joback:
The photos of the Eagle and Osprey were shot with a 5D Mk II at ISO 400. All the shots were at 1/2000s. The first two were shot at F/9; the third one at F/6.3; and the last at F/5.6.
The lens used was a 300 F4L IS with a 1.4X Extender.
Printable View
joback:
The photos of the Eagle and Osprey were shot with a 5D Mk II at ISO 400. All the shots were at 1/2000s. The first two were shot at F/9; the third one at F/6.3; and the last at F/5.6.
The lens used was a 300 F4L IS with a 1.4X Extender.
EdN,
It looks like they were considerably cropped from the original. How much of the original image were those crops taken from?
Fred~
Thanks, EdN: Your results are great.If it was me, I might have gone with a higher ISO to better freeze the action when the subjects were crossing the field of view (rather than coming at the lens).I've pushed my 5D pretty high with my 100-400L and found the results very pleasing. That said, I can't argue with your obvious success!
Fred:
You are so correct. The photos are indeed crops, about the center third of each frame and then reduced to fit the format of this forum.
joback:
Thanks for your comments. When I showed up, the air battle had just got started and my camera and lens was still in my back pack. I got the lens on the body and just tried to follow the action using the pre-set of TV=1/2000s and ISO 400. I didn't have a lot of time to consider higher ISO's or higher shutter speeds because the furball was already in progress. I'll certainly try it in the future.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.27.wildlife/Sandhill-Crane-_2800_female_2900_-1-_2D00_-25.jpg[/img]
I did what some of you guys suggested (this was a few weeks ago). I never had my pictures on RAW, but this one was. Tell me what you think, constructive critisism is always appretiated. Thanks!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.27.wildlife/Sandhill-Crane-_2800_female_2900_-1-_2D00_-25.jpg[/img]
I did what some of you guys suggested (this was a few weeks ago). I never had my pictures on RAW, but this one was. Tell me what you think, constructive critisism is always appretiated. Thanks!
I think the whole reflection of the bird in the water would look cool rather than cutting it off halfway. Maybe that wasn't possible because there was grass instead of water or you could get a wider focal length, but thats just my two cents.
(Maybe leave more of the picture to the right also. It would give the bird someplace to be looking to rather than off the frame)
I like how the nest is in the shot though :)
New to the forums and figured I'd throw up my contribution. Working with the Canon 100mm Macro we recently got, basically a lucky shot.
http://g.virbcdn.com/i/resize_500x50...owingPains.jpg
Stratification: Good job. Some photographers won't admit it, but a lot of our best shots rely on a at least bit of luck. The best way to make Luck your best friend is to practice, practice, practice.Best regards- John
Thanks John, practice I do. I try to get out and shoot every day. I should expand on lucky, I didn't see the Aphid until I had the leaf focused, and didn't see the skin under him until I got it back to my computer. So the best sort of luck, and thanks again.
Here is a picture I just took with my new 70-200 f4.0 L and my 40D
f/4, 1/200 sec, ISO-500, -1.7 step, focal length 200 mm
Please let me know what you think.
http://community.the-digital-picture...29.61/Fire.JPG
Prayharder: Good effort. I see that it's a fire, but it's almost abstract art (in a good way). I don't know if it would be better this way, butpushing the ISO a bit so you can getbetter depth of field might be interesting, too.
Fire can be hard to photograph because you're trying to capture a single moment of something that dances and changes so fast. It can behard to capture the primal emotion you feel around a live firewithin a static photo, not to mention the sound, the heat, and the smells. I have the same problem shooting fireworks. I can getgreat exposures, but something is missing. The emotional impact just isn't there.Usually, it helps to have people in the photo reacting in wonder.
For your fire, a little wider shot that shows some context, such as campers gathered around or the devastation of a forest fire, might help the viewerfeel more drawn & connected to the image.
Yeah, I was going for abstract...and for the coal's to be the focal point...
That is a good idea to push the ISO for a greater depth of field...
