Goose Landing #1

[Ron Boisvert]

Canon 20D w/ 70-200 f/4, 1.4xTC, @280mm handheld
ISO 400, f/8 @ 1/2500, Av, Auto Exposure, +1/3EV, heavy crop all around, 10:41 am

This is a heavy crop from an 8MP camera, so the sharpness is lacking at this magnification. My purpose for posting this image and one more to follow is to receive feedback on the direction and quality of lighting, the cropping (too tight?), and the body position of the bird. Comments about anything else are also welcome, of course.

Thanks for looking!

[Alfred Forns]

Good looking bird and pose Ron Crop aside you did well !!

Crop wise I would like to see just the bird and sky With a different color/texture fg might go for it btw is this just below the farm fields?

Light could be softer to eliminate the shadow on the wing, sun lower and more to your back Still this is a keeper IMO !! Great wing position and eye contact !! Pose wise only wish bill was not merging with wing etch !! Mighty fine image !!!

[Ron Boisvert]

Alfred, this was taken on the north end of the farm loop. The birds were landing in the corn field across from the canal/ditch, the one just before you get to the big blind.
Thanks for all your comments; all your points are noted and appreciated.
I think the repost should be more to your liking.

[Alfred Forns]

That is what I thought Ron The road is hight there and you can get a perfect sun angle in the morning !!! Sweet looking image !!!!

[Jay Gould]

Well, different views is what makes a horse race. You two are seniors; I am just learning. However, I feel without a bit of ground the image doesn't have context, an anchor. Clearly, if there is going to be some ground showing, it needs to be level. Therefore, here is my suggestion.

[Ron Boisvert]

Hello Jay!!
Senior, huh!?!:eek: I'm learning too, and I don't feel old...:(:D

If I told you that I had a bubble level on my camera for this shot and it was leveled as seen in the first post, would you still want to make the ground horizontal? I'd love to know what others think, too!
Thanks for the repost, mate.

[Jeff Cashdollar]

Direct Sunlight (maybe a tab harsh) - just asking?

Is the anything clipped (e,g, right shoulder)? I was wondering if the (+ EV) was needed with the exposure AV selected, seem solid. Of course, I was not there and you were. I like the shot, love the wing position in landing ,mode. The feathers flying in the wing is great too - well done.

What was you distance to subject?

[Jay Gould]

Hello Jay!!
Senior, huh!?!:eek: I'm learning too, and I don't feel old...:(:D

If I told you that I had a bubble level on my camera for this shot and it was leveled as seen in the first post, would you still want to make the ground horizontal? I'd love to know what others think, too!
Thanks for the repost, mate.

Yes, I would still make the ground horizontal. The eye wants to see things level unless it was a landscape and the uneven ground fit the overall scene. IMHO.

Yes, Senior, I have studied your website; even seniors can learn.

The question: with or without a bit of level ground?

[Ron Boisvert]

Jeff, Absolutely, the light is intense. I don't get to Bosque very often, so I take whatever light I get, shoot all day, and here in New Mexico, it is often very bright. I look at my histogram after the first shot I take of a subject, and if necessary adjust my Ev to push the whites into the 5th box, very often right to the edge. I also have a habit of putting my brightest whites very close to value 245 in PP. The shoulder whites on this one can be brought into line; they're not blown out.

To the best of my knowledge I do not have any software that will retrieve the distance info. I think BreezeBrowser will, but I don't have it. My best guess is that the birds were about 80-90 feet away.

Jay, yup, I'm sure I'll be learning until I draw my last breath. You know the old saying, the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.

I'm not sure I understand your question... I like your post of my image, and the one without the ground too, though I think the extra canvas on the left is an improvement. I see what you mean about it having the ground as an anchor. If I had to choose, it would be the one without the ground.

Thanks for the feedback. It's helping me to see things differently.

