Post your best bird shots!

JJ....really nice capture of the Kestrel and the flycatcher ain't so bad either.


Here's my latest of the female Great Horned owl on her nest. I'm relatively sure the egg(s) hatched (last week), but I probably won't catch a glimpse of an owlet(s) for another 2 weeks or so.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/4846.GHO-on-nest-1.jpg[/img]


IMO it looks much better in flickr lightbox; http://www.flickr.com/photos/29409592@N03/5595513024/lightbox/


Looks like left overs on the left side of the nest.


Thanks for looking


Bill

Bill, neat shot of the nesting owl, for some reason I thought all owls were all cavity nesters...thanks for sharing!

American Goldfinch....!D MKIII 300mm 1.4TC


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/8611.343V0673.jpg[/img]

Joel, Great shot of the gold finch. I have several lesser gold finches that visit my feeders but have yet to catch any good shots on my props, but I have to admit that I have only impatiently tried a couple of times---been dealing with spring preps, yard cleaning bush trimming etc with several days of high winds and generally poor weather.--Anyway a question and a comment: When shooting with this setup, roughly how much are you having to crop? How about with your 500?


Only critique that I have is that this shot looks a tad oversharpened on my monitor---otherwise beautiful subject, background, comp and nice catchlight. I am envious.


Bob

Thanks Joel....not the "best" IQ pic, but she

Bob, (correct me if I'm wrong Joel) it's more than likely not your monitor....it's more the result of Joel using a flash.


It's called micro-contrast and it's (simply) caused by more direct light (flash) being reflected back to the sensor, enabling a more detailed pic of the feathers' micro-structure.


But hey Bob....I could be wrong and stand to be corrected by the more technically savvy members and/or Joel's explanation of the PP he used on the pic.


I've been reading up on using a flash(s), for the upcoming HB season, to capture more (ruby gorgets) iridescence of the Ruby-throated HBs and this is where I came across this term.


BTW Joel, another fine capture.


Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Williams

.--Anyway a question and a comment: When shooting with this setup, roughly how much are you having to crop? How about with your 500?


Only critique that I have is that this shot looks a tad oversharpened on my monitor---otherwise beautiful subject, background, comp and nice catchlight. I am envious.


Bob
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Bob,


thanks for the comments, I usually end up cropping away about 30-40 % of the original full frame image on a small bird like this.


Keep in mind I am using a 1DMKIII (1.3 crop factor)with 300mm + 1.4 TC for overall effective focal length of 546 mm ( if I did the math right) and I am set up about 15 feet away for the small birds.


I don't own a 500 ( rented one last fall in Florida)


In my workflow I crop first, do all my image adjustments or whatever and then sharpen last. It's subjective of course and perhaps I went too far on this one but on my MacBook it looks OK. I keep in camera sharopening at it's lowest setting and if I use my best technique and the light is good usually I need only minimal sharpening settings. I have been using Genuine Fractals (only for it's sharpening, not enlarging) then I reduce the image (in CS5) to 800 pixels, then perhaps a touch of unsharp mask ( around 200% 0.2 pixels 5 threshhold and adjust percent to taste)


Joel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill W

Bob, (correct me if I'm wrong Joel) it's more than likely not your monitor....it's more the result of Joel using a flash.


It's called micro-contrast and it's (simply) caused by more direct light (flash) being reflected back to the sensor, enabling a more detailed pic of the feathers' micro-structure.


But hey Bob....I could be wrong and stand to be corrected by the more technically savvy members and/or Joel's explanation of the PP he used on the pic.


Bill
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Thanks Bill for the kind words,


I think you are right in that the flash does help to some degree with enhancing perceived sharpness by increasing micro-contrast. I am using low levels of fill flash most of the time because the days have been gray will a dull diffused type of light. I use a 580 EXII with the better beamer on a flash bracket so the flash is well above the barrel of the lens and usually have the flash set to ETTL around - 2 1/3 stops (more or less depending on the light needed) I always strive to keep my shutter speed as high as possible. My keeper images don't require a ton ofsharpening in post processing but they all require a little IMHO.


With nice light at the proper angle the flash isn't needed of course, in my back yard this doesn't happen too often.


Joel

@ Bill, Thanks for the info, I have heard of that but it never crossed my mind and even if it did, I am not sure I would recognize it. Thanks again for the reminder and lesson.