This is true that there isn't anything connecting it...I was wanting a bunch of red-hot coals...the fire wasn't big enough for that.
thanks !
Prayharder: That's great--so long as you know I liked it. I enjoy taking "texture" shots to use a backgrounds in desktop publishing and PowerPoint presentations. Your fire photo is cool by itself, but it would also be cool as a background image. I'm always shooting leaves, grass, clouds, sand, walls, pavement, river stones, etc. for that purpose (and for fun). -John O
Speaking of background shots for desktop publishing, I took thisshot of sunlight passing through Japanese maple against a shadowed wall.40D with24-105L at 73mm, ISO 200, f/5.6.[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.83/IMG_5F00_0094.jpg[/img]
prayharder, I see you and I think alike with fire shots... here's one of mine from last year:
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.23/IMG_5F00_2557.jpg[/img]
30D, 70-200 2.8 @ 200mm, f2.8 and 1/50, ISO 100
Me too!
Well, i didn't do nearly as well capturing the embers. The photo doesn't nearly capture the feeling of the fire, but... it was fun taking it [:)]
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n.../FireSmall.jpg
That's cool!
It was really hot too! If I didn't have the camera in front of my face, it would have hurt after a couple seconds. After the fact, I wondered if it was wise to put my camera that close [:)]
If I was doing it all over, I would have just put on the 16-35, opened up the angle, stopped down to about f/8, and done a quick in/out. I was trying to get a sense of envelopment, but I don't think 35mm, even full frame, was quite wide enough. Then again, the proximity required fora 16mm shot might have been damaging to the camera or me.
Colin:
You might try a piece of window glass. There are special types of glass made that reflect or absorb infrared radiation (heat), but even ordinary glass will absorb some heat--that's how greenhouses work. Then, use a fan to blow air on your side of the glass to cool the glass and camera. If I have a chance, I'll get a piece of glass and try it with a burner on my electric stove.
That's a fantastic idea!
Nice shot. Perhaps just a longer lens would work.
A few shots from yesterday:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/...09cf80d4c6.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2462/...7d0fc27205.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3381/...84b1c05122.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2480/...a740c5d9ec.jpg
Nicely done, Dann. Re: longer lens: what lens did you use? The major advantage of a longer lens in macro work is the greater working distance--you can back off more, plus the narrower angle means that you can exclude more background with the same framing/object size in the frame. (See Bryan's review of the Canon macro lenses for examples.)
Sorry, I was referring to the ember pictures. Longer lens would keep you further from harms way. Of course the framing may change a bit and all.
For my pictures, the first few were taken with the Canon 180mm Macro, and the last with the MP-E 65mm. Both lenses are a dream.
That first one is uber duper. I never knew they were so fuzzy. Is that a particular variety of Dragonfly? Is it in fact a dragonfly?
I wanted wide to try to exaggerate the perspective. To really do what I wanted, i think I should have gone with 16mm and framed vertical, and just got in and out fast with continuous shooting and AI servo, or build that contraption with glass and a fan. That'd be neat too.
Dann, the snail (or slug) picture is beast!
I would like to see more of the snail (slug? haha) though. Just an opinion though. I've never shot macro stuff before though so I'm not very knowledgeable about it.
Regardless, they all look amazing! Props to you.
Thanks for the comments.
Re: Colin. It's a damselfly. They have their wings pulled back together rather than out by their sides.
Re: Rodger. I'd have liked to get more of the snail, but I was using the MP-E, so on a crop sensor, anything bigger than 22mm isn't going to fit. I was giong for a different compostion too, since I found the head and leaf more interesting than the shell, which was partially hidden anyway.
Hey Everyone,
Took this picture a few days ago out in the woods. The picture appeared really fuzzy and pixilated on Facebook. Again any suggestions in general would be appretiated. I have my camera set so that it goes from something like f/1 - f/3. I'm still learning :P. Thanks,
Kameron[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.27.wildlife/California-Spotted-Owl-2-_2D00_-53.CR2.jpg[/img]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kam007
What camera and lens do you use? I ask because I don't know a camera and lens that will go to f/1 and I'd like to find one.
