Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED Scanner - First Impressions - Page 4

ste © wrote:

> I got your email with the before and after, thanks for sending it. Very impressive work! I know
> you sent me an extreme example that wasn't typical of your shots, but I'd never have believed you
> could achieve that final result without seeing it!

Why do you think I keep going on about it?

> I'll be working through your email and trying to learn about this contast masking you talk about!

1. Make a duplicate layer.
2. Desaturate the new layer (turn it into monochrome).
3. Invert the new layer (turn it into a negative).
4. Set the mode of the new layer to "Overlay".

This applies the brightness values of the monochrome negative layer to the image underneath, evening
them out. Unfortunately this looks terrible, so...

5. Apply Gaussian blur to the new layer, this smooths out the effect and makes it look more natural.
I usually use values between 150-250, usually the latter. The smaller the number the less natural
looking the effect, but sometimes you can use quite low numbers on certain types of shot, maybe
100 or even lower in rare cases.

6. If the effect is too strong, adjust the strength of the layer, often 50% will be sufficient.

7. When you are happy with the result, flatten the layers.

Steps 1-4 can be recorded as an action. This saves you the hassle of doing all that stuff every
time, you just click on the action and click play. Best not to include the Gaussian blurring in the
action though, because different numbers suit different images. I always like to play about with the
blurring number to find the number that looks best for that particular image.

If you start with a 48-bit image, use levels or curves to get a reasonable balance of brightness
levels before you apply the contrast mask, since you have to switch to 24-bit mode to use layers.

> Yes, most people (ie, the whole population, not photographers) don't print any larger than 7 x
> 5's, I wouldn't have thought.

Really? Don't many people print at A4?

> But at a price (ie, a lot lower than £5k) I'd love more megapixels and quality. Even reading that
> Alamy website that you were talking about, for digital images, they ask for 48mb.

...in 24-bit mode.

> My G5 gives 30mb tif files (extracted from RAW files),

That's only 15mb in 24 bit mode!

> so that's a lot of Genuine Fractals work!

Yep.

> To much I reckon, but I'd be interested to see what they'd accept or decline.

I think they're being a little hypocritical in only allowing Genuine Fractals to be used on digital
images, not film scans, thus precluding users of cheaper film scanners. Or maybe those who want to
buy digital images aren't so fussy about detail? I'm surprised that professionals will accept
digital images from 5MP cameras enlarged with GF. It may interpolate better, but it doesn't add any
detail that isn't already there.

> Are you doing to send any G3 images, or just film scans?

Mainly film scans. I wouldn't want to try to cheat with G3 images (is exif data stored in GF
files?). However, I do have some G3 panoramas which would certainly qualify in terms of file size
and provided the joins are seamless I see no reason why they shouldn't accept them. I'll have to ask
them about the whole panorama issue, especially regarding my proper pano camera. Scans from that may
go *over* their maximum file size limit.

> Yes, I think of exposure as a single value

That single value is grey. Many things in a scene are brighter or darker than grey. I think in terms
of how much different things vary from grey.

> I'm using the histogram to make sure my shots aren't clipped on the left or right, but I haven't
> been paying much attention to the distribution of them.

If my tests are anything to go by, most of the brightness values should be clustered two thirds to
the right of the histogram, ideally, but never over or under expose anything if you can avoid it.

> I've downloaded both Neat Image and Focus Magic, and Genuine Fractals too. I'm busy with these
> trials at the moment!

Have fun. Hard to find the best settings for Neat Image, the default values are too strong IMO.

> I guess that's where the skills involved in finding a good location to shoot from really come
> into play!

Yeah, waterfalls are generally best shot from the side if there's a lot of water coming over.
Standing in the middle of the river can be good too, so a pair of wellies might be a good idea (I've
been wondering about getting a decent pair for wading up to Sgwd Einion Gam when the water is high,
but not *that* high).

Paul
--
The October Project 2003 - Updated
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpvr7i$nbp$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > I got your email with the before and after, thanks for sending it. Very impressive work! I know
| > you sent me an extreme example that wasn't typical of your shots, but I'd never have believed
| > you could achieve that final result without seeing it!
|
| Why do you think I keep going on about it?

Because I thought you were a crazy nutter! But I know you're not now... )

| > I'll be working through your email and trying to learn about this contast masking you talk
| > about!
|
| 1. Make a duplicate layer.
| 2. Desaturate the new layer (turn it into monochrome).
| 3. Invert the new layer (turn it into a negative).
| 4. Set the mode of the new layer to "Overlay".

Easy (when you know how!), thanks.

| This applies the brightness values of the monochrome negative layer to the image underneath,
| evening them out. Unfortunately this looks terrible, so...
|
| 5. Apply Gaussian blur to the new layer, this smooths out the effect and makes it look more
| natural. I usually use values between 150-250, usually the latter. The smaller the number the
| less natural looking the effect, but sometimes you can use quite low numbers on certain types
| of shot, maybe 100 or even lower in rare cases.

Yes, 150-250 works great, thanks.

| 6. If the effect is too strong, adjust the strength of the layer, often 50% will be sufficient.

Never had to do this yet, but will bear it in mind.

| 7. When you are happy with the result, flatten the layers.
|
| Steps 1-4 can be recorded as an action. This saves you the hassle of doing all that stuff every
| time, you just click on the action and click play. Best not to include the Gaussian blurring in
| the action though, because different numbers suit different images. I always like to play about
| with the blurring number to find the number that looks best for that particular image.

I've done the action, and assigned the F12 function key to it, for further efficiency. I'm still
doing the blurring manually, as per your recommendation.

| If you start with a 48-bit image, use levels or curves to get a reasonable balance of brightness
| levels before you apply the contrast mask, since you have to switch to 24-bit mode to use layers.
|
| > Yes, most people (ie, the whole population, not photographers) don't print any larger than 7 x
| > 5's, I wouldn't have thought.
|
| Really? Don't many people print at A4?

