Which looks better inhanced or not

Can I make a suggestion please? Could you take this discussion over to :” Photography tips and tricks”? I would have loved to post some photos in this section under “Best Photos” Thanks

Hmmm, seems admin is awake and has moved this? As to why M-L could not post in best photos because of this post is beyond me ?

Don't worry, you will get the hang of this site quick

Which would I rather have on the wall? Dunno, as they are both really nice photos. To me though, it seems like in the processed one, the bird is just a tad too yellow. This only probably annoys me because I can tell it has been fiddled with due to the halo around the eagle, which makes my mind go: 'Hang on, that yellow must be faked as well', regardless of what colour the bird was. Without the halo, I probably wouldn't mid, as my mind would probably go 'That photo was taken in late afternoon, due to the colours' 

Sorry, have had a bad week & seems my head is still on backwards as a result  (have been going through "new posts" backwards and answering old ones accidentally tonight), so I think I may have answered this question in your original post.  Down to personal taste (again) & what you wanted to particularly look at on your wall IMO.  If I was after a beautiful Wedgie that I, and anyone else, could see was a Wedgie, then Shorty's version.  If I was after something more abstract or different, your first one Besty.

edited to add:  Great in flight shots by the way, very jealous - BIF are not my forte, but I'm practising, practising

Thanks, rbbest. I don't use photoshop to enhance my pics, i use it for fun.

As i said before it is hard to make a small file look good but here is one for you.

[e] wedge tailed eagle (3)-Edit by rawshorty, on Flickr">[/url] [e] wedge tailed eagle (3)-Edit by rawshorty, on Flickr

I mostly use photoshop for fun like this shot of the moon and milkyway

stars and moon 2 by rawshorty, on Flickr">[/url] stars and moon 2 by rawshorty, on Flickr

I agree with Cassie , I would love to see a section for EDITED photos !! I don't like to edit photos either as a rule , especially birds ones, but I have played with a few and it is fun and you do get some great results . I don't see the harm in it as long as it is stated that it has been edited in some way. I say bring it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes it does look different shoop, I like both originals a lot better. In the first one the duck has some natural colours in it. The second one of the duck is just shades of "grey". Unless that was your aim?

There is some reflection of the sun in the first one, that makes the duck look alive. The second one looks like a dead duck without much expression to me.

I'd go for the first one.

I think it depends on what your trying to achieve, do you want the finished photo to look like art or as life like as possible either is fine it just depends on what you want from your photos.

I use photoshop almost every day but I try to use it to make my photos look more natural or to remove destracting or unwanted elements.

Araminta I think you and I like many others belonging to the "old school" film days and would like our photos to look their best straight out of the camera and even though your photos are outstanding I think most digital photos can benefit from a bit of P/P tweeking.

I now overexpose my photos very slightly thanks in part to a post by dna1972 on exposing to the right or ETTR  this brought about a immediate improvement in the look of my bird photos by bringing out highlights and detail that had been lost before.

My son (an artist and expert at photoshop)is always at me to try and embrace new technology and change my ways of doing things instead of resisting and trying to stick with what I know .

Its easy for him he got his first computer at the age of 8 at that age I was still fascinated by my lego and marcarno set !

Thankyou Sparrow ..... sometimes it is hard to express ones self but i think you have made the point I was trying to make . Araminta is set on ''original '' is the best and that is entirely fine but I have to agree with Sparrow we aren't out to get the best in clarity or the closest, sharpest or even the natural colours.  There is so much more to capture even if is a common bird, ah la Silver Gull or Pacific  Black Duck .Capture it doing something a little bit different , we have both posted a Silver Gull in a portrait position and as much as it does show all those characteristics Araminta has mentioned (which don't get me wrong) I love to be able to get that clarity and sharpness I think if we all went for that it would be boring !!!!!!!! I think Araminta is missing the point we are trying to make here. It is not about improving the photo at all ..far from it ....it is just personal choice of what one sees or wants to see, whether it be artistic , natural or even absract. Thats why I posted the two photos, one original and one that had been edited. I'm not aiming for those natural things that Araminta mentioned when I edit a photo .Whether the duck looks alive or dead I am concentrating on more of the mood (or personal expression), then the visual . But i suppose we could share our personal opinions all day long . End of the story is ''personal choice'' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks shoop, I am not missing any point, no need to put that many of those !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! here.

I have no intention to enter into any discussion about Art, (although I do feel tempted to talk about it, seeing I have just a "tiny bit" of background in the field of modern Art)

 I should never have entered into this discussion in the first place, seeing I'm the first one to admit , I know nothing about photography,

I wish you the best in achieving your personal goal in the Art of Photography,what ever that might be.

I disagree , it’s not the equipment you have, it’s what you do with it. I have a much shorter lens than most other people on this forum, there are many other factors that are important. One is to see what a good composition is, and getting as close as you can to the birds, those kind of things.

Neither is it how expensive your camera is. Only three years ago, all I had was a little camera I bought at "Aldi"for $ 78, took some interesting photos back then, should post some one day.

Trust me, I have met some people with Canon Cameras and lenses worth thousands of dollars, they did countless courses on how to use manual settings, but I have yet to see any great photos they have taken I have met groups of members of Photography Clubs taking photos in Parks. They carried backpacks full of stuff, by the time they put their gear into action I was going home after I had a few hundred photos in my bag.

