Western Sandpiper

[Arthur Morris]

This worn, molting adult Western was photographed at Fort DeSoto Park on August 5, 2008.

Car as blind with the 600 mm f/4L IS lens, the 1.4X II TC, and the EOS-40D on the BLUBB. ISO 640. Evaluative metering +1 1/3 stops: 1/200 sec. at f/9. Central sensor AI Servo AF on the bird's upper breast..

While this image is relatively sharp, f/9 was a bit much as it robbed me of much needed shutter speed... Why is shutter speed so important with the above combination? Can you say 26.88 magnification? (1344mm effetive focal length is a lot of ammo but remember that all of your errors are mulitplied by the square of the focal length!) Best to keep the beast very still while pushing the shutter button...

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

ps: I cropped a tiny bit more off the bottom than I wanted to as there was something very funky going on with the reflections of the legs...

[Manos Papadomanolakis]

I really like the pose and details!

[Steve Canuel]

Hi Artie,
He may be worn but there's still enough color left in those feathers to keep it interesting. This one gives me a feeling of early morning calm with the water looking like it does. Don't know why but I like the not quite visible right foot getting ready to come out of the water.
Steve

[Michel Bordeleau]

That's a nice picture, colors are very good. I'm very surprised that even at ISO 640 the noise level seem's so low. With my 40D I'm always hesitant to go over 400ISO.Did you use a noise reducer filter if yes which one do you take?

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Did you use a noise reducer filter if yes which one do you take?

Noise reducer filter???? I don't know if any such thing exists. However, over to Artie.

The noise appears to be low. I would also like to know as I hate to shoot at high ISOs. I don't like noise in the shadows at high ISOs in my 40D. And I hate that high ISO noise reduction function in the 40D. Would love to know your views Artie.

I am ok with the reflection being cropped as the reflection appears to be stronger than the birds legs. I would have loved some more sharpness. I like the background. I am ok with the right leg, as it gives a sense of motion.

[Arthur Morris]

I rarely do anything with noise except when we are gonna make a print. Then I usually do NR on the BKGR only using Axel's instructions for PS NR. If I use really high ISOs, I convert using Breezebrowser's High Noise Reduction. I have not pushed the ISO with the 40D as much as I have with the MIII. Noise control with the MIII is insanely good...

[Arthur Morris]

I would have loved some more sharpness.

What looks soft to you? Do you mean more d-o-f, or more sharpening after the fact?

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Sorry I can't put my finger and confidently say what it is. I was somehow feeling that the some of the feathers near the eye and head region doesn't appear to be sharp. Now I think it is more due to d-o-f issues rather than sharpness, as it is not apparent from a smaller file. I copied your shot and just did a hight output sharpening and the artifacts gave an impression of sharpness. So I think this is more due to d-o-f issues. Please educate.

[Michel Bordeleau]

Noise reducer filter???? I don't know if any such thing exists. However, over to Artie.


:confused: Well, I was'nt clear on this one. I was talking about a photoshop filter.

[Arthur Morris]

Sorry I can't put my finger and confidently say what it is. I was somehow feeling that the some of the feathers near the eye and head region doesn't appear to be sharp. Now I think it is more due to d-o-f issues rather than sharpness, as it is not apparent from a smaller file. I copied your shot and just did a hight output sharpening and the artifacts gave an impression of sharpness. So I think this is more due to d-o-f issues. Please educate.

The image looks fine to me. I think that sometimes people feel that a critique must include something negative so they sort of invent stuff...

[Daniel Cadieux]

Although it's a very small detail what makes the image for me is the bird's left wing peeking from behind. Don't know why, but it adds so much :-)

[Raymond Barlow]

The image looks fine to me. I think that sometimes people feel that a critique must include something negative so they sort of invent stuff...

Indeed Artie, seems to be a trend in this forum, unfortunately.

Excellent shot imo, and I agree with you, a higher ss might have given you more keepers, but f9 provided the one superb image, so imo, your techs were right on. Wonderful pose, and detail, considering and knowing how these birds never seem to sit still. (unless there is a pereigrine around) then they are like statues!

[Bonnie Block]

Nice, Artie. I love shorebirds--and know that these guys just don't sit still. I want to know, how on earth did you get such a low angle from the car?

[Lance Peters]

Artie - excellent IMHO.

Agree with your comment about a tad more at the bottom.

:)

[Arthur Morris]

Nice, Artie. I love shorebirds--and know that these guys just don't sit still. I want to know, how on earth did you get such a low angle from the car?

Hi Bonnie, The low angle of declination is a result of the extremely long effective focal length described in the original post. Imagine if you could have walked right up to this bird with a 200mm lens so that the bird filled the same amount of the frame. You would be pointing your lens down about 45 degrees. Now go 40 feet back with an effective focal length of 1344mm. You would only need to point your lens down about ten degrees from the horizontal. Thus, when working with long, long lenses it often looks as if you were almost ont the ground. (And when I am seated in my SUV I am well lower than when I am standing behind my tripod...) (This principle is covered in various places in ABP II.)

[Arthur Morris]

Although it's a very small detail what makes the image for me is the bird's left wing peeking from behind. Don't know why, but it adds so much :-)

It was getting ready to ruffle its feathers.