European Red Squirrel (Scirius vulgaris)

BirdPhotographers.net

Help Support BirdPhotographers.net:

Jonathan Ashton

Macro and Flora Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
17,766
Location
Cheshire UK
_1010524-ORF-.jpg

Hand held, image captured from a hide in Scotland. (FF focal length = 2x above)
ACR/PSCC
 
Last edited:
Hi Jon, overall colours look much better, but for me it still looks darkish, however. The BKG is more appealing and is going in the direction of what I was suggesting for your Avian subjects. The perch, albeit (great word) has nice texture, but overall it's rather pedestrian, if it's PB he needs to up his game. There are far better sites if you head to Scotland, OK further a field, but the habitat is far more engaging.

Can't see why you use DXO especially when you pay for it, don't get swayed, ACR is far better and free.

Good job in persevering.

TFS
Steve
 
Hello Jon,

Sweet looking squirrel, I wonder what happened with the tuft on its left ear? 😊
Nice pose from this little one, detail and sharpness look good, so does colour. In all honesty not sure what colour it's supposed to be but it's nice and vibrant so it appeals to me... Good choice of techs and well exposed. I like the background too.

I also wondered why DXO, just experimenting?

Kind regards,
Gabriela
 
I used DxO because I think it gives the best results simple as that. Adobe is good but DxO is tailored to my camera and lenses. Adobe is less tailored and requires manual tweaking I have found little need to adjust DxO.
 
Hi Jon ... cute typical Red Squirrel pose captured .
Looks very good in terms of color , tone and fine fur rendered . You did very well overall !!!
BG is very pleasing .
Just the perch is not ideal IMHO ... just too straight and thick in relation to the subject , but you might have had no chance to get a more interesting one . In the end is a matter of taste .

But pretty cool IQ IMHO

DXO does work well ...

TFS Andreas
 
Andreas "DXO does work well .." - yes so well I just got DxO Pure Raw 4, after quite a few test images I can see the benefit of No4 over No 3, I couldn't at first but I am now convinced.
 
Hey Jon .. you are very late to the PR 4 party , but glad you see the benefit .
PR 5 will be even better , as i think it will get the same as PL 8 .
I am becoming nervous when i have to go back to PR 4 ... as PL 8 is limited , i do not want to buy the software just for the NR .
Not too fuzzed about the rest inside PL8

Cheers Andreas
 
Hey Jon .. you are very late to the PR 4 party , but glad you see the benefit .
PR 5 will be even better , as i think it will get the same as PL 8 .
I am becoming nervous when i have to go back to PR 4 ... as PL 8 is limited , i do not want to buy the software just for the NR .
Not too fuzzed about the rest inside PL8

Cheers Andreas
Very happy with Pure Raw 4.....you're making me feel twitchy - hope Pure Raw 5 is a way off, I don't fancy having to contemplate yet another upgrade! I suppose before long Adobe will come up with an enhancement of their DeNoise, choices, choices, choices!
 
Would be good , if Mr Adobe and his engineers would beat the folks from DXO or Topaz ( I do actually think Adobe is better than Topaz ) with their NR capabilities . But hey this could be an endless discussion about the pros and cons of each software . In the end the user has to be happy with the WF and/or output quality .
Not knowing when PR 5 will enter the surface ... just guessing it willl be early 2025 .
 

Latest posts

Back
Top