Post your best bird shots!

[Richard Lane]

Here are a few excerpts that I took from a burst sequence of 31 shots with the 7D:


EOS 7D: 300mm f/2.8L IS + 1.4X, CPL. AI Servo Tracking, Center AF Zone.


Manual Exposure @ 420mm, f/5.6, 1/1000sec, ISO 100







































This was my 2nd attempt of taking BIF at the Bird Sanctuary in Oceanside, NY, these are from 10-30-2010.


The full 31 shot burst can be seen on Flickr (link below):


The first couple of shots I was waiting for the bird to take off.


The first in flight shot starts at #9411. I left the entire burst sequence intact in number order (no trick photography here []) so you could see the accuracy of the 7D tracking.


I see a lot of keepers here, and perhaps a few are soft, but I think the 7D did a wonderful job.


I'm thinking up the ISO and a faster speed. Please let me know what you think!


http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/5605898593/in/set-72157626467821072/lightbox/


These are best viewed in the lightbox on Flickr.


Very mild PP in Apple Aperture, I'm not very good at editing.


C&C always Welcomed and Appreciated.





Thanks for viewing,


Rich





P.S. "I love this BIF stuff, it's like sports in 3 dimensions, without any boundaries, schedules or shot clocks!"





Now, I gotta get me a bigger lens...!

[Fast Glass]

<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 ....

Very likely, I've never used Mpix so I don't know. I've used Costco, Adorama, B&amp;H and Wall-Mart all of them were pretty good. But my Epson was better than them all.

I think I paid $70 each for the 16 X 20 standouts on their glossy metallic paper.

Wow, that pretty expensive. If you had a printer that could print that wide it would cost WAY less even with OEM ink much cheaper with third party ink.

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 10px"]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.

I'm not sure which printer you used but I had a HP all in one which did decent prints but was more expensive than a much larger print from a printing service. If you use something like a Pro9000, Pro9500 or the Epson R1900 the printing costis MUCH cheaper and there are lot of third party inks that make refills for about $5-$8 a refill if you buy by the quart or more you can get that under $5 a refill. At that cost a printer would pay for itself quite quickly.


Cheers,


John.

[bob williams]

@ John. I agree with you on some respects. I have a Canon 9500 and it prints beautifully; competitive with any pro-prints I have ordered Including MPix. Unfortunately The real cost of a 13x19 print is just too much. I now order from Mpix. Also 13x19 is a very odd frame size and normally requires expensive custom framing.


To explain: two years ago I purchased my 9500. I also bought a box of Canon 13x19 glossy paper (50 sheets). I still have 10 sheets left. Of course I used the print cartridges that came with the printer and I have bought two sets of cartridges since and now need a third set of cartridges. So thats four sets of cartridges and 40 13x19 prints----It seems everytime I do a print, I run out of some color. so $100 in Paper and $ 480 dollars in ink for 40 prints is way too expensive for my tastes---And... if Mpix makes a mistake, no biggy, I just ask for another one (which has never happened). If I make a mistake, I end up with a $15 birdcage liner. So, I am not a fan of do-it-yourself printing for large photos when good labs like Mpix can do large photos cheaper and normally better than I can at home-----of course you do lose that sense of instant gratification which is sometimes worth the cost.


OK, Back to the Birds.


Bob

[ddt0725]

Only an average robin but I thought it turned out pretty good.

[Fast Glass]

Very nice Robin Denise! Photographed well Robins are very nice. And can be very chalenging without a long lens. I think the only thing that might improve it is if you used a flash with the better beamer at a very low flash setting just to elluminate the shadows a little.


AtJohn.


I did some more acurate math on how much it costs to print with my Epson a 13x19. It's $66+s&amp;h for 100ml for each color and I have 13ml per cartridge on my Epson R1900. I get about 6 13x19's on a refill and I can refill about 7.7 times and costs about $1 per print of ink counting shipping. Thats buying in small quantities and is cheaper if you buy in bulk. Thatsfor pigment ink and if the print is not so important dye ink is even cheaper.


I also have a continous ink supply system and have about 100/130 ml for each color so I can get away much longer between refills. I makes it a lot more convinient if you print more or larger prints.


Cheers,


John.

[Andy Stringer]

Only an average robin

Great shot, Denise, but it looks nothing like an average robin to any European viewers. These are average robins, both of whom visited my garden today.




Both shots taken with 1D Mark IV, EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM @f/2.8, 1/1600s, ISO 200

[ddt0725]

@ John - You are right and I also think I got lazy with the post-processing.


@ Andy - Your "robins" are very pretty! Very nice shots &amp; awesome detail!


Denise

[HDNitehawk]

To explain: two years ago I purchased my 9500. I also bought a box of Canon 13x19 glossy paper (50 sheets). I still have 10 sheets left. Of course I used the print cartridges that came with the printer and I have bought two sets of cartridges since and now need a third set of cartridges. So thats four sets of cartridges and 40 13x19 prints----It seems everytime I do a print, I run out of some color. so $100 in Paper and $ 480 dollars in ink for 40 prints is way too expensive for my tastes---And... if Mpix makes a mistake, no biggy, I just ask for another one (which has never happened). If I make a mistake, I end up with a $15 birdcage liner. So, I am not a fan of do-it-yourself printing for large photos when good labs like Mpix can do large photos cheaper and normally better than I can at home-----of course you do lose that sense of instant gratification which is sometimes worth the cost.

Bob


This is what I learned by trial and error and spending a lot of money on ink.


The 9500 sucks up the ink on the glossy prints. Plus on glossy I have just found it to be so so, the pics are just OK not great.


I went the route you did with yours, I bought glossy paper. Printed and replaced a lot of cartriges. Then one day I decided to try some of the premium canon papers, and what I found is that with the Fine Art Papers the 9500 is awesome. I like using the Fine Art Paper "Photo Rag" it seems to give the best results. It seems to use less ink with these papers.


I bought a 9000 a year ago when I got my second 5D II. The 9000 is for gloss, and it has the same wow factor with gloss that the 9500 has with the Fine Art Papers. I use the Photo Paper Pro II with mine.


I have a lot of people that have asked me to print off pictures for them (ones they have taken), and offer to pay for them. I do print them off for them, because I am always flattered that they thought one of my prints were that good that they would want me to print theirs.


If you can get your hands on some "Photo Rag" and have enough ink to try a print or two I would suggest it. If I were wanting glossy's I would have a lab do it, theres will be just as good IMO.


Rick

[Joel Eade]

Only an average robin but I thought it turned out pretty good.

Denise,


I took your image and used the shadow/highlights adjustment in CS5 then added some canvas on the right side and selectively lightened the eye ...what do you think?


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/4061.Untitled_2D00_1.jpg[/img]

[ddt0725]

That is 100% better, Joel! Thanks!! I didn't realize how bad the lighting on it was until John's comment. So, I started working on it last night again myself. This is what I had come up with and I knew it still wasn't just right. I like your version much more and it is what I was trying to come up with! Even what you did to the eye is an improvement which I never would have thought about.