Wow! Amazing photos everyone. Here's my share.. Hope you like it as much as I liked it.
Red Dragonfly
been missing a lot of fun lately, seen a lot of great work from this thread, I particularly like Dann's macro shots of the dragonflies...anyways my additions to help pump this thread to the top. These are the Endangered California Least Terns at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve in Huntington Beach, CA.
I would really appreciate your comments, please let me know if I was over the top with the vignette.
40D + 400 f/5.6L, handheld, f/8, 1/1250 sec., ISO 250, Evaluative Metering, Exp. Comp +1/3, Hightlight Tone Priority. I wish there was a catch light on the mommy bird.
http://www.pscvn.org/members/308/6-1...9-37-19_PM.jpg
40D + 400 f/5.6L, handheld, f/7.1, 1/1250 sec., ISO 250, Evaluative Metering, Exp. Comp +1/3, Hightlight Tone Priority
http://www.pscvn.org/members/308/6-1...9-39-01_PM.jpg
Thanks for viewing and you can find the larger versions here.
<span style="color: #810081;"][url="http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9320976&size=lg]http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9320976&size=lg[/url]
<span style="color: #810081;"]<span style="color: #810081;"]http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9321115&size=lg
Those are beautiful! I'm not a photo critique by any means, nor a skilled professional, but those are awesome. I always love your pictures.
IMHO, the vignette might be a bit much. It took me a few seconds to find the little bird in the 1st picture, but thats the picture. Not a major concern. Maybe backing off the vignette would help lighten the baby bird in #1?
-Rodger
Brilliant bird pics - as always! I've come to expect nothing but the best from you. I'd agree about backing off a bit with the vignette. I like my nature shots natural -but thats justa personal preference.
Yeah, I think the vignetting is too much. It almost looks like a night shot and you were using a spot light or something. What were you going for? Also were you shooting through glass or was there something on your lens? The first image looks like it has a smear that goes through the mama Terns left foot.
thanks for the comments
The least terns are endangered so their nesting site is fenced off from the public, I had to shoot through a fence. The ground where they nest isn't that attractive so I try to use the vignette to isolate the subject, perhaps I over did it it. Thanks for the comments.
I think you are right. Those are great, and I think the vignetting does help detract attention from the uninspiring background. If you tune the vignetting down a bit it might be perfect.
Your pics always look so sharp. I'm not sure what it is, because even a chepo lens should be sharp enough that it doesn't matter for small pics like the ones you've posted. I don't think it is the lens. I think it is something you do- lighting, exposure, or processing. Dunno. Maybe you just choose to photograph sharp birds [:)]
Some backyard nature. I put a bird bath outside my office window. (No feeder, yet--I have to figure out how to thwart the neighborhood "rats-with-fluffy-tails," plus am a bit concerned about dropped seeds germinating.) So far, I've only seen jays using the bath. It may be too deep for smaller birds--I'm just learning about this. I'll keep the water lower and will add a smaller, shallower bath, as well.
I keep my Canon S3 IS near my desk to grab shots. These were with the S3 IS in aperture-priority mode at 1/100, f/3.5, ISO 80, FL = 44mm. The S3 IS has a 6x Field of View Crop Factor (FOVCF), so that's equivalent to 264mm for 35mm full-frame or 165mm on a Canon 1.6x camera, though see below.
