Olhos esmeralda.

Equipamento: Canon 5D + EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
Tirada a 22 de Novembro de 2008.

1 Abraço,
Pedro

Detalhes fantásticos .. Parabéns Pedro!
Abraço

Excelente!

Mas a que distância estavas do animal?

Obrigado Paulo e Gonçalo,

Era uma ave bastante calma que se encontrava a apanhar banhos de sol.
Deveria estar a uns 6-7 metros (tive de tirar as fotos ao alto para conseguir apanhar toda a ave ).

1 Abraço,
Pedro

Pedro,

Another advert for "Neat Image" and "Photoshop":



Colin

In the Limosa limosa photo I like your Neat Image" and "Photoshop" work but in this one I prefer the "bokeh" of the first one.

Regards,
Pedro

Pedro Marques escreveu:In the Limosa limosa photo I like your Neat Image" and "Photoshop" work but in this one I prefer the "bokeh" of the first one.

Regards,
Pedro

You are probably right there Pedro.

I hope you didn't mind me modifying the Limos limosa shot (it is a bit rude to play around with other people's photos ), but I felt that it was such a good shot that it deserved some more of the detail bringing out of the shadows.

I was very impressed when I first started using "Neat Image" recently and am now spending a lot of time re-processing many of my earlier photos - fortunately, I now only shoot in RAW and keep the original files. It is certainly possible to "overdo" the effect and end up losing detail as well as "noise".

Colin

Olá Pedro e Colin.
I must agree with colin, I prefer the photo that had Neat image procesing. The rear (out-of-focus) is more "clean" and the bird still sharp!
By the way... I think that is more easy to deal with images of reduced size that original (post processing, in this case Neat Image)

fortunately, I now only shoot in RAW and keep the original files. It is certainly possible to "overdo" the effect and end up losing detail as well as "noise".

Colin, if you use JPG's and keep the original files, like me, and works just a copy of it that's the same (I do not want to "argue" here which of the methods is better)

Claro, que acima de tudo, grandes fotos e continuo a dizer que estás mestre na aproximação às aves

1 abraço

Olá José,

I think that if you are mainly publishing reduced images to the Web then using Large JPEGs gives perfectly acceptable results (as long as you don't overdo the in-camera processing - sharpness, saturation, etc).

If you want to produce prints, especially at A4 size or larger, then you really need the maximum amount of digital data that RAW gives you. I convert RAW to TIFF files which I work on in Photoshop and then save as maximum quality JPEGs. My 1DMk3 takes both a CF and a SD card and I can shoot RAW to one and JPEG to the other for the same shot. I always find that the RAW image ends up giving the best quality after processing. The disadvantage of course is that RAW images fill up the cards very quickly and occupy a very large amount of space on the computer hard-drive. I am very strict about what I keep - typically, out of 100 shots, I might just retain 10 or less - and I move all the originals onto two external hard-drives so I have a double back-up.

Cheers,

Colin