Critique Style Requested: Standard
The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
My wife and I went to one of the small Dutch islands in the North Sea, mainly to meet friends and to watch (and possibly photograph) the many wading birds there.
There was a kestrel struggling with the wind, preying. Usually they are a silhouette against the sky when they hover, but I was standing on a high dune and the bird was more or less at eye level. The bird stayed long enough to give me the time for a few shots.
Specific Feedback
I have several images, with a bit different BG, as the bird moved. I like this one because it is pretty smooth and with subdued color. The image is cropped. Do you think that the bird is too high in the frame?
Any other feedback is welcome as well.
Technical Details
Pentax K3 Mk. III, 55-300 @300mm, ISO1600, f/8, 1/3200sec. DxO PL6.
Pretty strong crop, but very little other editing.
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
- Vision and Purpose:
- Conceptual:
- Emotional Impact and Mood:
- Composition:
- Balance and Visual Weight:
- Depth and Dimension:
- Color:
- Lighting:
- Processing:
- Technical:
1 Like
Nice detail in the Kestrel, Han. I’ve never been able to get even close to level with one, so this view is really nice. It does feel to me as if the kestrel is a bit high in the frame, but at the same time I’d hat to see you lose the green band at the bottom of the frame. I don’t know what you cropped from, but if you have a little extra in the horizontal direction to keep a reasonable aspect ratio, I think you could let the Kestrel be a bit smaller in the frame to give it more head room.
Thanks @Dennis_Plank for your comment. There is enough room in the raw file, and I agree about the green band. A different crop is certainly possible.
A remake. If I left more space at the top, there was a distracting, pretty bright band above the bird that I filled with the clone stamp, without making it too uniform. Kept the aspect ratio to 3:2, changed the crop position slightly.
This composition feels more comfortable to my eye, Han. Nice job on the cloning at the top.
Wonderful catch!! The bird has lovely detail but I’m surprised at the noise in the BG – but it is much better in the second one. And I like that crop, too. I wonder about leveling up the “horizon”, which would put the bird at an even more jaunty angle. I love the amount of detail in the BG – it shows context without being distracting.
Nice job on the repost Han. Bird looks well placed in the frame. I love the “surroundings” as well.
@Diane_Miller About the noise: I rarely reduce luminance noise, since I don’t like the plastic look that it creates in images and you can lose detail. The AI based NR in state-of-the art RAW conversion does a better job, but often also invents non-existing detail. Because this image is “mainly background” , the noise is pretty visible. I blurred the masked BG a bit in the repost to reduce that.
I’m surprised at the BG noise at ISO 1600. For years I haven’t used the older NR or sharpening in the Detail panel of LR/ACR, and I have had poor results with some of the newer so-called AI methods. As you mentioned, they can create artifacts, apparently by trying to invent detail.
But for years I have had excellent results with Topaz Denoise (which does have “AI” in the name now). Used first thing after opening in PS, the Low Light algorithm generally does an excellent job of NR, using the default settings, even on a featureless BG at high ISO with a big crop. Sometimes Severe Noise does a better job with dark areas but it can have areas in the BG where it doesn’t reduce noise consistently. Neither has ever never given a plastic look. In those cases I will do both methods on copies of the BG layer and mask as needed. It pays to scan around at 100% to get the best results.
I keep trying this “new and improved” stuff and have yet to find it improved.
