiful of creatures.

Fenster

Just you wait until two swans attack you. It bloody hurts!

I'll beg off with the usual excuses; bad work day, etc.

YogiBear

Fenster wrote: »

Just you wait until two swans attack you. It bloody hurts!

I'll beg off with the usual excuses; bad work day, etc.

Seriously? That would make an interesting swan photo!

I prefer the 3rd photo of the three... great shot, very cute too!

Dades

Cropping off some of the bottom of the second version would make it perfect for me.

Version #1 and #3 are too contrasty and dark respectively.

Nice work!

quilmore

thanks for all commentaries
I really appreciate them and I'll probaby come back to this thread before posting again not to fall in the same problems
in this latest version I've done some D-Lighting (Capture NX) to improve range and lower contrast, and a 3:2 crop as recomended

mehfesto2

Love the third picture! Nicely toned. Great family portrait, too!
Where was it taken?

Aren't baby swans called cygnets? I always mix up these names though, so pay no heed if I'm wrong.

AnimalRights

I think the female Swans are signets.
and OP I woulda liked to see the original picture without any interfering etc
Grass colour doesn't look natural.

quilmore

AnimalRights, the second picture (the one without sharpening and with the blown highlights) would be as-shot aside cropping, no change since it came from the camera
it was taken on Vivid with saturation in +1
I could try with the nef in standard or neutral to see if they come any better

to have measured using 3-D matrix didn't help as I had to bring the exposure down making the colours even more saturated
I have to ensure I use spot mettering or the one with the "(o)" that I never remember its name, that probably will avoid me going in so many problems

quilmore

AnimalRights, this what it will be if I had used Neutral (this is a RAW convertion using Capture NX) I do like the grass in this one
once again, thanks for making me come back and apoligies for so many versions of the same picture
let me know if I should remove the previous ones

i71jskz5xu42pb

Third one is too dark. You've lost most of the green in the forground. Second one is the best.
But what do I know (except that they're called cygnets not baby swans )

hmboards

AnimalRights wrote: »

I think the female Swans are signets.
and OP I woulda liked to see the original picture without any interfering etc
Grass colour doesn't look natural.

Female swan is a pen, male a cob, the young are cygnets.

OP - Great picture. It's not easy getting the exposure right as the adults are bright white and the young a duller gray. If you expose for the cygnets the adult will be overexposed, especially in sunlight.

gaffmaster

Ugly ducklings my ar5e! These guys are cool!

i71jskz5xu42pb

Yeah, I'm totally craving a snack box right now.

Balfey1972

have to say love the 2nd one most