Common Grackle (I think) at local Zoo

[dalethorn]

It has some technical problems to be sure, but I thought it looked good enough at arm's length to offer up here.

[Jeremy Payne]

It has some technical problems to be sure

I don't like it.  The focus is poor, the bokeh is ugly, the colors aren't interesting and neither is the subject.  What's interesting to you about this image?

Dale, I'd like to see you post something you think exemplifies your "best" in some sense.

Frankly, you seem to be primarily doing two things here:

  1) Posting lots of images, most of which I think even you know aren't very good

  2) Having a silly pissing match with Russ

On 1 ... post something good that you can stand behind 100%.  Show us your stuff.  Show off.  I'm sure lots of regular readers would like to see this.

On 2 ... while I don't agree with everything Russ says, he's far from "uninformed" ... and at least he's made a deep sample of his work available for us to review ... and that makes it easier to respect him even when I disagree with him.  He's a really good photographer!

If it seems like I'm challenging you, I am ...

[RSL]

Jeremy,

Thank you. By the way, number 2, above, is finished. I haven't answered any of Dale's remarks for some time and I won't be answering any of them in the future.

[cmi]

I think its nice. Not fine art, but a bird in ok light with a pleasant backdrop. I would crop more, as in my attachment.

Christian

[RSL]

Christian, You got the bird moved to the right position in the print, but, as Jeremy pointed out, the focus is poor and the bokeh is execrable. It's unfortunate, but this one isn't salvageable.

[dalethorn]

I don't like it.  The focus is poor, the bokeh is ugly, the colors aren't interesting and neither is the subject.  What's interesting to you about this image?
Dale, I'd like to see you post something you think exemplifies your "best" in some sense.
Frankly, you seem to be primarily doing two things here:
  1) Posting lots of images, most of which I think even you know aren't very good
  2) Having a silly pissing match with Russ
On 1 ... post something good that you can stand behind 100%.  Show us your stuff.  Show off.  I'm sure lots of regular readers would like to see this.
On 2 ... while I don't agree with everything Russ says, he's far from "uninformed" ... and at least he's made a deep sample of his work available for us to review ... and that makes it easier to respect him even when I disagree with him.  He's a really good photographer!
If it seems like I'm challenging you, I am ...

Well, we don't want to create any new "pissing matches", do we?  I respect your opinion of Russ, but of course, I think he's very common, in spite of his constant name-dropping.  Do I want to show off?  No.  I just want to do better is all.  Thanks anyway.

[dalethorn]

I think its nice. Not fine art, but a bird in ok light with a pleasant backdrop. I would crop more, as in my attachment.
Christian

The crop looks good to me.  One of the things I strive for in wildlife photos is to try to give the animals a dignified presentation, without being exploitative.  The alternate crop here preserves that look, which is good.

[dalethorn]

....the bokeh is ugly, ...

Almost forgot, sorry.  I read somewhere here what bokeh is, but I've forgotten again.  Goes to show how important I thought it was.

[Jeremy Payne]

One of the things I strive for in wildlife photos is to try to give the animals a dignified presentation, without being exploitative.

Try getting them in focus.

[Jeremy Payne]

Almost forgot, sorry.  I read somewhere here what bokeh is, but I've forgotten again.  Goes to show how important I thought it was.

You aren't interested in criticism or getting better.

[Jeremy Payne]

By the way, number 2, above, is finished. I haven't answered any of Dale's remarks for some time and I won't be answering any of them in the future.

I'd noticed.  That's why I raised the issue with the other party and not you.

I guess I'll move him to that folder myself.

[PeterAit]

Christian, You got the bird moved to the right position in the print, but, as Jeremy pointed out, the focus is poor and the bokeh is execrable. It's unfortunate, but this one isn't salvageable.

I think the bokeh is fine, and preferable to a totally out-of-focus background (too common and banal). Here, the background is out of focus enough to not compete with the main subject but you can still identify the background *water running over rocks), and I think that adds to the picture.

The bird is soft, and that's the main problem that I see. I would also crop a bit at the right and top - no need to see the background above the upper fence rail (or whatever it is).

Peter

[dalethorn]

I'd noticed.  That's why I raised the issue with the other party and not you.
I guess I'll move him to that folder myself.

Three postings in a row by you, on this little ol' bird pic.  Now that's a recommendation I can take to the bank!  (Thanx)

[dalethorn]

The bird is soft, and that's the main problem that I see.

Yep - I'm seeing that a lot with the G1's 45-200 at maximum zoom, and there have been many comments by other folks in other similar postings.  So I think this is not a particularly good lens, but maybe that's par for a $305 (discounted) telephoto lens.  All I need now is a replacement that will do fast autofocus with the G1 at max. zoom, have at least 400 mm (35 mm equivalent) focal length, and be sharp at the long end.  The silly part of this is I could probably get about the same results on average with the Panasonic FZ-50, with the tiny 1/1.8 sensor.  Maybe the various equipment reviewers should issue a warning -- If you're thinking of upgrading from a tiny-sensor superzoom to a micro 4/3 (or even 4/3 ?), forget about it.

[dalethorn]

Try getting them in focus.

BTW, I work as a professional software engineer, and in our business, we call this result "working as designed".  You probably wouldn't understand that, because you probably believe those equipment reviews you've read.  Which stands to reason, else why would you have all of that expensive gear instead of a p&s?  And just in case you don't get it, that means the G1 and 45-200 was not designed to produce good focus on most objects at max. zoom, even in daylight conditions.  So why post such things?  People need to know.  Plus it's all good fun anyway.

[RSL]

I'd noticed.  That's why I raised the issue with the other party and not you.

I guess I'll move him to that folder myself.

I didn't put him in the ignore folder. He posts too much misinformation on here that can mislead beginners. I won't respond to his asides, but if something needs to be corrected I'll try to correct it.

[Jeremy Payne]

the G1 and 45-200 was not designed to produce good focus on most objects at max. zoom, even in daylight conditions.

Dale, Dale, Dale ... you are completely full of it.

Guess these are fakes?

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/

[Jeremy Payne]

I didn't put him in the ignore folder. He posts too much misinformation on here that can mislead beginners. I won't respond to his asides, but if something needs to be corrected I'll try to correct it.

Good point.

[dalethorn]

I didn't put him in the ignore folder. He posts too much misinformation on here that can mislead beginners. I won't respond to his asides, but if something needs to be corrected I'll try to correct it.

So you'd rather SPAM Michael's site with your tripe than let one simple little bird photo go uncritiqued by your holiness?

[dalethorn]

Dale, Dale, Dale ... you are completely full of it.
Guess these are fakes?

In case you're actually serious instead of just angry and jealous, I let it be known exactly what the limitations of the G1 are, with real photos posted by a real user (me), not by someone with a vested interest in promoting hardware (DpReview).

Now your little mind should be able to comprehend the difference between the two entities I just mentioned, but I'm not optimistic.