Nobody I know, but I'm talking about the general public here who are using £30 cameras from Argos
(stereotypical view). I know, it's not the camera, but the person behind it... ;o)

| > But at a price (ie, a lot lower than £5k) I'd love more megapixels and quality. Even reading
| > that Alamy website that you were talking about, for digital images, they ask for 48mb.
|
| ...in 24-bit mode.

It's stupid because I've seen images on there that are 24mb and 3500 pixels wide on Alamy. Why have
these images been allowed? :-s

| > My G5 gives 30mb tif files (extracted from RAW files),
|
| That's only 15mb in 24 bit mode!

I've used Genuine Fractals to create a 48mb file, and it's 4700 pixels wide, and a 24 bit TIF. This
has then increased noise levels, so I'm not sure if they would allow it. I used Neat Image to tidy
this up, and Focus Magic (I know they say don't sharpen, but what the heck), and I got a
watercolour! ...a 48mb watercolour! :-)

| > so that's a lot of Genuine Fractals work!
|
| Yep.

I know! :-(

| > To much I reckon, but I'd be interested to see what they'd accept or decline.
|
| I think they're being a little hypocritical in only allowing Genuine Fractals to be used on
| digital images, not film scans, thus precluding users of cheaper film scanners. Or maybe those who
| want to buy digital images aren't so fussy about detail? I'm surprised that professionals will
| accept digital images from 5MP cameras enlarged with GF. It may interpolate better, but it doesn't
| add any detail that isn't already there.

I had a theory about images and image sizes that I tested out earlier this evening. As my G5 images
upto A4 (ish) are pin sharp when printed, I thought that I could scan these images at a high
resolution (my scanner only goes up 1200dpi), and get 48mb file that way. Whenever I've scanned
prints in work, they've always came out well. I know there's no extra quality to be had in theory,
but I wondered how resizing a print versus a digital image would differ.

Anyway, my A4 print scanned at 1200dpi created a 390mb TIF file which was 14,000 x 10,000 pixels!
The quality wasn't as bad as I thought it would be at 100%, and when resized to 4700 pixels wide (as
per the 48mb GF image), the differences were *hardly noticable,* except the scanned image had a few
little blemishes on it from where my print had been slightly dirty - though the scanned image had a
slightly better colour to it! Oh well, worth a try! )

| > Are you doing to send any G3 images, or just film scans?
|
| Mainly film scans. I wouldn't want to try to cheat with G3 images (is exif data stored in GF
| files?). However, I do have some G3 panoramas which would certainly qualify in terms of file size
| and provided the joins are seamless I see no reason why they shouldn't accept them. I'll have to
| ask them about the whole panorama issue, especially regarding my proper pano camera. Scans from
| that may go *over* their maximum file size limit.

I wouldn't call G3 images cheating, but the question is whether they will accept them or not. They
say it only takes on bad image from a CD of 10, and they will reject the whole CD without going
any further through the images. My GF file had all the Exif info saved in it, but it's not hard to
get rid of this and create a clean file. But they check images at 100%, so there's no hiding, Exif
data or not.

| > Yes, I think of exposure as a single value
|
| That single value is grey. Many things in a scene are brighter or darker than grey. I think in
| terms of how much different things vary from grey.

When I think of exposure as more than one value, that's the time for graduated ND filters! )

| > I'm using the histogram to make sure my shots aren't clipped on the left or right, but I haven't
| > been paying much attention to the distribution of them.
|
| If my tests are anything to go by, most of the brightness values should be clustered two thirds to
| the right of the histogram, ideally, but never over or under expose anything if you can avoid it.

Yes, I remember you saying this much in your test. I'll look forward to seeing the article again
on your website, with illustrations of your perfect histograms. (if you put articles on your
website that is)

| > I've downloaded both Neat Image and Focus Magic, and Genuine Fractals too. I'm busy with these
| > trials at the moment!
|
| Have fun. Hard to find the best settings for Neat Image, the default values are too strong IMO.

I can't remember if it's Neat Image of Focus magic that gave me pretty watercolour images! What
settings do you roughly use for Neat Image?

| > I guess that's where the skills involved in finding a good location to shoot from really come
| > into play!
|
| Yeah, waterfalls are generally best shot from the side if there's a lot of water coming over.
| Standing in the middle of the river can be good too, so a pair of wellies might be a good idea
| (I've been wondering about getting a decent pair for wading up to Sgwd Einion Gam when the water
| is high, but not *that* high).

I'm looking forward to finding a good waterfall some day. That waterfall shot that I normally link
to (cos it's more or less my only decent waterfall shot) was only about 10 foot or so high, a mini-
waterfall! ;o)

| Paul

Ste

ste © wrote:

>>> Even reading that Alamy website that you were talking about, for digital images, they ask for
>>> 48mb.
>>
>> ...in 24-bit mode.
>
> It's stupid because I've seen images on there that are 24mb and 3500 pixels wide on Alamy. Why
> have these images been allowed? :-s

Don't know. I think they allow smaller sizes for reportage photos.

> I've used Genuine Fractals to create a 48mb file, and it's 4700 pixels wide, and a 24 bit TIF.
> This has then increased noise levels, so I'm not sure if they would allow it.

I don't think it's increased them, just enlarged them so that they are more obvious.

> I used Neat Image to tidy this up,

I really think this should be done *before* using GF. If there is noise in the image, GF will
convert the noise to vector shapes and enlarge them faithfully.

> and Focus Magic (I know they say don't sharpen, but what the heck),

Well technically FM isn't sharpening, although if you overdo it can produce horrible artefacts not
disimilar to sharpening. Subtle use produces the best effect with no artefacts. I would think this
is acceptable. I'll probably email them to ask about this plus a few other issues, like panoramas.

> and I got a watercolour! ...a 48mb watercolour! :-)

Yes, the default settings in Neat Image tend to produce that kind of effect (so need to be toned
down) and GF produces that sort of effect too (by converting it to vector it effectively becomes a
drawing, like you do in Corel Draw), which is more obvious on some images than others. This may not
be visible in the print though, especially if you print at 300dpi.

Heavy use of NI combined with GF creates a very strong watercolour effect, and FM just enhances it
further. Try using NI with more subtle settings (there are some presets which give more natural
effects) and don't overdo the FM.