@Joel, Thanks for the info. I am still trying to get the hang of my 500---But even at 20-25 feet I end up cropping about 30%. Of course---some say i crop to tightly, but I just really like the portrait style look. though I use my flash and better beamer alot with hummers, I havn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Williams

The oversharpened comment was intended more as information for you rather than a critique. Your shots are almost always perfect, so when I saw this, I thought maybe you had changed the way you uploaded--which has created problems for me in the past --Anyway, it was just for information purposes on what I saw on this end---I hope you took it that way.


Thanks again for your explanations, they are always helpful.


Bob
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Bob,


No problem at all ... I looked at the Goldfinch on my desktop at work and it DOES look a tad over-sharpened on that monitor .... I didn't change my uploading method but probably went just a touch too strong with the unsharp mask at the very last step prior to saving as a jpeg. As I mentioned, I don't own a 500 but I would suggest trying to get a little closer, even 5 feet might make a big difference on small song birds. As far as cropping goes ... I like close up portraits as well because you can see detail that normally is not visible from a distance ... it is more dramatic and interesting to me. I do strive to use the rule of thirds when cropping and try to avoid square images, I like 3:2 size images.


Joel

Bob and Joel


When you are talking crop, your really not comparing the same thing with each other. I know you guys know this. Since Joel has a 1.3 crop camera and Bob

Common Loon, Lake Massabesic, NH


7D, 500f4, 1.4x, f5.6, 1/1250, ISO 640 on a tripod w/a cable release


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/750x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/3480.Loon-one.jpg[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/750x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/7115.Loon-two.jpg[/img]


Thanks for looking


Bill

Bill,


Great photos and I am glad to see the Loons are back. You were about 5 minutes from my house.[:D]


Brant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Do you have any thoughts on proper distance, as close as possible maybe? Far enough to get the right DOF?


Rick
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Rick,


Another big consideration is how many pixels can you get on your subject at your chosen distance and focal length.....the 7D and the MKIVboth have smaller / more numerous pixels than the MKIII so you will havemore pixels on your subject with those cameras andtherefore the ability to get more detail / resolution and consequently increased tolerance for cropping away more pixels and still retaining image quality. I have tried various distances with my setup and I can get good results anywhere from 15 to 25 feet.


If a small bird is facing you at such close range it's almost impossible to get the head and tail both in focus, a perfect side pose is required. Because of that I try my best to focus on the eye, if that is sharp the image usually doesn't suffer from the tail being out of focus.


Joel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill W

Common Loon, Lake Massabesic, NH


7D, 500f4, 1.4x, f5.6, 1/1250, ISO 640 on a tripod w/a cable release


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/750x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/3480.Loon-one.jpg[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/750x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/7115.Loon-two.jpg[/img]


Thanks for looking


Bill

---

Bill,


These are wonderful! I love the pose and capture of the 1st shot and I love the serenity, exposure, and sharpness of the 2nd one.


You can even see that the bird was tagged.


Nice work!





Rich

I second that! Bill, these shots are really beautiful!! [Y]

Denise

Rick, Unfortunately, I don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Williams

Rick, Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience yet with the 500 to give my impression of "proper distance" etc---I am still learning and have a lot more experimenting to do before I can offer any decent advice. As far as cropping goes---I probably have two definitions that I think (hope) most understand, they are: 1. When I talk 100% crop, that means that I am discussing a "piece" --regardless of size, of a full size image. When I ask "how much did you crop" , I am asking "how much of a full size image did you remove to achieve the comp demonstrated".


Did that make any sense to anyone?

---

Bob


I understood what you were asking about crop. Hopefully after the thread a while back on 100% crops we won't go back in to that discussion.


What I was getting at is that Joel's 300mm with 1.4ex gives and 1D III gives him the ff equivalent 546mm. With the 7D and 500mm you have the ff equivalent of 800mm. I went back to see how much I have been croping at 15-20 feet with the 1D IV and the 500mm which would be 650mm equivalent. I haven't been taking very much at all off, maybe 10% on larger birds and 20% or so for finches.


The problem I found with the 7D, is it got real close and tight with the little birds and I liked that, but I had to bump the aperture tighter and tighter to get more DOF. When I did this to gain DOF I lost shutter speed, so it always seemed like a battle to balance the two out. It seems to me that the 1.3 crop is working the best of the three for shooting the little birds close up like this, its kind of a trade off I guess.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

If a small bird is facing you at such close range it's almost impossible to get the head and tail both in focus, a perfect side pose is required. Because of that I try my best to focus on the eye, if that is sharp the image usually doesn't suffer from the tail being out of focus.

