Dipper - Unretouched

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:24:07 +0000, Gordon <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Taken on a walk from Downham on Thursday. Had to stalk the bugger and this was as close as I could
get with a 6x optical zoom.

Good shot!

Quoted message said:

tinyurl.com28yxhOpen ↗

Untouched by Photoshop. ;-)

Even better!!

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

Gordon said:

Taken on a walk from Downham on Thursday. Had to stalk the bugger and this was as close as I could
get with a 6x optical zoom.

tinyurl.com28yxhOpen ↗

Nice!

Quoted message said:

Untouched by Photoshop. ;-)

Now all you need to do is to clone out the out of focus grass, apply a contrast mask, saturate the
blue a bit more...

Only joking! It's fine as it is.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

Taken on a walk from Downham on Thursday. Had to stalk the bugger and this was as close as I
could get with a 6x optical zoom.

tinyurl.com28yxhOpen ↗

Nice!

Quoted message said:

Untouched by Photoshop. ;-)

Now all you need to do is to clone out the out of focus grass, apply a contrast mask, saturate the
blue a bit more...

Only joking! It's fine as it is.

Paul

It might be amusing to see what you could do with it. ;-)

It was cropped down from 1600 to 800+ pixels, that's all. It looks better filling the PC screen,
because the water around it was attractive, but as it stands it shows the bird in it's environment.

We watched it walking on the bottom and swimming, and I took a few shots, also got one of it as it
took flight, but they were too tiny.
--
Gordon

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote
| >Gordon wrote:
| >
| >> Taken on a walk from Downham on Thursday. Had to stalk the bugger and this was as close as I
| >> could get with a 6x optical zoom.
| >>
| >> tinyurl.com28yxhOpen ↗
| >
| >Nice!
| >
| >> Untouched by Photoshop. ;-)
| >
| >Now all you need to do is to clone out the out of focus grass, apply a contrast mask, saturate
| >the blue a bit more...
| >
| >Only joking! It's fine as it is.
| >
| >Paul
|
| It might be amusing to see what you could do with it. ;-)

Come on Paul, that sounds like a challenge! ;-)

| It was cropped down from 1600 to 800+ pixels, that's all. It looks better filling the PC screen,
| because the water around it was attractive, but as it stands it shows the bird in it's
| environment.

I find that I can never get close enough for full resolution, frame filling shots, but I really,
really wish I could! Nice photo, by the way Gordon, and I do like the water around the bird.

| We watched it walking on the bottom and swimming, and I took a few shots, also got one of it as it
| took flight, but they were too tiny.

Sounds like my bird shots! :-(

| Gordon

Ste

Cracking ! - what camera ?

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Taken on a walk from Downham on Thursday. Had to stalk the bugger and this was as close as I could
get with a 6x optical zoom.

tinyurl.com28yxhOpen ↗

Untouched by Photoshop. ;-)
--
Gordon

mikey mike <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Cracking ! - what camera ?

Fuji 2800Z at full 6x zoom, handheld, didn't have my monopod/walking pole with us.

Quoted message said:

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Taken on a walk from Downham on Thursday. Had to stalk the bugger and this was as close as I
could get with a 6x optical zoom.

tinyurl.com28yxhOpen ↗

Untouched by Photoshop. ;-)
--
Gordon

--
Gordon

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cracking ! - what camera ?

Fuji 2800Z at full 6x zoom, handheld, didn't have my monopod/walking pole with us.

That's the one I've got. It's a wonderful camera for the price (about £180-£200) and takes up to a
minute of video clip as well. I've taken to carrying mine with me most of the time now, because
there's a couple of resident heron on my local river which never cease to enthrall me.
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.

Fran <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cracking ! - what camera ?

Fuji 2800Z at full 6x zoom, handheld, didn't have my monopod/walking pole with us.

That's the one I've got. It's a wonderful camera for the price (about £180-£200) and takes up to a
minute of video clip as well. I've taken to carrying mine with me most of the time now, because
there's a couple of resident heron on my local river which never cease to enthrall me.

I regard it as a lucky shot, taken 'on the fly' during a walk, although I did have to follow the
b***** thing backwards and forwards until I got that clear view.

My daughter keeps muttering that it is time I got myself a better one, and let her have mine. ;-)

The point is that its weight is practically nothing except for the batteries, and I really should
have it in the car at all times, very useful if you have an accident - instant evidence without
processing! My binoculars are also light - Nikon Travelites, and I would not carry anything heavy
enough to spoil a day's walk.
--
Gordon

In article <[email hidden]>, ste mc © <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

| It was cropped down from 1600 to 800+ pixels, that's all. It looks better filling the PC screen,
| because the water around it was attractive, but as it stands it shows the bird in it's
| environment.

I find that I can never get close enough for full resolution, frame filling shots, but I really,
really wish I could! Nice photo, by the way Gordon, and I do like the water around the bird.

Other than feral pigeons, peafowl and a few species of waterfowl (mute swans, Canada geese,
mallards, tufted ducks, coots), most birds are difficult to photograph (except for the crowd with
the huge zoom lenses); firstly the problem of getting close enough to them, secondly their habit
of turning their backs on you, and thirdly (in the case of songbirds) their failure to stay still
long enough.