I'm still wondering how best to combine FM with GF. It may be better to use FM before but not after,
or after but not before, but probably not both. It's hard to tell simply by looking at the onscreen
image, you really need to make some test prints to see what the end result will look like. Probably
best to always use 300dpi for large images. Some tests I've done looked ghastly as a print while
others looked fine, even though they both looked bad on screen.

I suspect that some images may be better enlarged with normal interpolation rather than GF, to avoid
the watercolour effect. Although Photoshop's bicubic interpolation is pretty good, Lanczos is
supposed to be better, IrfanView has that option, so you may want to try that.

> I had a theory about images and image sizes that I tested out earlier this evening. As my G5
> images upto A4 (ish) are pin sharp when printed, I thought that I could scan these images at a
> high resolution (my scanner only goes up 1200dpi), and get 48mb file that way. Whenever I've
> scanned prints in work, they've always came out well. I know there's no extra quality to be had in
> theory, but I wondered how resizing a print versus a digital image would differ.
>
> Anyway, my A4 print scanned at 1200dpi created a 390mb TIF file which was 14,000 x 10,000 pixels!
> The quality wasn't as bad as I thought it would be at 100%, and when resized to 4700 pixels wide
> (as per the 48mb GF image), the differences were *hardly noticable,* except the scanned image had
> a few little blemishes on it from where my print had been slightly dirty - though the scanned
> image had a slightly better colour to it! Oh well, worth a try!
>> o)

:-) Just what I thought would happen. No matter which way you do it,
you can't create extra detail that isn't there to begin with. For the same reason it's always better
to scan negs than prints, the original contains the most detail.

> I can't remember if it's Neat Image of Focus magic that gave me pretty watercolour images!

Neat Image.

> What settings do you roughly use for Neat Image?

Don't know offhand, I'm still experimenting. There's a lot of settings. Much depends on how you
analyse the image in the first place. High frequency noise removal seems to be mainly responsible
for the watercolour effect, so reduce that. A little bit of noise left in the image isn't such a bad
trade-off to avoid the cartoon effect.

> I'm looking forward to finding a good waterfall some day. That waterfall shot that I normally link
> to (cos it's more or less my only decent waterfall shot) was only about 10 foot or so high, a mini-
> waterfall! ;o)

That's not too bad.

Paul
--
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bsn06o$fl4$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> ste © wrote:
>
> >>> Even reading that Alamy website that you were talking about, for digital images, they ask for
> >>> 48mb.
> >>
> >> ...in 24-bit mode.
> >
> > It's stupid because I've seen images on there that are 24mb and 3500 pixels wide on Alamy. Why
> > have these images been allowed? :-s
>
> Don't know. I think they allow smaller sizes for reportage photos.

The image I was thinking of was of Chatsworth House (just a scenic image, not a press image), and it
looked just like one of my images, which is what got me interested in this website. If you search
for Chatsworth House, the sixth image is 24mb, and before that, the first two colour images are
about 30mb.

I actually went on Alamy to search for locations that I visit to gain inspiration and ideas, and I
had to look twice when the Chatsworth House images came up because they looked identical to some of
mine! ...Something tells me there are about 5 or 6 different images of this place, and everyone has
at least one of them in their portfolio!

> > I've used Genuine Fractals to create a 48mb file, and it's 4700 pixels wide, and a 24 bit TIF.
> > This has then increased noise levels, so I'm not sure if they would allow it.
>
> I don't think it's increased them, just enlarged them so that they are more obvious.

Yes, a lot more obvious!

> > I used Neat Image to tidy this up,
>
> I really think this should be done *before* using GF. If there is noise in the image, GF will
> convert the noise to vector shapes and enlarge them faithfully.

I've not done this before using GF before, but will give it a try tonight.

> > and Focus Magic (I know they say don't sharpen, but what the heck),
>
> Well technically FM isn't sharpening, although if you overdo it can produce horrible artefacts not
> disimilar to sharpening. Subtle use produces the best effect with no artefacts. I would think this
> is acceptable. I'll probably email them to ask about this plus a few other issues, like panoramas.

From what I read on the Alamy website, they just open the images at 100% and check them for quality.
I'm guessing that the only way to see what they will accept or not is to send them a CD of 10 images
and see what happens! I'm not bothered about trying to sell photos because it's just a hobby for
me, but if I could get a bit of pocket money by using images that I've already taken, then great!
I'm interested to know if G3 or G5 images would be accepted, so I might even send a CD along before
you do! I'll let you know...

Also, you say you're going to get a Canon EOS 300D, but at 6 megapixels, I'm guessing that you'd
have a similar resizing problem as the G3/G5 for image libraries like Alamy, in order to get the
48mb? Wouldn't it make more sense to use your film images for now, and wait to see what they bring
out next year? I'm hearing 10 megapixels being mentioned, and there's already a nice new Sony
compact due out which is giving out 8 megapixels:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03...828samples.asp It's not an SLR, but it does have an SLR-
style focusing system, where you turn the lens.

> > and I got a watercolour! ...a 48mb watercolour! :-)
>
> Yes, the default settings in Neat Image tend to produce that kind of effect (so need to be toned
> down) and GF produces that sort of effect too (by converting it to vector it effectively becomes a
> drawing, like you do in Corel Draw), which is more obvious on some images than others. This may
> not be visible in the print though, especially if you print at 300dpi.

Yes, when I printed an image with a 'noisy' blue sky at 300dpi, the noise wasn't even visible in the
print, thankfully!

> Heavy use of NI combined with GF creates a very strong watercolour effect, and FM just enhances it
> further. Try using NI with more subtle settings (there are some presets which give more natural
> effects) and don't overdo the FM.

I'll try this next time.

> I'm still wondering how best to combine FM with GF. It may be better to use FM before but not
> after, or after but not before, but probably not both. It's hard to tell simply by looking at the
> onscreen image, you really need to make some test prints to see what the end result will look
> like. Probably best to always use 300dpi for large images. Some tests I've done looked ghastly as
> a print while others looked fine, even though they both looked bad on screen.

