Bald Eagle Fly By

[Paul Kammen]

First time out this year after finally having some decent weather and a little time, this is a nearby spot where bald eagles are found throughout the winter in Red Wing, Minnesota.

This guy had a fish as he flew by.

Thanks for any comments.

5D Mark IV, ISO 400, 1/1000, f. 5.6.

[Dorian Anderson]

The pose and action are fantastic, but the image quality is really, really suffering from noise. How heavy a crop is this? It must represent only a fraction of the frame.

1/1000 generally isn't enough to freeze action like this. You should have been at ISO 800 to give for a shutter of 1/2000. Problem is that noise would have been twice as bad.
Bottom line is you need a closer subject.

Also, the bird is way too high in the frame. I don't see any reason to make this a vertical crop.

[arash_hazeghi]

I agree the IQ has ruined this one

no way on earth a 5D4 is that noisy at ISO 400, 800 or even 1600 even if you cropped 50% out. was the original underexposed and then pulled up in post? was the original sharp? what lens were you using?

TFS

[gail bisson]

The BG and the light are beautiful and dramatic but the IQ on the eagle is not good at all.
Did you have to raise the exposure significantly? Is this a big crop? Eagle not tack sharp which exacerbates the IQ issues.
I would definitely go back to this location and try again,
Gail

[Jonathan Ashton]

Nice try but I strongly suspect the image was underexposed - perhaps you were doing so to avoid blowing the whites????

[Paul Kammen]

Appreciate the feedback. It was my first time shooting with the set-up. I shoot with an 800 5.6, and am awaiting the 1DX III which will be my primary camera with the 800.

Here's another from the afternoon, I think I cropped too much on the one above. Thanks for any added input.

184684

[Paul Kammen]

I think the issue may have been too much cropping perhaps; this file is larger, cropped less, and at ISO 2000, but seems a little sharper to me.

184685

[Alex Becker]

You've gotten some good critique above on the original image. The 2nd image looks a bit better but not killer details and some of the HLs are hot on the head. You can see some selection artifacts on the nearest wing. The 3rd image looks really noisy -- did you have to pull the shadows up a lot? It may be worth posting the original file with no edits / crop applied and see what folks have to say. TFS

[Paul Kammen]

You've gotten some good critique above on the original image. The 2nd image looks a bit better but not killer details and some of the HLs are hot on the head. You can see some selection artifacts on the nearest wing. The 3rd image looks really noisy -- did you have to pull the shadows up a lot? It may be worth posting the original file with no edits / crop applied and see what folks have to say. TFS

Hi Alex,
Thanks, I think it was just a matter of being a little far out, and using too much texture and clarity on PS RAW, and perhaps too much on the shadows.

This was my first time out with the 5D IV, which I'll have as a back up to the 1DX III when it arrives, so was just using it for the first time. I don't think it's the camera or lens as the lens has been great over the years.

Here's one more that I think is more clean, higher ISO at 2500 too.

184691

[Paul Kammen]

Here's the eagle against the sky; seems cleaner to me. 1/1000, ISO 250, with the 1.4III extender.

184692

[dankearl]

The last one at 1/1000 is too slow and not sharp.. Pane 9 is the only sharp one you have posted and it is really noisy.
A 30% crop of a D500 at iso6400 looks better than this. I can't really say if it is the camera, You don't post an out of camera
full frame shot we be look at. If you do that, I think maybe I can help.

[arash_hazeghi]

I agree it has nothing to do with cropping as Dan said


I think the main issues are the following in severity

soft focus : focus did not quite lock on the eagle in any of these shots, the RAW is soft and sharpening will just aggravate the noise.
slow ss: 1/1000 sec is too slow for most of these and BIF in general, the bird will be soft from motion blur. I recommend at least 1/1600 sec.
raising of the shadows: the light angle was not good, (back lit ans side lit) casting very deep shadows, these areas have no detail and will looks very noisy as you raise the exposure

With careful processing you can improve all of these a bit but at the end of the day they won't be keepers unfortunately because of poor RAW quality.

hope this helps

[Paul Kammen]

I agree it has nothing to do with cropping as Dan said


I think the main issues are the following in severity

soft focus : focus did not quite lock on the eagle in any of these shots, the RAW is soft and sharpening will just aggravate the noise.
slow ss: 1/1000 sec is too slow for most of these and BIF in general, the bird will be soft from motion blur. I recommend at least 1/1600 sec.
raising of the shadows: the light angle was not good, (back lit ans side lit) casting very deep shadows, these areas have no detail and will looks very noisy as you raise the exposure

With careful processing you can improve all of these a bit but at the end of the day they won't be keepers unfortunately because of poor RAW quality.

hope this helps

Thanks, much appreciate the feedback.

It had nothing to do with these photos, but I actually opted today to move to Nikon. I purchased a D500 body, an 800 refurbished, and 80-400 from a private party on Artie's blog. Will have them micro adjusted next week and will be curious how it compares to the 7DII which had been my primary set-up. I couldn't pass up the price on the 800 so hopefully it won't be a bust and I can learn Nikon.

Of course I purchased the Nikon book from Artie's store too.

So as of today, I'm a Nikon guy. A little nervous jumping over, but anxious to get out with the new rig in a few weeks and go chase the owls.

Paul