How do you make birds stand out in color?

Between rain showers Saturday, I was going outside and practicing my panning by taking pics of birds flying in and out of the barn. I was really proud of my 7D and it's ability to hang in there (as far as focus goes) while I was trying to keep up with them. The first is just a shot for the "focus proving" grounds. I had my 70-200 set at 200. As fast as he was going and darting in and out of trees, it still held focus that far out on something so small. The one below that is a crop done in LR3 so you can see the bird.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.40.90/20100424_2D00_IMG_5F00_0850.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.40.90/20100424_2D00_IMG_5F00_0850_2D00_2.jpg[/img]


My big question is how do you guys keep the birds looking so good as far as color goes. Mine always come out skanky. I know how the light hits off of them is huge, and everyone shoots manual at high speeds. I'm iffy on the aperture and assume 2.8 is okay on a lens like this but drives the shutter up WAAAY high. The white balance prolly has the most to do with it I guess. I'd meter the sky, but never know which way the buggers are coming or going. Here's a pic of what I end up getting. I'd love to see more of his head without PS'ing something fake in there. INFO:70-200 set on 200mm @2.8 ISO 100, 1/5000 sec.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.40.90/20100424_2D00_IMG_5F00_0825.jpg[/img]

Here I edited your last photo for you, I used levels and a slight tone curve and barely a touch of saturation and sharpening in DPP.You Need to expose your shots a lot more so there are just highlight holding. Then you will have much better colors.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/untitled.JPG[/img]





John.

I use Photoshop CS4, in the Lab color mode. This will allow you to control the colors without dramatically changing the brightness of the image. Not everyone has the full Photoshop program, but it gives you much more control of the colors, rather than relying on strictly saturation tweaking.


Lab color mode takes some getting used to, especially when using "curves," but it can really "pop" the colors on animals and landscapes.

I'm not sure I really understand your question, but I'll try to answer it anyway.


1. Your two photos are underexposed, it seems you needed a lower shutter speed. When I'm in a situation when I'm not sure where I'll be and how/what I'll be shooting, I set my 7D to full auto mode. It can be very useful.


2. Yes, white balance has a lot to do with it. Use AWB is you're not sure how to set it; but on a rainy day set the WB to "cloudy". This will help bring out better colors even on bleak days.


3. For Birds in Flight shooting f/2.8 is unnecessary, often bad. At f/2.8 many shots won't keep the entire bird in focus, especially with larger birds of prey. f/4-f/9 are the commonly used BIF apertures. If you're shooting at 1/5000, you need to stop down. Even for stopping the fastest action 1/1600 to 1/3200 is enough.


4. Nobody can bring out good colors in a bird from a picture that is cropped so far. Cropping like that immediately deletes detail from an image. These birds are barn swallows – very small, quick birds that can be very hard to shoot in flight, let alone in a rainstorm. If anybodytried to shoot a flying barn swallow at that distance at 200mm in a rainstorm, they wouldn't be able to bring out good colors too easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

My big question is how do you guys keep the birds looking so good as far as color goes

---

(I, at least) select the best White Balance or Kelvin temperature that I can, avoid nasty shadows, and find situations where making a nice image is easier than average. Shooting songbirds in flight is enormously difficult. With a 200mm lens? More difficult. When they're far away and in a rainstorm? The chances of Arthur Morris or Alan murphy being able to make a good image out of that would be astronomical.


IMO Photoshop can improve a good image, but it can't create a good image out of nothing.


Looking at your images of the goose, bee, and dog in your bio it seems you don't have a problem with exposure (they're pretty well executed), but it seems like in this particular shoot you might have bitten off more than you could chew.


I hope I've (sort of) answered your question. I apologize If because of my lack of understanding your question I came off rudely; just trying to help.


Good Luck !


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

The chances of Arthur Morris or Alan murphy being able to make a good image out of that would be astronomical.

---

I wouldn't say astronomical but it would be difficult for sure. If you were to use aCanon 800mm and a 1D IV and the skill of Arthur Morris or Alan Murphy they would probablly get Nat Geo quality shots, abeit at a low keeper rate.


A cheap way out is to use a 2X extender to gain some more focal length, butIQ will suffer a bit and AF will be slower. But overall would be better.


John.

Thanks for your answers and photos adjustments guys. I've never heard of Lab mode before in CS4 or at least nobody ever talked about it. I'm hoping to take some classes this summer, and with the student discount, get my very own CS program. Right now I'm just able to use LR3 and that is because it's free. And, no brendan, I didn't take offense. Glad you liked my deformed goose andperfectly focuseddogtail. As I was typing this, an eagle flew bythe window! There just taunting me now. Back on topic, I know this picture is hopeless to work with, but was needing guidance on settings to use in the future.


As far as distance goes, I was pretty far off just to see if I could keep them inmy lens,and had to crop so you could see what I was talking about as far as color,ect., and Irealize shouldn't expect to get detail from so far away. I knew 1/5000 was entirely too fast and will switch to F4-9 as mentioned. I had my metering set on Center-weighted. Should it have be spot or just increase the exposer to keep the head from missing so much information and whatever happens to the clouds just happens?