I'll keep playing around myself, and if I get the magic formula right, I'll be sure to let you know.
Likewise, if you find some settings or procedures that work for you, feel free to share them!

> I suspect that some images may be better enlarged with normal interpolation rather than GF, to
> avoid the watercolour effect. Although Photoshop's bicubic interpolation is pretty good, Lanczos
> is supposed to be better, IrfanView has that option, so you may want to try that.

I've seen a few reviews of interpolation software in magazines over the past year. They all
recommend GF, but from their test screen shots, I've never thought it was the best on the page,
though it's difficult to tell from a magazine print-out.

> > I had a theory about images and image sizes that I tested out earlier this evening. As my G5
> > images upto A4 (ish) are pin sharp when printed, I thought that I could scan these images at a
> > high resolution (my scanner only goes up 1200dpi), and get 48mb file that way. Whenever I've
> > scanned prints in work, they've always came out well. I know there's no extra quality to be had
> > in theory, but I wondered how resizing a print versus a digital image would differ.
> >
> > Anyway, my A4 print scanned at 1200dpi created a 390mb TIF file which was 14,000 x 10,000
> > pixels! The quality wasn't as bad as I thought it would be at 100%, and when resized to 4700
> > pixels wide (as per the 48mb GF image), the differences were *hardly noticable,* except the
> > scanned image had a few little blemishes on it from where my print had been slightly dirty -
> > though the scanned image had a slightly better colour to it! Oh well, worth a try!
> >> o)
>
> :-) Just what I thought would happen. No matter which way you do it,
> you can't create extra detail that isn't there to begin with. For the same reason it's always
> better to scan negs than prints, the original contains the most detail.

I did the test to see which was the best way of increasing the size of an image. As you say, you
can't add in pixels that weren't there to begin with, but I was surprised to find that GF wasn't
much better if at all better! ...and certainly not £x better!

> > I can't remember if it's Neat Image of Focus magic that gave me pretty watercolour images!
>
> Neat Image.

Also, one of them only lets me open or save images as JPEG's, which is quite annoying when I'm
trying to get the highest quality possible, when every pixel matters! I could always buy the
full version of course, but I'd have to get better results than what I'm currently getting before I
did this...

> > What settings do you roughly use for Neat Image?
>
> Don't know offhand, I'm still experimenting. There's a lot of settings. Much depends on how you
> analyse the image in the first place. High frequency noise removal seems to be mainly responsible
> for the watercolour effect, so reduce that. A little bit of noise left in the image isn't such a
> bad trade-off to avoid the cartoon effect.

Even the best digital cameras produce noise, so there must be an acceptable level of course. I'll
keep playing around...

> > I'm looking forward to finding a good waterfall some day. That waterfall shot that I normally
> > link to (cos it's more or less my only decent waterfall shot) was only about 10 foot or so high,
> > a mini-waterfall! ;o)
>
> That's not too bad.

I'll have to find a better waterfall though, watch this space...

> Paul

Stephen

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:18:52 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
>From what I read on the Alamy website, they just open the images at 100% and check them for
>quality. I'm guessing that the only way to see what they will accept or not is to send them a CD of
>10 images and see what happens! I'm not bothered about trying to sell photos because it's just a
>hobby for me, but if I could get a bit of pocket money by using images that I've already taken,
>then great! I'm interested to know if G3 or G5 images would be accepted, so I might even send a CD
>along before you do! I'll let you know...

If you have a look at the detailed specs, Stephen, they say that an acceptable digital camera
must be capable of producing a 14MB tif file, which must then be re-sized using "professional
software" to
>48MB.

>
>Also, you say you're going to get a Canon EOS 300D, but at 6 megapixels, I'm guessing that
>you'd have a similar resizing problem as the G3/G5 for image libraries like Alamy, in order to
>get the 48mb?

<snip>

The 300D produces IIRC an 18MB tiff file. Anyway, they do not seem to be too strict on this, as my
Canon D30 produces a 9MB tiff file, and my test CD has been accepted. Search for Pat Bennett on
Alamy to see the images.

>I've seen a few reviews of interpolation software in magazines over the past year. They all
>recommend GF, but from their test screen shots, I've never thought it was the best on the page,
>though it's difficult to tell from a magazine print-out.

I used a Fred Miranda action for resizing my files, and it was good enough for Alamy. See
http://www.fredmiranda.com/software/

>> > What settings do you roughly use for Neat Image?
>>
>> Don't know offhand, I'm still experimenting. There's a lot of settings. Much depends on how you
>> analyse the image in the first place. High frequency noise removal seems to be mainly responsible
>> for the watercolour effect, so reduce that. A little bit of noise left in the image isn't such a
>> bad trade-off to avoid the cartoon effect.

I have saved a noise profile for my D30 at ISO speeds from 100 to 1600, and simply apply the
appropriate one to each image in the queue. I'm very pleased with the results.

Pat

Pat Bennett From Cheshire in the U.K. pat@cheshirewildlife.co.uk www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:38:39 GMT, pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk
(Pat Bennett) wrote:

>Have a variety - nuts, seeds and fat balls will attract a range of birds.

Black sunlower seeds are the proverbial dog's bolleaux. The birds will never be out of your garden
after they've found them - a few days, probably. Anyone in Merseyside/Cheshire can conveniently
buy big sacks very cheap (by comparison with those little net things most shops sell) from
Kingsley mill.

--
Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: http://www.justgiving.com/london2004

"Pat Bennett" <pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ff08d19.10034828@usenet.force9.net...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:18:52 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> If you have a look at the detailed specs, Stephen, they say that an acceptable digital camera
> must be capable of producing a 14MB tif file, which must then be re-sized using "professional
> software" to
> >48MB.

Hi Pat, I think my G5 produces (roughly) 30mb TIF files from the RAW files, but these are 16bit
TIF's, and I think Alamy wants 8bit TIF's. Anyway, I think this just about scrapes through their
requirement, on a good day, going down-hill, with the wind behind me... :-)

> >Also, you say you're going to get a Canon EOS 300D, but at 6 megapixels,
I'm
> >guessing that you'd have a similar resizing problem as the G3/G5 for
image
> >libraries like Alamy, in order to get the 48mb?
>
> <snip>
>
> The 300D produces IIRC an 18MB tiff file. Anyway, they do not seem to be too strict on this, as my
> Canon D30 produces a 9MB tiff file, and my test CD has been accepted. Search for Pat Bennett on
> Alamy to see the images.