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi...uejay_bath.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi...after_bath.jpg
When one puts "equivalent to xxxmm full-frame," one should understand that this applies to framing--what is in the image. Other factors may not be equivalent. One very obvious one in the photos above is depth of field. Using the online calculator at DOFMaster, I made a comparison that shows the difference. The actual numbers for the photos above don't show up in the pop-up menus, so I used something close that did:
- Canon PowerShot S3 IS (6x FOVCF) @ 40mm, f/4, 15 ft: 14.2-15.9 ft, total 1.7 ft
- Canon xxD or most Digital Rebels (1.6x FOVCF) @ 150mm, f/4, 15 ft: 14.8-15.2 ft, total 0.45 ft
- Canon 5D or 1Ds or 35mm full-frame @ 240mm, f/4, 15 ft: 14.9-15.1 ft, total 0.27 ft
(Note that the DOFs are in ABOUT the same ratio as the Field of View Crop Factors, though not exactly.)
To get roughly the same total DOF at the same distance, the longer lenses would have to use smaller apertures.
- 1.6x camera @150mm, f/16, 15 ft: 14.2-16 ft, total 1.8 ft (it should be f/15, but that's not in the menu)
- 1x camera @ 240mm, f/25, 15ft: 14.2-15.9 ft, total 1.72 ft (should be f/24, but that's not in the menu)
Note that the aperture multiplies by the inverse of the ratio of FOVCFs. (IOW, multiply the aperture of the 6x camera by 6/1 for the full frame camera, 6/1.6 for the 1.6x camera.)
That shows why point-and-shoot camera have such long DOFs--and why it's difficult to get significant blurring/bokeh from them. The good aspect is that focus is less critical, so most people tend to get "better" shots. This is also why I use the S3 IS (6x FOVCF) for this, rather than my 30D (1.6x FOVCF) or even G9 (4.73x FOVCF).
Another way to get the same DOF with longer lenses on cameras with larger sensors is to back off. Again, the FOVCF comes into play.
- 1.6x camera @ 150mm, f/4, 29 ft: 28.2-29.9 ft, total 1.7 ft
- 1x camera @ 240mm, f/4, 37 ft: 36.2-37.9 ft, total 1.7 ft
Note that the distance is multiplied by the square root of the inverse of the ratio of FOVCFs.
That would, of course, change the perspective quite a bit. (Perspective depends upon the relative location of the "viewer"--camera--and subject, not upon the focal length, FOVCF, etc.)
Another note: DOF depends upon one's definition of "in focus." That's contained in the "circle of confusion" criterion, which is selected considering the magnification of the image at the sensor/film to get to a particular size for viewing on a screen or a print, as well as the viewing distance of the screen/print. What looks "in focus" in a smaller image or when a print is viewed from further away may not look as good in a blown-up (or 100%) image or the print viewed up close. One could choose a different set of circles of confusion and get different DOFs in the calculations, but, if the circles of confusion are chosen consistently for all cameras, the relative results will be the same.
Wow, there are some fantastic shots in this thread. Really great stuff guys. I'm fortunate to live in Pasadena, CA where I can find incredible flowers to shoot simply walking to my front door. I snapped these shots between the car and the house. Used a 5D Mark II with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.33/Pasadena-Rose.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.33/_5F00_MG_5F00_2328.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.33/Yellow-Uprising.jpg[/img]
Sinh: Great shots of the tern & chick. Not only that, you got them doingsignificant behaviors that help tell their life story. I'm not a big fan of makinga natural subject a little bit artificial with this much vignette (yes, maybe les is more).Other than that, I'm quite envious of yourgreat shooting.Sure beatsbasic bird-doing-nothing-on-a-twig!
thanks everyone for commenting on my least tern photo. I definitely won't use that much vignette in the future.
I have some Ospreys images I took in the fall/winter I want to share with you. If you have time please let me know what you like and dislike, thank you.
1. Takenin afoggy morning. 40D &400 f/5.6L, f/5.6, 1/1000, ISO 400http://www.pscvn.org/members/308/5-1...8-26-15_PM.jpg
2. Taken in the afternoon, bird's flying away = no good[:(]. 40D & 400 f/5.6L, f/5.6, 1/2000, ISO 250.
http://www.pscvn.org/members/308/3-3...9-04-12_PM.jpg
Larger versions:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8672049&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8662514&size=lg