Cheers, Ron

[Lance Peters]

Hi Ron - 2nd repost without the bottom for me - the bottom is just too distracting and doesn't add anything to the image for me personally - AL covered the techs - harsh light mentioned - but can completely understand your reasoning - When i visit somewhere that I will only be for a couple of days - I pray like mad for overcast weather :)

Looking forward to seeing more.

[Jeff Cashdollar]

80 to 90 feet with a 280 MM FL, this is a heavy crop. Anyway, nice shot. My point was, you are close to the sunny 16 rule for ISO 400 and I was not sure the +EC comp was needed. I agree, the closer right the better but as you know there is more to it that that, nice picture.

[Kerry Perkins]

Ron, I vote for your repost - feels right to me. I don't think the bit of ground at the bottom provides enough context to be included. Jay, I understand what you were trying to do with your version, but to me it provides even less context and takes away from the composition. Just my opinion, of course...

Just a note on the exposure, Canon DSLRs tend to overexpose in this situation (bright direct sun on white birds) and I find that with my 50D I cannot expose into the fifth box. Even with no blinkies showing, the camera will clip the whites in scenes like this. When the light is not so strong (early morning or late afternoon), I will push the exposure into the fifth box with no problem. The harsh direct light is never going to be your friend. :)

BTW, really nice capture and action shot!!

[Jay Gould]

Just a note on the exposure, Canon DSLRs tend to overexpose in this situation (bright direct sun on white birds) and I find that with my 50D I cannot expose into the fifth box. Even with no blinkies showing, the camera will clip the whites in scenes like this. When the light is not so strong (early morning or late afternoon), I will push the exposure into the fifth box with no problem. The harsh direct light is never going to be your friend. :)

Kerry, this is the histogram from CS4. Please expand on your comment regarding with the 50D not being able to expose into the "fifth box".

[Bob Miller]

Hi Ron.......I vote for your repost without the ground. You sure are getting some nice shots with that 70-200mm...keep them coming!

[Gus Cobos]

A nice capture Ron...I like your repost with just the sky...you have good details and good color rendition...keep them coming...:cool:

[Ron Boisvert]

Hey, welcome back, Gus! Alfred mentioned that he thought you were on vacation, and if you were, I hope it was a great one.

Thanks to Gus, Bob, and Kerry for the feedback. It seems that every image I post gets better due to the suggestions and comments offered in this forum.

Jeff, Kerry,
More often than not I shoot at around +2/3Ev with both the 20D and 50D. Even if I get some small amount of "blinkies", I typically can recover them with ACR. I always try to push my exposures as far to the right as possible. Maybe I'm still too green to know any better, but that's the conventional wisdom I've been following.
Kerry, I can't relate to your experience with your 50D and the fifth box; that hasn't been an issue for me.

[Kerry Perkins]

Jay, I did not say that anything in this image was clipped and you will also see a difference between camera histograms and PS. I also did not say that the 50D was not able to expose into the fifth box. What I am referring to is a specific lighting situation wherein my camera (and other Canons that I have had) will show no "blinkies" but still overexpose. Also understand that overexposure (at least in my parlance) doesn't necessarily mean "255, 255, 255". Pure white feathers start to lose detail at just about 240 in my own images. My camera will consistently overexpose in this situation to the point that my "starting place" in bright sun using AV is at -2/3. I can't find or remember the name of the phenomenon that I am thinking of, but there is a difference between the RAW file data and the JPEG that you see on your camera LCD screen. The overexposure blinkies are using the JPEG data (I believe) and there can be a difference.

Hoping that one of the more experienced digital guys can explain that better than I did, but here is a quote from Uwe Steinmueller of Digital Outback Photo:

"There is one additional complication. The right side of the histogram is not evaluated the same with all cameras. Some cameras are more conservative and show values on the right if there can be still some highlight data be recovered. Other cameras really clip if the values are to the right. You need to learn how to read the histogram of your camera."

Or, I could be totally wrong... :o However, I have seen other posts about this same issue from other shooters. Could just be tolerances in sensors and differences in cameras. Could also be that harsh light is just, well, harsh.