I've just searched and found your 10 images, very nice! I did look at your Cheshire Wildlife website
a few weeks ago and I do love these bird shots. I've tried doing similar shots myself with my G5,
but my zoom seriously cripples me, even with the 2x teleconverter it's only 280mm (35mm equivilent),
and I'm not clever enough to build a hide or creep around quietly to get in close! :-) I've seen in
magazines that people are using 600mm lenses plus! :-o

All your images on Alamy are quite large in size (around 60mb), are they all from your Canon D30?
(3.1 megapixels,and 2,160 x 1,440 images?)

> >I've seen a few reviews of interpolation software in magazines over the past year. They all
> >recommend GF, but from their test screen shots, I've never thought it was the best on the page,
> >though it's difficult to tell from a magazine print-out.
>
> I used a Fred Miranda action for resizing my files, and it was good enough for Alamy. See
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/software/

Yes, this is one of the other software that was rated well in a magazine review I had. I'm still
using the 20 free go's of Genuine Fractals, but will try this when it runs out.

> >> > What settings do you roughly use for Neat Image?
> >>
> >> Don't know offhand, I'm still experimenting. There's a lot of
settings.
> >> Much depends on how you analyse the image in the first place. High frequency noise removal
> >> seems to be mainly responsible for the watercolour effect, so reduce that. A little bit of
> >> noise left in the image isn't such a bad trade-off to avoid the cartoon effect.
>
> I have saved a noise profile for my D30 at ISO speeds from 100 to 1600, and simply apply the
> appropriate one to each image in the queue. I'm very pleased with the results.

How do you create your noise profile Pat? When I was doing a profile, I just selected an area of the
sky in my image that was plain blue in colour (ie, just one colour). Should I using a specific type
of image to create these noise profiles, and what did you use to create them? I tend to only use
ISO50, but I'm curious to see if I'm doing this correctly.

> Pat

Ste

"Paul Rooney" <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cd53vvkfsvq817m5rqdldfbj773j3cfl9p@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:38:39 GMT, pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk (Pat Bennett) wrote:
>
>
> >Have a variety - nuts, seeds and fat balls will attract a range of birds.
>
> Black sunlower seeds are the proverbial dog's bolleaux. The birds will never be out of your garden
> after they've found them - a few days, probably. Anyone in Merseyside/Cheshire can conveniently
> buy big sacks very cheap (by comparison with those little net things most shops sell) from
> Kingsley mill.

I'll have to try them too then, thanks!

> --
> Paul

Ste

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:41:50 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Pat Bennett" <pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3ff08d19.10034828@usenet.force9.net...
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:18:52 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If you have a look at the detailed specs, Stephen, they say that an acceptable digital camera
>> must be capable of producing a 14MB tif file, which must then be re-sized using "professional
>> software" to
>> >48MB.
>
>Hi Pat, I think my G5 produces (roughly) 30mb TIF files from the RAW files, but these are 16bit
>TIF's, and I think Alamy wants 8bit TIF's. Anyway, I think this just about scrapes through their
>requirement, on a good day, going down-hill, with the wind behind me... :-)

Should be OK - that's 15MB of 8bit tif file.

>
>
>> >Also, you say you're going to get a Canon EOS 300D, but at 6 megapixels,
>I'm
>> >guessing that you'd have a similar resizing problem as the G3/G5 for
>image
>> >libraries like Alamy, in order to get the 48mb?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The 300D produces IIRC an 18MB tiff file. Anyway, they do not seem to be too strict on this, as
>> my Canon D30 produces a 9MB tiff file, and my test CD has been accepted. Search for Pat Bennett
>> on Alamy to see the images.
>
>I've just searched and found your 10 images, very nice! I did look at your Cheshire Wildlife
>website a few weeks ago and I do love these bird shots. I've tried doing similar shots myself with
>my G5, but my zoom seriously cripples me, even with the 2x teleconverter it's only 280mm (35mm
>equivilent), and I'm not clever enough to build a hide or creep around quietly to get in close! :-)
>I've seen in magazines that people are using 600mm lenses plus! :-o

Yup - bird photography is highly specialised and needs expensive kit cos they're so damn small. Even
with a hide, you need a long lens.

One way of getting bird shots is to feed them, with feeders close to your window. Make sure that the
deeders are always filled up, and eventually birds discover them and start to call around regularly,
You can then, with patience and a bit of camouflage, photograph them in comfort from your window.

>
>All your images on Alamy are quite large in size (around 60mb), are they all from your Canon D30?
>(3.1 megapixels,and 2,160 x 1,440 images?)

Yes - they are that size because it is one of the settings in Miranda's action. The next size down
puts the output below 48MB.

>
>
>> >I've seen a few reviews of interpolation software in magazines over the past year. They all
>> >recommend GF, but from their test screen shots, I've never thought it was the best on the page,
>> >though it's difficult to tell from a magazine print-out.
>>
>> I used a Fred Miranda action for resizing my files, and it was good enough for Alamy. See
>> http://www.fredmiranda.com/software/
>
>Yes, this is one of the other software that was rated well in a magazine review I had. I'm still
>using the 20 free go's of Genuine Fractals, but will try this when it runs out.
>
>
>> >> > What settings do you roughly use for Neat Image?
>> >>
>> >> Don't know offhand, I'm still experimenting. There's a lot of
>settings.
>> >> Much depends on how you analyse the image in the first place. High frequency noise removal
>> >> seems to be mainly responsible for the watercolour effect, so reduce that. A little bit of
>> >> noise left in the image isn't such a bad trade-off to avoid the cartoon effect.
>>
>> I have saved a noise profile for my D30 at ISO speeds from 100 to 1600, and simply apply the
>> appropriate one to each image in the queue. I'm very pleased with the results.
>
>How do you create your noise profile Pat? When I was doing a profile, I just selected an area of
>the sky in my image that was plain blue in colour (ie, just one colour). Should I using a specific
>type of image to create these noise profiles, and what did you use to create them? I tend to only
>use ISO50, but I'm curious to see if I'm doing this correctly.