It's my first time doing flying birds ( crappy day for most anything else)and was just trying to see if it was possible for me. Didn't realize it was the worst time ever to do it:) Not just the rain and clouds, but every third shot had them pooping. Thought it was dust on my lens until I blew it up. I've never heard of Mr. Morris or Mr. Murphy, but I guess I need to.


Thanks again folks for your input!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

And, no brendan, I didn't take offense. Glad you liked my deformed goose andperfectly focuseddogtail. As I was typing this, an eagle flew bythe window!

---

You have a funny sense of humor.


Anyways, I know exactly what you mean; I'll disassemble my camera out of frustration and then a whitetail deer will walk right by [8-|]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

but every third shot had them pooping.

---

they do a lot of that. [<:o)]

It's raining again here. [:(][8o|][N][:'(][co]

Some people use flash to fill light the bird. There is severe backlighting, and the sky will be overexposed if you adjust your exposure to make the bird look better. I've ordered a "Better Beamer" attachment for my EX580 II flash to see if it helps me.


You need a longer lens, but then lenses are never long enough. Smaller aperture to keep the bird in focus as well. capturing a barn swallow in flight is just plain difficult in any event. I haven't even tried that.

I was driving home after reading the answers I got from the post (as I have no internet at home), and it hit me. I thought of a picture I saw ages ago in a grade school science book I think. It had a red apple with a green light shining on it and we had to guess what color it was going to look like. I pasted that thought in my head with what you guys were saying about how hard it would be to get the colors to act right in such crappy weather and everything made sense. A white feather is going to reflect whatever light you throw at it, but if you only shine a blue light at it, that's all your going to get back. The good news is I only wasted a crappy day in the learning process. Next weekend I'll get closer (assuming the ground is firm enough past the gate I was standing at) and do it for real with it in manual, WB on possibly cloudy or AWB, Apeture around 8, shutter around 1/1000 sec., and a get little sun on their bellies! Can't wait.
Can I sneak in a FORUM question in here too? Are the pictures I put in forums tied directly to the ones I uploaded to my folder? What I'm getting at is if I start deleting some "junk" pics out of my folder, will the thread I used them in still have them or will it be a big red "x" in it's place, or is the information for that thread stored somewhere else?


Scaleusa, I'm going to be getting a flash...someday... when I'm not broke. Will it reach that far? I'm pretty new to all this. I guess it will. Twenty feet is all it would have to go and that should be do-able.


For any else stupid enough to shoot birds like this, turn your camera portraitstyle. I kept loosing the dudes when they would cut back away from my left eye. Shooting it the other way gave me more sight to the right. This is prolly pasted in every book about birds. I don't know. I tend to learn things the hard way:)

The keys to make bird images stand out in colors are having good light and good clean background!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

The chances of Arthur Morris or Alan murphy being able to make a good image out of that would be astronomical.

---

I think Arthur Morris would look for a spot where he'd have the birds in front of him, and the sun and wind behind him. Because he'd have studied the map of where he was, he'd keep walking until he arrived at a spot that gave him that alignment (predominantly). Because he'd have studied the data of where he was, he'd know the sunrise/sunset times, predominant wind, likely spots, etc., and would then set up the longest lens he'd brought (probably the 800/5.6) on tripod, 400/5.6 on a shoulder, 70-200 on a third body somewhere within reach, and a 24-105 or 16-35 (lens only) in his vest. He'd also choose an amount of exposure compensation based on the notes in his books, or perhaps manual exposure if the camera meter is too dumb to get it right (with EC).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

Scaleusa, I'm going to be getting a flash...someday... when I'm not broke. Will it reach that far? I'm pretty new to all this. I guess it will. Twenty feet is all it would have to go and that should be do-able.



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

---

There is a simple tool to attach to your flash called the better beamer. i've read about it, but never used one until today. It increases the range of your flash by about 3X by focusing the light into a tighter beam. They cost about $40.00.


When mine came in the mail this morning, I tried it out right away. It does fill in nicely, which is necessary if there are shadows.





Here is a shot without flash. Bright sun, harsh lighting with lots of shadows, no matter how hard I tried to minimize them in lightroom.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/...f8c34afe_o.jpg








The second one is taken with the flash, and shadows are much less of a issue, even with no manipulation.



http://mt-spokane-photography.smugmu...4_ZMbR4-XL.jpg

That's INSANE!!! Same time of day and everything? HUGE difference. I guess I could put off a double cheeseburger or two to help pay for one. Are there any negative effects to using one? I'm sure it would focus the light to much to use on something right in front of you, but birds at a distance...sounds all good:)

They were taken a few minutes apart. What happened was that my batteries on the flash were weak, and ran down so that a few shots did not get flash until I realized what was happening. With your eye to the viewfinder, you can't see the flash. It is hard to see in bright sunlight even if you are looking for it.

Ordered my beamer Thursday on your advice. Thanks for the tip.

scalesusa, I love your flash shot. It's incredibly sharp, and your depth of field is bang-on. I would suggest one quick post-processing fix: Eliminate one of the two sparkles in the eye. A double sparkle looks a bit alien to me, and it also makes it obvious that you used artificial lighting. Just my personal taste. Cheers.

Thanks for your helpful comment. I revised the photo. It was taken with my new 100-400mm lens with 1.4X TC. Focuses kind of slowly on my MK III, but it can be used. With the TC and all, it is actually f14, but the background is nicely blurred becaus it is quite a way behind the bird.