Like the others I see no obvious evidence of hot pixels or any other sensor problem.
As a wildlife photographer I have to say that this a really good action shot. You did a great job holding focus with all of the splashing water and the fast moving bird. Especilly at 800mm on a DX body. What lens were you shootin?
What is it about this shot that makes you think it is bad?
PS Please fill out your profile. It will help us understand the equipment that you have used and have available so that we can better help you.
Tue 25-Sep-12 04:07 AM | edited Tue 25-Sep-12 03:45 PM by dm1dave
>>> “...take a look and see what you think.”
Aside from my first post I want to give you may take, as a wildlife photographer, on the quality of this image.
First as I said above I think this is a really good action shot. I would be very satisfied to have this as part of my wildlife image catalog. That said it is not what I would consider a “wall hanger.” I would not print it on fine art paper or offer it for sale or enter it in any contest. But it is a keeper for sure. I would consider it for use in a calendar or an illustration for a book or an article.
focus & Sharpness
I mentioned in my other post that the focus was quite good. This is a difficult focus problem for any photographer with any camera. You and your D7000 did a great job. The body, head, eye, beak and legs of the bird are quite sharp.
Some people (almost always other photographers) will not like the blurred wings. They want to see every detail of every feather every time. I do not see it that way at all. The wing blur is an essential element in this image. Tack sharp wings in this shot would look unnatural.
The blur gives the viewer the sense of motion and speed. The splashing water, with in-focus and out-of-focus droplets bring a sense of chaos in this slit second that is frozen in time.
“Framing / Composition”
This is one that you may be able to work on. How much is this image cropped?
We have this nice looking bird with a great wing position that the viewer knows is speeding across the frame from left to right. But wait a minute, he is about to hit the edge of the frame, he has no place to fly to. Our eye naturally wants to look ahead of the bird to get a feeling for where it is going. Our eye is drawn out of the image if there is no room in front of the moving subject. I would try to have about a third of the image width in front of the bird to give the viewer room to look ahead.
Also at the top of the frame the wing tip is kind of close to the edge of the frame. This makes the viewer feel cramped and makes it harder for the eye to follow the composition without being drawn to the strait line created by the edge of the frame.
Beginning wildlife photographers tend to try to completely fill the fame with the subject. We soon learn that capturing every last finite detail is not what makes a great wildlife image. Like any other art form the overall composition is always more important than uber sharpness and detail.
This image was captured in mid-afternoon (3:25 Pm) on a very bright (ISO-640 | f/10 | 1/3200s) sunny day. That creates some pretty harsh light. The same image shot two hours later or with sunlight filtered by high thin clouds and you can move from really good shot to great shot just from the improved light.
Both you and the D7000 did a great job with a very difficult metering situation. A white bird with black markings (and eyes) against a dark background in the harsh mid-day light is hard on any metering system. Great work!
Sometimes you can use post processing to compensate for the harsh light. I would probably darken the water a little bit. Then I would work on the bird and try to bring out the eye a bit.
As amateur wildlife photographers we often have little control of the lighting or time of day that our subjects are available. The big name pros spend a lot more time planning shoots and the they are out in the field for days or weeks at a time in ordern to get sll of those stunning images we all want. Amateurs with day jobs often have to take what they can get. We dont have nearly as many oppertunities to get thos great images in perfect light. The more we get out to shoot the more likley that we will find those great shooting conditions and coopertive subjects at the same time.
It is obvious from the many comments that no one is sure what you are referring to when you say the images are poor. Can you describe what you find so unacceptable in how the camera responded to the conditions? Stan St Petersburg Russia