I went outside on a sunny day and photographed the sky at ISO 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600. I then
loaded each shot into Neat Image, switched to Device Noise Profile, drew a rectangle and clicked
on Rough Noise Analyser. I then clicked on Auto Finetune, and when it had finished, saved the
noise profile.

So now I have a profile for each ISO, and I remove noise in batches now. Load the image, select the
noise profile for it, put it in the queue. Do the same for the next, and the next, .......

Then select all the images, click on queue, and go and do something else for an hour or two.

It's very useful to me, because shutter speed is usually crucial to stop movement, and Neat Image
makes ISO 800 and even 1600 usable - most of my stuff is at ISO400.

Pat

Pat Bennett From Cheshire in the U.K. pat@cheshirewildlife.co.uk www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk

"Pat Bennett" <pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ff0ea8e.602865@usenet.force9.net...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:41:50 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> >Hi Pat, I think my G5 produces (roughly) 30mb TIF files from the RAW
files,
> >but these are 16bit TIF's, and I think Alamy wants 8bit TIF's. Anyway, I think this just about
> >scrapes through their requirement, on a good day, going down-hill, with the wind behind me... :-)
>
> Should be OK - that's 15MB of 8bit tif file.

Hopefully it will be okay when I starting using Genuine Fractals and Neat Image in the right order!
I'm experimenting at the moment to see what works well, using advice from Paul of course.

<snip>

> >I've just searched and found your 10 images, very nice! I did look at
your
> >Cheshire Wildlife website a few weeks ago and I do love these bird shots. I've tried doing
> >similar shots myself with my G5, but my zoom seriously cripples me, even with the 2x
> >teleconverter it's only 280mm (35mm equivilent), and I'm not clever enough to build a hide or
> >creep around quietly to get in close! :-) I've seen in magazines that people are
using
> >600mm lenses plus! :-o
>
> Yup - bird photography is highly specialised and needs expensive kit cos they're so damn small.
> Even with a hide, you need a long lens.

Rules me out then! :-(

> One way of getting bird shots is to feed them, with feeders close to your window. Make sure that
> the deeders are always filled up, and eventually birds discover them and start to call around
> regularly, You can then, with patience and a bit of camouflage, photograph them in comfort from
> your window.

Now this is something that I can do, and I did try it, albeit half-heartedly, in the summer. After
unsuccessfully sneaking up to some common garden birds (they all flew away before I could get
within range in the garden!), I decided to buy one of those nets with nuts in, and hung it on the
fence outside my patio window. When a bird went to feed on it, I pulled the curtains open and it
flew away! :-( I need to try this again, but be bit more discreet so I don't startle them! I did
think about setting up my camera on its tripod, aimed at the nuts, then use a remote control to
take the photo; though I never actually got around to setting this up, so it's something to try
next summer...

Would you recommend any particular bait to try? My nuts never even got eaten, and my mum threw them
away because they went a bit mouldy after a while. ...I know this sentence doesn't read well, but
you know what I mean!
:-)

And is it worth trying at this time of year, are there many birds about? I don't remember seeing
many recently, but saying that, it's dark when I get home from work during the week so I wouldn't!
And I tend to go away each weekend, but I will get the chance to try again some time, and will post
my results to show you all what I manged!

> >All your images on Alamy are quite large in size (around 60mb), are they
all
> >from your Canon D30? (3.1 megapixels,and 2,160 x 1,440 images?)
>
> Yes - they are that size because it is one of the settings in Miranda's action. The next size down
> puts the output below 48MB.

Okay, well one good thing about Genuine Fractals is that you can choose the exact output size. Have
you used GF at all? If so, what did you think of it, and what put you off using it?

<snip>

> >How do you create your noise profile Pat? When I was doing a profile, I just selected an area of
> >the sky in my image that was plain blue in
colour
> >(ie, just one colour). Should I using a specific type of image to create these noise profiles,
> >and what did you use to create them? I tend to
only
> >use ISO50, but I'm curious to see if I'm doing this correctly.
>
> I went outside on a sunny day and photographed the sky at ISO 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600. I then
> loaded each shot into Neat Image, switched to Device Noise Profile, drew a rectangle and clicked
> on Rough Noise Analyser. I then clicked on Auto Finetune, and when it had finished, saved the
> noise profile.

I'll try doing the same. When I have used Neat Image before, I've just selected a clean bit of sky
in the image, but it would be nice to have a set of pre-saved profiles to use.

> So now I have a profile for each ISO, and I remove noise in batches now. Load the image, select
> the noise profile for it, put it in the queue. Do the same for the next, and the next, .......
>
> Then select all the images, click on queue, and go and do something else for an hour or two.
>
> It's very useful to me, because shutter speed is usually crucial to stop movement, and Neat Image
> makes ISO 800 and even 1600 usable - most of my stuff is at ISO400.

With your relatively noise-free D-SLR, it's possible to use these high ISO's. I wouldn't dream of
using anything other than ISO 50 or 100 with my G5 - I know Neat Image is good, but it's not a
miracle maker! ;-)

> Pat

Ste

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:45:49 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Pat Bennett" <pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3ff0ea8e.602865@usenet.force9.net...
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:41:50 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>

<snip>

>Now this is something that I can do, and I did try it, albeit half-heartedly, in the summer. After
>unsuccessfully sneaking up to some common garden birds (they all flew away before I could get
>within range in the garden!), I decided to buy one of those nets with nuts in, and hung it on the
>fence outside my patio window. When a bird went to feed on it, I pulled the curtains open and it
>flew away! :-( I need to try this again, but be bit more discreet so I don't startle them! I did
>think about setting up my camera on its tripod, aimed at the nuts, then use a remote control to
>take the photo; though I never actually got around to setting this up, so it's something to try
>next summer...
>
It takes time for birds to get used to regularly visiting feeders, so you need to keep them filled
and have patience. Think carefully about where you are going to need them for your photography,
because it'll be no good moving them once they start coming.

