• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Little Blue

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
8520079640_e7acf0a814_o.jpg


Little Blue Heron: Chris Calohan​
 
I like this Chris. Nice pose, great detail and sharpness. Like the thin trailing feather at the back.

The only critique is that the White Balance looks a bit off - too much green? Not sure.
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
I thought that at first too, but I've been back over the raw file and tiff twice and it has to be the natural color of the bird's legs. Here's an unprocessed (other than RAW) file when I was about 40 feet away.

8519247341_3b458fa1cb_o.jpg
 
The WB on that second shot looks more natural to me. Much closer to what the Little Blue looks like in person. Looking again at the 1st shot, especially being able to compare with the second, the Heron looks too purple/dark.
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
I think on my original edit I may have gotten a little heavy-handed on the levels slider. I did do some color adjustment on the decking to offset some of the greenish look though in the bird itself, other than those chartreuse legs, there wasn't any green cast I could discern.

8521474526_ec3a7f155c_c.jpg


Little Blue: Chris Calohan​
 
I think I mis-characterized the problem in my first post - probably not a green cast. Perhaps a little cool.

Overall, the WB on the 'farther away' version you post still seems the most natural and realistic to my eye.

Regardless, though, this is a fine shot!
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Probably more monitor calibration as I matched the two color balances and one, of course is closer and more detailed. I agree that it is a pretty good shot and I most certainly appreciate your input. I'm getting better all the time.

I have an opportunity ot purchase a Nikon 300mm 2.8 afs ii. It is non nano coated and no vr for $3,100. Would this, combined with my 1.7 teleconverter be a good purchase?
 
Probably more monitor calibration as I matched the two color balances and one, of course is closer and more detailed. I agree that it is a pretty good shot and I most certainly appreciate your input. I'm getting better all the time.

I have an opportunity ot purchase a Nikon 300mm 2.8 afs ii. It is non nano coated and no vr for $3,100. Would this, combined with my 1.7 teleconverter be a good purchase?

First, if you're indicating that your monitor is not currently calibrated, I would definitely recommend addressing that. Otherwise you really don't know where you are. Fortunately there are some relatively inexpensive methods (I use the Gretag MacBeth - now XRite I think - i1 Display, and it does a reasonably good job).

As for the Nikon lens, as a Canon guy I'm not familiar with any particulars on this lens. But if it's anything like Canon's 300/2.8 IS lens, it would be a very worthwhile lens to have. The Canon version is considered one of their sharpest lenses ever.

Either are obviously quite expensive, but do provide a wide range of shooting opportunities with or without teleconverters. I don't have one, but would be proud to add one to my collection one day. The problem for me would be it's hard enough taking the gear I already own, including the big and heavy 600L/f4 IS, onto planes and into the field...
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Difference in how monitors relay color is what I was indicating. Mine was calibrated last weekend using a Spyder4 and even then, it was only off a smidgeon in the brightness range, not at all in the color range.
 
Top