I wouldn't worry about your 7 year old camera, i'm sure you will be able to take great photos , looking forward to see some.

With white birds it's best to photograph early or late in the day when the sun is low, so the whites don't burn out. It's also good to photograph white birds during overcast days. Bright light and white tones don't make good combinations. Photoshop cannot "better" a white bird photographed under bright sun that result in washed out whites. Of course if the person is happy with that then that's fine.

There adage that the person using the equipment is far more important than the equipment itself is very true, however, having the right equipment makes the photographer's task easier. It is far easier (though still very hard) to photograph a bird with say 700mm focal length than 300mm due to the lens' magnification factor. Although, longer lenses don't give you a guaranteed success rate without practice and more practice. Handholding them is also not everyone's cup of tea or is outside their ability.

Being able to stay further away, outside the bird's comfort zone, also means you can have more opportunities that you can turn into successful photographs. The closer you get the more you would generally stress the birds. Though in someone's own garden the birds will likely get used to that person and be more approachable than the same species of birds in the wild that are not used to someone always poking around with a camera. So the challenges remain for many people, for probably most. So longer lenses mean better opportunities.

I do agree that old cameras are fine. Older models are as awesome and useable today as they were many moons ago when the masses had to buy the latest and greatest camera yet again. They could create awesome photos years ago, why should they not do the same today? The number of megapixels is irrelevant, but many people seem to love the "cropability" of the newer 22-38 megapixel cameras. I always strive to create the final image as close to as possible in camera so I don't have to crop anything at all, or just a very little bit.

I don't mind telling you, I use a Sony SLT A-77 V camera, and a Sony 70-400mm F4.0-5.6 G SSM lens

Ruby, just learn about the histogram and how to use it. Once you know, you'll get great image quality over and over again. I recently conducted a number of lectures and workshops specifically dealing with bird photography and for quite some period I explained this important tool. I am pretty confident in saying that most people who have grasped the gist of it have given me feedback that it has made a difference and especially when using a higher ISO (less noise if exposed well in a digital sense).

See a couple of my basic tutorials here:

http://amatteroflight.com/tutorials.html

Ruby, what exactly do you mean by

 M-L's gull shot, both look blown out from behind the eyes over the rest of the bird. So while they're both beautiful shots, most of the feather detail is lost in the blowout?

If I look at your photo of the Gull, I think it has a lot less detail than mine. It would be very interesting to hear if anybody would suggest that a photo as sharp as my Gull shot could or should be de-sharpened (if there was such a term)?

For the record, my shot is not altered, what do you want me to do about it? Sorry , it's just sharp and looks just as the bird looked sitting in the bright sunshine.

But what would I know about photography? I just take pictures.

I meant exactly what I said M-L?   Absolutely, your photo is quality, exquisitely sharp and beautifuly detailed around the facial features, there is no question.  But to my eyes, and bearing in mind everyone's monitor is calibrated differently, the head from behind the eye to the back of the eye is blown out, there is no feather detail at all.  Back to personal preference, again, as simple as that.

I didn't make the comment to cause offense, so can only apologise if you have chosen to take it that way.  Nor did I post my photo with the assumption it was better than anyone elses, that would just be rude & arrogant (I think I have even said mine is clearly not the best example).  I was merely adding to DNA's explanation of blown out whites by showing the other end of the scale, underexposed.

.shoop said:

I thought this was a BIRD FORUM not some tit for tat playground trying to compare who has the better, sharper photo. For god sake we are missing the point AGAIN... Lets enjoy each others photos and get on with it .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If its photography you are going to bicker about than maybe you should try a photography forum than you can compare photos ,who has the better ,sharper and even the more knowledge. If you just take pictures , maybe thats what we all should just be doing. So lets get on with it and enjoy them.

Sorry shoop, now you are missing the point. Yes the forum is about birds. (can I say again, you do not have to put words in capital letters, or twenty !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

The point of" this thread " Though is to talk about improving your photography,  just as Akos, who has a lot of knowledge, is trying to do.

And if I'm making a point of not wanting to work on my photos, that is my personal choice, and Besty was asking for opinions.

Very hard to give any kind of opinion if you are unable to compare photos.

(anyway this is very amusing)

I think it's best to start new threads with new photos really. It was originally a simple question asked by Bestie and has seemed to deteriorate into a silly carry-on. I remind some older members that I know two of my good friends left this forum due to the same sort of carrying on. I also left, but recently rejoined, sadly it does not look like much changed. I can still see the same common denominator that was the reason behind three of us leaving this site.

Not sure if it's worth wasting my time anymore to be honest. 

Apologies for being late to this thread.

Everyone here is passionate about birds and many carry that on to their photography - this is a place to share that passion. There is the opportunity for debate and personal opinion, as long as people remember that it is just that, a personal opinion. Please be respectful of each other and stop having digs. Don't put down other's preferences, and don't try to 'one-up' others.

Am closing this thread and if sniping continues I will look at further actions.

Holly

When you shoot in JPEG format the work that is normally done in photoshop is automatically done by the camera to a set formula. Sharpening and adjustments to contrast are done by the camera. Shooting in RAW format enables the photographer to have more control over these adjustments. By shooting in RAW you get the actual raw data and in JPEG format you have the enhanced data. By shooting in JPEG the photoshopping is automatically done by the camera. The only true out of the camera shot is in RAW format.