>Would you recommend any particular bait to try? My nuts never even got eaten, and my mum threw them
>away because they went a bit mouldy after a while. ...I know this sentence doesn't read well, but
>you know what I mean!
>:-)

Have a variety - nuts, seeds and fat balls will attract a range of birds.

>
>And is it worth trying at this time of year, are there many birds about? I don't remember seeing
>many recently, but saying that, it's dark when I get home from work during the week so I wouldn't!
>And I tend to go away each weekend, but I will get the chance to try again some time, and will post
>my results to show you all what I manged!

Best time of year - we are getting a lot of birds on our feeders at the moment.

>
>
>> >All your images on Alamy are quite large in size (around 60mb), are they
>all
>> >from your Canon D30? (3.1 megapixels,and 2,160 x 1,440 images?)
>>
>> Yes - they are that size because it is one of the settings in Miranda's action. The next size
>> down puts the output below 48MB.
>
>Okay, well one good thing about Genuine Fractals is that you can choose the exact output size. Have
>you used GF at all? If so, what did you think of it, and what put you off using it?

Haven't used it myself, but I've read the reviews, which is why I have gone for Fred Miranda's
action. There's a large price difference for very little difference in performance, if any!

Pat

Pat Bennett From Cheshire in the U.K. pat@cheshirewildlife.co.uk www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk

"Pat Bennett" <pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ff1ee2c.595419@usenet.force9.net...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:45:49 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pat Bennett" <pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3ff0ea8e.602865@usenet.force9.net...
> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:41:50 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >Now this is something that I can do, and I did try it, albeit half-heartedly, in the summer.
> >After unsuccessfully sneaking up to some common garden birds (they all flew away before I could
> >get within range
in
> >the garden!), I decided to buy one of those nets with nuts in, and hung
it
> >on the fence outside my patio window. When a bird went to feed on it, I pulled the curtains open
> >and it flew away! :-( I need to try this again, but be bit more discreet so I don't startle them!
> >I did think about
setting
> >up my camera on its tripod, aimed at the nuts, then use a remote control
to
> >take the photo; though I never actually got around to setting this up, so it's something to try
> >next summer...
> >
> It takes time for birds to get used to regularly visiting feeders, so you need to keep them filled
> and have patience. Think carefully about where you are going to need them for your photography,
> because it'll be no good moving them once they start coming.

The location was fine as it wasn't far from my bedroom window (downstairs bedroom). It's just the
patience that was thin on the ground, and birds! I'll buy another feeder and keep going. I might
even buy a bird table or something. I'll let you know how I get on.

> >Would you recommend any particular bait to try? My nuts never even got eaten, and my mum threw
> >them away because they went a bit mouldy after a while. ...I know this sentence doesn't read
> >well, but you know what I
mean!
> >:-)
>
> Have a variety - nuts, seeds and fat balls will attract a range of birds.

I will do, thanks.

> >And is it worth trying at this time of year, are there many birds about?
I
> >don't remember seeing many recently, but saying that, it's dark when I
get
> >home from work during the week so I wouldn't! And I tend to go away each weekend, but I will get
> >the chance to try again some time, and will post
my
> >results to show you all what I manged!
>
> Best time of year - we are getting a lot of birds on our feeders at the moment.

Really? That's good news then! I might even try and get a new feeder tonight when I get home
from work.

> >> >All your images on Alamy are quite large in size (around 60mb), are
they
> >all
> >> >from your Canon D30? (3.1 megapixels,and 2,160 x 1,440 images?)
> >>
> >> Yes - they are that size because it is one of the settings in Miranda's action. The next size
> >> down puts the output below 48MB.
> >
> >Okay, well one good thing about Genuine Fractals is that you can choose
the
> >exact output size. Have you used GF at all? If so, what did you think
of
> >it, and what put you off using it?
>
> Haven't used it myself, but I've read the reviews, which is why I have gone for Fred Miranda's
> action. There's a large price difference for very little difference in performance, if any!

Yes, I know what you're saying. But as I'm using the trial version of GF, it's effectively free to
me, for now anyway.

> Pat

Ste

"W. D. Grey" <Bill@graigroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$MoNegA8nc8$EwCM@graigroad.demon.co.uk...
| In article <NzdIb.1685$HX5.14310489@news-text.cableinet.net>, ste © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes
| >Now this is something that I can do, and I did try it, albeit half-heartedly, in the summer.
| >After unsuccessfully sneaking up to some common garden birds (they all flew away before I could
| >get within range
in
| >the garden!), I decided to buy one of those nets with nuts in, and hung
it
| >on the fence outside my patio window.
|
| Hi Stephen, the first and most important thing you must have is patience. Given that you are
| prepared to wait for you shots, then it is possible to be between 5 and 8 feet of the feeder and
| get photos. You must be very still or behind some sort of screen. The blue tits, great tits, coal
| tits etc will soon get used to your being there and will feed. Pre-focus on the peanut feeder and
| click away every time a bird comes there. I used to be happy with two or three decent shots out of
| a 24 shot roll of film. It is not only the question of being in focus, but the attitude of the
| bird in the shot.

Hi Bill, I'm going to order some Patience from an online retailer, so hopefully that will help me.
:-) As I'm picking up tips from you and the others in this group, I'm starting to think more about
my setup. As you say, to be between 5 and 8 feet would allow me to get really close-up and detailed
shots - the last feeder I put up was about 20 foot away, so the bird was just a tiny piece of the
frame by the time I'd zoomed in. I will set up my next feeding place a bit closer for sure, and as
you say, I should pre-focus my image beforehand. Last time, the shots were a bit blurry because the
bird was so small and the automatic focusing wasn't locking onto them - but the fence behind the
birds was pin-sharp... :-)

| >Would you recommend any particular bait to try? My nuts never even got eaten,
|
| .....Hmmm!