---

Joel


It seems to me its a balancing act to get the DOF you want and how close you can get when your setting up.


Rick

Thank you Brant, Rich &amp; Denise....I appreciate your compliments.


Brant; better get over to the lake, the ice is melting quickly and the edge is becoming further from the shore; i.e. "Broken Bill" * will be further from shore. S/he was approximately 80 yards when I took these shots. South on 121 (couple of miles) from the circle. We

Thanks Bill. Right there in Auburn along 121 is where I took a number of my fall photos last year. Nice drive. I was going to head out to Great Bay today, but you changed my mind. Meeting up one day sounds great.


Thanks,


Brant

This is somewhat more heavily cropped and enlarged close up of a red bellied woodpecker taken with the 1DMKIII at 420mm (300 + 1.4tc) Taken from about 20 feet at even with only a 10mp sensor you can still retain good detail.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/5226.343V9132.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill W

it was my first shoot w/the 1.4x, 500 combo and I
was a little disappointed w/the overall sharpness of my pix.....I just
wished I'd done a better job w/the action shots.

---

Bill,
nice shots!, the pictures do look a little soft to me though, by looking
at your shutter speed of 1/1250, it seems more like lose some of the
details because of cropping too much and/or using of the TC other than
a motion blur.I'm just guessing. I often use my 500 with the 1.4X TC,
all I can say is the closer you get the better result you (more details)
get.





Joel,, when you crop your picture like this heavy, how big you can print your picture without compromise the the IQ? how do I know the MAX size I can print for a given size of file without losing IQ? thanks!

Thanks JJ....I hear ya about filling frame, but it's tough to do when there's about 70 yards of water between myself and the loon...it's still too cold to go swimming around here. [:P]


They were rather soft before the cropping......I blame operator error and the excitement (moving too fast) of finding the loon.


Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

Joel,, when you crop your picture like this heavy, how big you can print your picture without compromise the the IQ? how do I know the MAX size I can print for a given size of file without losing IQ? thanks!

---

I am not entirely sure, I haven't been printing very much .... but I would not be afraid to try 16 X 20 .... If you are truly interested in big prints and you have not read about or seen Genuine Fractals ( I think they changed the name of it now) I would highly recommend you look at it .....it does impressive enlargements without IQ loss.


I have 9 16 X 20 prints in my office that I ordered from mpix.com but I used Genuine Fractals on the image files and saved them as an 8 bit TIFF prior to having them printed and they printed fantastically (IMHO)


Joel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

Joel,, when you crop your picture like this heavy, how big you can print your picture without compromise the the IQ? how do I know the MAX size I can print for a given size of file without losing IQ? thanks!

---

Take the resolution and divide it my the width of your print and you can figure out the dots per inch. Generally you don't want to go lower than 200 DPIwhich looks good an a larger print (13x19 or so). 100 DPI is about as low as you want to go for a larger print counting enlargement software, with out enlargement software 100 DPIit looks pretty soft. Also larger prints can get away with lower DPI, 100 DPI on a 4x6 looks terrible! But 100 DPI would look great on a 60x90.Ahigher contrast image also looks a bit sharper than a lower cotrast image.


It also depends on your personalstandard for what's exceptable,if I canI don't like to print anything lower than 300/350 DPI depending on the contrast of the image. But that's not always possible.


If you have a good printer such as the Epson R1900 or the canonPRO 9000/PRO 9500 you have a lot more control of the quality and colors of you print. Plus it's a bit cheaper with Canon inks and lot cheaper with third party inks.


You can also use higher quality paper than most printing services which can make a bigger difference than the printer. I really like the EpsonPremium glossy paperwhich isEpsons bestpaper.The Canon's Platinum is very good too and cheaper, but not quite as glossy and smooth. Most people regardtheEpsonas thebest photo paper regardless of theprinter. And I agree!


John.

So, the Loons are still at Lake Massabesic, right along Rt 121 as Bill said. I saw 3 of them at different times, but the ice has continued to reside and they are pretty far out. But, I did find some other birds closer by. These are my three best, I am going to post a few others under the "current" thread.