I've got over 800 avian photographs, but the number which are any good is probably under 50 - even
when I've managed to get close enough to fill the frame, and get the bird to stay still enough that
the image isn't blurred, there's the problems of poor composition.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| In article <[email hidden]>, ste mc © <[email hidden]> writes
| >
| >| It was cropped down from 1600 to 800+ pixels, that's all. It looks better filling the PC
| >| screen, because the water around it was attractive, but as it stands it shows the bird in it's
| >| environment.
| >
| >I find that I can never get close enough for full resolution, frame
filling
| >shots, but I really, really wish I could! Nice photo, by the way Gordon, and I do like the water
| >around the bird.
| >
| Other than feral pigeons, peafowl and a few species of waterfowl (mute swans, Canada geese,
| mallards, tufted ducks, coots), most birds are difficult to photograph (except for the crowd with
| the huge zoom lenses); firstly the problem of getting close enough to them, secondly their habit
| of turning their backs on you, and thirdly (in the case of songbirds) their failure to stay still
| long enough.
|
| I've got over 800 avian photographs, but the number which are any good is probably under 50 - even
| when I've managed to get close enough to fill the frame, and get the bird to stay still enough
| that the image isn't blurred, there's the problems of poor composition.
| --
| Stewart Robert Hinsley

Yes, I've got plenty of close-ups of mallards, but not very many garden birds or the like. In total,
I've got nearly 200 photos of birds and ducks, but I've got a similar hit ratio to yourself. But one
day, I'll get a D-SLR and one of those long lenses, and I'll show Pat Bennet how it's done! :-)

Ste

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

ste mc © said:

Quoted message said:

> Gordon wrote:
>
>> Taken on a walk from Downham on Thursday. Had to stalk
>> the bugger and this was as close as I could get with a
>> 6x optical zoom.
>>
>> tinyurl.com28yxhOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Untouched by Photoshop. ;-)
>
> Now all you need to do is to clone out the out of focus
> grass, apply a contrast mask, saturate the blue a bit
> more...
>
> Only joking! It's fine as it is.
>
> Paul

It might be amusing to see what you could do with
it. ;-)

Come on Paul, that sounds like a challenge! ;-)

Well okay then, eventually...

How does this look?
wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318 mod.jpgOpen ↗

Compared to the original;
wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318.jpgOpen ↗

I got something like that when I did IMAGE/ADJUST/AUTO
LEVELS, and thought that the yellow tinges on the water
surface looked wrong.

But I see you got rid of the out of focus grass. :-)
--
Gordon

ste mc © said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gordon wrote:

> Taken on a walk from Downham on Thursday. Had to stalk
> the bugger and this was as close as I could get with a
> 6x optical zoom.
>
> tinyurl.com28yxhOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Untouched by Photoshop. ;-)

Now all you need to do is to clone out the out of focus
grass, apply a contrast mask, saturate the blue a bit
more...

Only joking! It's fine as it is.

Paul

It might be amusing to see what you could do with it. ;-)

Come on Paul, that sounds like a challenge! ;-)

Well okay then, eventually...

How does this look?
wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318 mod.jpgOpen ↗

Compared to the original;
wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318.jpgOpen ↗

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:14:41 +0100, Gordon <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well okay then, eventually...

How does this look?
wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318 mod.jpgOpen ↗

Compared to the original;
wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318.jpgOpen ↗

I got something like that when I did IMAGE/ADJUST/AUTO
LEVELS, and thought that the yellow tinges on the water
surface looked wrong.

But I see you got rid of the out of focus grass. :-)

Ooh, ooh, can I play?? (not that I'm at a loose end or
anything ;-)

(Hope you don't mind Gordon) my contribution can be
seen here:

thenmc.org.ukurwOpen ↗

I've put all three images up so that you can see them side-by-
side. Interestingly, if you click "slideshow" and "fade" you
can see where the image changes froim one to the next.

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
thenmc.org.ukindex.phpOpen ↗

NMC website: thenmc.org.ukthenmc.org.ukOpen ↗

Gordon said:

I got something like that when I did IMAGE/ADJUST/AUTO
LEVELS, and thought that the yellow tinges on the water
surface looked wrong.

Auto Levels tends to change the colour. I didn't change the
colour, I just applied a contrast mask.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Steve Orrell said:

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well okay then, eventually...

How does this look?
wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318 mod.jpgOpen ↗

Compared to the original;
wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318.jpgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

(Hope you don't mind Gordon) my contribution can be
seen here:

thenmc.org.ukurwOpen ↗

I tried to have a go too, but the b#**&% bird has flown off!

p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk9318 miss.jpgOpen ↗
--
Phil Cook

Steve Orrell said:

(Hope you don't mind Gordon) my contribution can be
seen here:

thenmc.org.ukurwOpen ↗

Nice water and rock work, but what did you do to the colour?
It's changed from blue to magenta.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Phil Cook said:

I tried to have a go too, but the b#**&% bird has
flown off!

p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk9318 miss.jpgOpen ↗

Ha haa...

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Phil Cook <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Steve Orrell said:

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

>Well okay then, eventually...
>
>How does this look?
>wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318 mod.jpgOpen ↗
>
>Compared to the original;
>wildwales.fsnet.co.uk9318.jpgOpen ↗
>

Quoted message said:

(Hope you don't mind Gordon) my contribution can be
seen here:

thenmc.org.ukurwOpen ↗

I tried to have a go too, but the b#**&% bird has
flown off!

p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk9318 miss.jpgOpen ↗

LOL! It did too! They are not easy to get close to, but we
saw another one on the following week's walk in the same
general area (Downham and Slaidburn).
--
Gordon

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

I got something like that when I did IMAGE/ADJUST/AUTO
LEVELS, and thought that the yellow tinges on the water
surface looked wrong.

Auto Levels tends to change the colour. I didn't change the
colour, I just applied a contrast mask.

Ah well, I don't know how to do that, and there isn't
enough time.
--
Gordon