Yes, I'm going to try losing weight, getting a six-pack, and going on the sun-beds to see if it
cures the problem... ;-)

| Nowt wrong with peanuts, though the peanut feeder doesn't look particularly natural. Some of the
| small birds will frequently perch on a nearby branch or twig before going to the feeder. If you
| can locate the feeder near a bush and use this feature of their behaviour to your advantage then
| you might get some really good natural looking shots. try not to include the feeder in the shot.

As you say, the nuts just don't look natural, so I will have to sort something out. I'll also have
to pay more attention to the background too, to make it look more natural. One option is to use my
2x teleconverter lens, and have the feeder as far away as possible, whilst still keeping the bird
quite big in the frame at full zoom. Combined with a big aperture, this should give me a nice
blurred background, where hopefully, it will be a nice blend of green where there are some connifers
at the end of the garden, though I don't want to run the risk of ruining pin-sharp birds, so it will
take some experimentation. It's all part of the fun though! :-)

| BTW when April comes around, stop offering peanuts as when the blue tits etc have chicks, the
| young birds can't digest peanuts which the adults will still try to feed them with.

Thanks, I'll bear this one in mind, don't want to go killing my future photos now! ;-)

| --
| Bill Grey

Ste

In article <pVgIb.1837$1D7.15665256@news-text.cableinet.net>, ste ©
<URL:mailto:ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

> "Pat Bennett" <pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3ff1ee2c.595419@usenet.force9.net...
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:45:49 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

> > >"Pat Bennett" <pat@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:3ff0ea8e.602865@usenet.force9.net...
> > >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:41:50 GMT, "ste ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

> > <snip>

> > > Now this is something that I can do, and I did try it, albeit half-heartedly, in the summer.
> > > After unsuccessfully sneaking up to some common garden birds (they all flew away before I
> > > could get within range in the garden!), I decided to buy one of those nets with nuts in, and
> > > hung it on the fence outside my patio window. When a bird went to feed on it, I pulled the
> > > curtains open and it flew away! :-( I need to try this again, but be bit more discreet so I
> > > don't startle them! I did think about setting up my camera on its tripod, aimed at the nuts,
> > > then use a remote control to take the photo; though I never actually got around to setting
> > > this up, so it's something to try next summer...

> > It takes time for birds to get used to regularly visiting feeders, so you need to keep them
> > filled and have patience. Think carefully about where you are going to need them for your
> > photography, because it'll be no good moving them once they start coming.

> The location was fine as it wasn't far from my bedroom window (downstairs bedroom). It's just the
> patience that was thin on the ground, and birds! I'll buy another feeder and keep going. I might
> even buy a bird table or something. I'll let you know how I get on.

The birds in my garden are now so tame that you almost get mobbed whilst putting the food out.
Certainly many of them only fly away to the fence or bushes and wait for you to move away again,
before returning to feed. In the breeding season we feed with waxworms and mealworms and the robin
will then even come and take them from your hand.

> > > Would you recommend any particular bait to try? My nuts never even got eaten, and my mum threw
> > > them away because they went a bit mouldy after a while. ...I know this sentence doesn't read
> > > well, but you know what I mean!
> > >:-)

> > Have a variety - nuts, seeds and fat balls will attract a range of birds.

> I will do, thanks.

I've found that if I put out too many peanuts that they go mouldy before the birds eat them all. In
contrast I can't put out sunflower seeds fast enough. We have about 10 regular Greenfinches that can
empty a full feeder in a day. What gets dropped on the ground gets demolished by Chaffinchs. In the
last eighteen months I've attracted Goldfinches with nijar seed but that did take some patience. Now
we get about 10 of those a day, and my record was 27 at one time.

Blackbirds will like fruit, such as a chopped up apple put on the ground.

> > > And is it worth trying at this time of year, are there many birds about? I don't remember
> > > seeing many recently, but saying that, it's dark when I get home from work during the week so
> > > I wouldn't! And I tend to go away each weekend, but I will get the chance to try again some
> > > time, and will post my results to show you all what I manged!

> > Best time of year - we are getting a lot of birds on our feeders at the moment.

> Really? That's good news then! I might even try and get a new feeder tonight when I get home
> from work.

I've been collecting weekly data from my garden for the BTO for about 4 years now. The types and
numbers of birds vary quite predictably with the weather and time of year. Take a look at

<URL:http://www.bto.org/>

particularly the Garden Birdwatch pages which have the collated data from the surveys. If you look
up your region you can see what to expect at what times of the year in your garden.

Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> ||
_`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Hi there,

I had a look for my bird images by clicking on the 'Birds' category of Adobe Photoshop Album 2. I
had about 40 images in total, but they were all fairly poor, even by my standards. :-(

But I've uploaded a few of them to my webspace anyway:

http://www.sm9.co.uk/test/nuts.jpg - this shows where I hung my nut feeder. Looking back, it's a
dreadful location and I won't be putting it there again! I'll try getting some sort of bird stand
together and will put it in a different position so the fence isn't in the background of any photos
I take. Also, there is a bird at the top of the photo, hiding in the connifers! And the beige
vertical band on the left is the patio door of my bedroom.

http://www.sm9.co.uk/test/bird.jpg - this was the best shot I got of a bird by the feeder! It's at
1:1 zoom, and is heavily cropped from a 2500 pixel wide image. I've also used Neat Image and Focus
Magic on this when I was playing around earlier. It was out of focus too, as you can see.

These are the best bird images I've got (so you should see the bad ones!)
:-)

http://www.sm9.co.uk/test/owl.jpg - This was an Owl on display at the Rotherham Show a few months
ago. I could try and kid you that it was taken in the wild, but the strap on its leg and feeder give
it away! :-)

http://www.sm9.co.uk/test/hawk.jpg - This was a Harris Hawk (?) on display at the same event. Again,
this is heavily cropped (to hide the straps and blurry wings), and I've resized it to half the
original size (after cropping).

http://www.sm9.co.uk/test/robin.jpg - This was a Robin that I saw last weekend, as explained in my
post to Gordon a few minutes ago. It's heavily cropped and is almost 1:1 ratio.

Here's to happy baiting in future! :-)

Thanks,

Stephen