All photos: Canon 7D, 100-400L @ 400 mm, 1/1600, f/5.6 ISO 400


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/4111.Goose-IMG_5F00_7839.JPG[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/5621.GBH-IMG_5F00_7883.JPG[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/6064.Duck-IMG_5F00_7896.JPG[/img]


C&amp;C's are welcome

Joel, the Woodpecker shot still looks good! Nice colors and contrast, as well as good feather and eye detail.


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill W

Rich; it was my first shoot w/the 1.4x, 500 combo and I was a little disappointed w/the overall sharpness of my pix.....I just wished I'd done a better job w/the action shots. Guess it's just another learning curve for me to flatten.

---

There's always a learning curve with a new lens. I like these shots!


I guess some other things to consider, would be to shoot either earlier or later in the day, or consider a CPL. The birds also look slightly backlit, so try and find the Sun and position yourself with your back to the Sun if possible, so then your subject will find the light, but hey these birds probably didn't read the same book that I did.


The water looks calm, so I don't see any wind. Try stopping down, a stop or two, perhaps that will increase your sharpness.


Even better.., would beif you could catch both of their eyes looking at the camera. Good luck with that one!


I can't wait to see more!


Rich

thank you very much Joel and John for your reply.


I need to print some big sized pictures of my kids and birds shots later, I don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

C&amp;C's are welcome

---

well, all you need is a bigger gun Brent![:D], BTW, the the GBH in flight is my favorite.

Hey Brant,


Nice exposure of the black and white feathers on the first one. I also like the portrait crop and composition. The only way it would be better was if the bird was facing the lens.


Nice capture on the 2nd one!


I love the mirror-like reflection of the last one!


Rich

JJphoto


If you ever get another camera and Canon is still doing the rebate on the picks 9000 or 9500 go for it. So far I haven

JJ thats pixma 9000 9500 not picks 9000


I hate iPhones auto spell correct

Some people think that the Dye Inks are more vibrant than the Pigment Inks. But what they think is more dull is actually more color tones and will look duller but also more nuances. You can turn up the saturation in the printer or the picture and will look more life like than Dye Inks. Also Pigment Inks have a different luminance and look more holographic than Dye Inks which absorb more into the paper than Pigment Inks. They are suposed to last longer but even the life span of Dye Inks would be more than suffcient more most people! Thats becomes more important for archival type prints.


I use the Epson R1900 becuase it was in the same price range as the Pro 9000 and had Pigment Ink and I really like the look and colors better on the Pigment Ink, it makes that big of a differance. I have some third party Dye Inks designed for the R1900 and I'm sure there not quite the same quality as the genuine Epson ink but it's has the same differance. There are some third party ink suppliers that claim to have better ink than OEM inks, I'll try those and let you know how they are.


BTW, I only print in high gloss and they are amazing! I haven't seen a printing service or print nearly as good as the prints than I have done myself. Once you print you don't even want to look at your monitor anymore.


John.

so much good information guys, i need time to digest it. not a good time to buy any gear because we are moving and that

Just tell her with xx amount of prints of say 13"x19"[:)] the Epson R1900or Pro9000 will come free!And you have a printer that will last a long time afterwards. Just for referance you can do a 13x19 for about $2.50 with the highest grade Epsonpaper, the paper alone is about $2. Canon's best is about $1.30 and second best about $0.70. The ink costs are about the same for my Epson or the Canon, actually a little better on the Canon but not much. And of course if you buy bulk you can save also.


Cheers,


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

well, all you need is a bigger gun Brent![img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img], BTW, the the GBH in flight is my favorite.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

JJ...That is exactly what I tell myself every time I buy a lottery ticket [:P]. Someday. For now I plan to make do with what I have and build up all my support gear (filters, tripod, software, etc).


Rich....thanks for the comments. Yesterday was a lot of fun.


Brant

A young Brown pelican portrait from Florida last fall with 1D MKIII and rental 500mm ....iso 400 1/1250 f/8


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/0525.343V1078.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

. so i'm thinking go with the mipx first,


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

---

<span style="font-size: 10px;"]JJ .... I have had great results with Mpix .... they have a great variety of paper and different ways they can mount or frame the finished print .... I think I paid $70 each for the 16 X 20 standouts on their glossy metallic paper. They arrive very professionally packed, in pristine condition and ready to hang on the wall. I was very pleased. I have done some 8 X 10 prints at home on an HP printer and they are nice as well but it would be very expensive to go bigger than 13 X 19 at home, especially if you,re not going to be printing alot of images over time.