What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 253000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on May 03, 2025 (23:15) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Soft photo, 100% certain MAF attachment to screen. detection of the active eye and locked on to the subject on the left. the plumage in the black and brown part near the eye has very little detail. We are talking about 50 mp and they are less than 15 meters away!!
foto morbida, aggancio maf a schermo certo al 100%. rilevamento dell'occhio attivo ed agganciato sul soggetto a sx. il piumaggio nella parte nera e marrone vicino all'occhio ha pochissiomo dettaglio. Parliamo di 50 mp e sono a meno di 15 mt!!
|
| sent on May 04, 2025 (8:16) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
The light seems quite harsh to me, and this does not help, however the photo is focused on the first subject on the left. Have you used a tripod or from the car via bean-bag? La luce mi sembra piuttosto dura, e questo non aiuta, comunque la foto è a fuoco sul primo soggetto a sinistra. Hai usato un treppiede o dall'auto tramite bean-bag? |
| sent on May 04, 2025 (8:28) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Is it a crop?
Shooting time?
Where does the MAF point fall?
1/4000 for this shot is overabundant. E' un crop?
Ora di scatto?
Dove cade il punto di MAF?
1/4000 per questo scatto e' sovrabbondante. |
| sent on May 04, 2025 (10:08) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
In the meantime I would abandon the idea of posting 49 mpx photos especially taking at unsuitable times .... Shadows from the sun to the sheer ....
personally I have used this combination several times and I have always been satisfied with it....
intanto abbandonerei l'idea di postare foto da 49 mpx specialmente scattare a orari inadatti....ombre da sole a picco....
personalmente ho utilizzato svariate volte questa accoppiata e ne sono sempre rimasto soddisfatto....
|
| sent on May 04, 2025 (19:24) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
I posted the photos to put the link in an open discussion to discuss any problems with the equipment. The time was not good, I would say very bad but I did a lot of km arriving early in the morning ... Unfortunately until 12 noon the sky was very overcast and when the light came I didn't feel like leaving empty-handed making up for 150 km. In my opinion, being close and with the sun behind me, the detail is really low. But maybe the May sun at that time really affects a lot. 1/4000 I had just used it in flight and I didn't get off it because I didn't have a monopod and I wanted to be ready as soon as they got up Ho postato le foto per mettere il link in una discussione aperta per discutere di eventuali problemi all'attrezzatura. L'orario non era buono, direi pessimo ma ho fatto tanti km arrivando la mattina presto...Purtroppo fino alle 12 il cielo è stato molto coperto e quando è arrivata la luce non me la sentivo di andarmene a mani vuote rifacendomi 150 km. Secondo me essendo vicino e con il sole alle spalle il dettaglio è veramente basso. Ma magari il sole di maggio a quell'ora incide veramente tanto. 1/4000 lo avevo appena usato in volo e non l'ho sceso perché non avevo monopiede e volevo essere pronto appena si rialzavano |
| sent on May 04, 2025 (19:26) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
There is no crop even minimal, the focus was on the eye (eye detection a1) Non c'è crop neanche minimo, il fuoco era sull'occhio (rilevamento occhio a1) |
| sent on May 05, 2025 (11:15) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
But in fact the fire is correct. Consider several things: 1) the subjects are not that big, and 15 meters can be too much if you like to see a lot of detail (each bird takes up a small portion of the sensor if you notice). Then put the hard light that also creates reflection, put the turbulence of the air between you and the subjects, maybe even a minimum of micro-blur, even if you were at 1/4000, and that's it. Ma infatti il fuoco è corretto. Considera diverse cose: 1) i soggetti non sono così grandi, e 15 metri possono essere anche troppi se ti piace vedere molto dettaglio (ogni uccello occupa una piccola porzione del sensore se ci fai caso). Poi mettici la luce dura che crea anche riflesso, mettici la turbolenza dell'aria tra te e i soggetti, metti magari anche un minimo di micromosso, seppure fossi a 1/4000, e il gioco è fatto. |
| sent on May 05, 2025 (14:09) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
To me it seems to be the right one in focus and then 1/4000 when stationary without a tripod and static subject on the ground with the high ground temperature that releases almost invisible moisture but which distorts the image, it cannot be otherwise. A me sembra essere a fuoco quello di destra e poi 1/4000 da fermo senza cavalletto e soggetto statico a terra con la temperatura del terreno elevata che rilascia umidità pressoché invisibile ma che distorce l'immagine, non può essere diversamente. |
| sent on May 05, 2025 (15:28) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
In what sense does Giorgio "1/4000 from a standstill..... it cannot be otherwise"? Do you mean that in those light conditions a good photo could not come out or is there something wrong with the speed of the shot? 1/4000 since I'm not in flight is excessive, I could have shot at 1/2000 and have iso 500 but in terms of quality apart from less noise what would have changed?
In che senso Giorgio "1/4000 da fermo.....non può essere diversamente"? Intendi che in quelle condizioni di luce non poteva venire una buona foto o c'è qualcosa che non va nella velocità dello scatto? 1/4000 visto che non sono in volo è eccessivo, avrei potuto scattare ad 1/2000 ed avere iso 500 ma in termini di qualità a parte meno rumore cosa sarebbe cambiato?
|
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
49.8 MEGAPIXEL
Resize to fit window
