Common drone fly Eristalis renax

[Jonathan Ashton]

• OM Digital Solutions OM-1
• OLYMPUS M.60mm F2.8 Macro
• ƒ/11
• 60mm
• 1/125s
• ISO 200
• Flash fired
• Mon, 15 July 2024 11:30 AM
• Version 1.6

Hand held OM-1 60mm f2.8 macro KR flash diffuser
120.0mm FF equivalent
ISO Sensitivity : 200
Shutter : 1/125 sec
F.No. : F11
Exposure compensation : 0.0 EV

ACR/PSCC

 

[Steve Kaluski]

I might suggest a 16x9 here Jon, just too much negative space above IMHO. Overall it appears dark, happy to have the BG/FG darker to offer more emphasis to the subject, but here it looks all very even. At SS it also lacks sharpness too, hopefully a simple fix.

TFS
Steve

 

[Jonathan Ashton]

Thanks for comment Steve I appreciate your view. A short time ago you made reference to your new style processing and new screens rendering images differently. The drone fly looks well exposed to me, I get the impression that we do not view comparable images - maybe I am wrong. I suspect mine looks a little dark and heavy to you whilst yours look a little thin to me though I am sure they would not to you. I take your point regarding a little too much background, a slight crop may improve. The image apears sharp to me - why do you think it is lacking?

 

[Steve Kaluski]

The drone fly looks well exposed to me, I get the impression that we do not view comparable images - maybe I am wrong.

If I take it into Lr Jon I can push the file far more in terms of Exposure before anything could be blown and therefore to me, in the initial capture, it could be pushed more. However that said, I have no idea what you did in PP which will would have a huge baring. You should look at getting Raw Digger, it would help you to achieve a greater 'data' capture as you would no how to read your histogram which is paramount and know where you can push. Most images are at least 2/3 under exp when the Histogram in camera or Lr/Ps say otherwise.

I suspect mine looks a little dark and heavy to you whilst yours look a little thin to me though I am sure they would not to you.

Jon, not thin, but lighter and more control over the contrast, however I have no idea if this was processed prior, during or after your issues with your computer.

The image apears sharp to me - why do you think it is lacking?

Viewed at SS the image isn't 'sharp' all your mid tones and darks are hiding all the nice detail, you would need to view the Raw to see if the original is pin sharp and at 1/125th even with a hint of flash I'm not sure.