The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
here’s another small bird in flight. Little soft in the head but basically not too bad. Process in light room, DXO photo lab,And Photoshop. minimal processing
Specific Feedback
any
Technical Details
Iso-6400, 400+1.4 X, F10, 2000th, Sony A1
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
Wonderful, and a very difficult catch!! And the BG looks natural. There could be a bit of retouching around the beak. At the enlarged size there are some processing artifacts which may be due to a sharpening algorithm. You might compare other ways to sharpen, or do less. A shot like this can be forgiven if it isn’t perfect. And this one is close enough!
Thanks for your comments on my image of the flying chickadee. Yes, catching small birds and flight like this is very difficult and as often a matter of luck. One has to guess where they’re going and then be lucky and have the shutter pressed at the right time. I was shooting at 30 frames per second and was lucky to catch the image.
Yes, there were some artifact around the beak because I tried to delete a big hunk of suet in the mouth.
I probably could’ve done a better job if I had been able to sit long enough to do something, but my Parkinson dystonia is exceedingly painful and really limits my ability to sit and mobile.
Huge sympathies for the issues you have to cope with – not many of us could do it. I have wondered sometimes about these platforms for being able to stand at the computer, or even something like a massage table where you can lie face down and view a monitor and reach a keyboard and mouse below your face.
Very nice job, David. I was wondering about the lower mandible. It looks like a chunk was taken out of it. Getting a chickadee in flight is quite an accomplishment-the only thing I have are tails and blurs. If I kept them all I could do an exhibition of bird tails leaving the frame.
I notice that the size of your file Pixel count is quite large, yet it’s only 1.8 MB. I think you might want to reduce the dimensions of your image to around 2000 to 2400 pixels on the long edge which will let you use a higher quality jpeg setting or if you’re not monitoring that yourself, prevent the site from downsizing it, which it does if the image is too large. Either of those degrades image quality.
Yes, much better! But you could mask out the over-sharpened areas.
@Dennis_Plank is right about the large size, and I think that’s where the banding/posterization is coming from – lowering the quality to get the file size down. I commented in a little more detail in the posterized Goldfinch post.
