Redwing Blackbird Female #2

[Bob Decker]

40D
50-500mm @ 500
ISO 800
1/160
CF tripod w/ sidemount gimbal

RAW conversion vai CS3 ACR with boosts to Clairity, Vibrance & Saturation. Selective unsharp mask and smart sharpening on bird, noise reduction to background via Noiseware, cloning of some limbs, "lens blur" to background in PS.

[Jeff Cashdollar]

Bob,

Nice HA and love the vert crop. Head looks little soft to me, let's see what other think.

ps - I studies this species in a recent Cornell on-one Ornithology class and found their nesting methods fascinating. Thanks for sharing the image.

[Lance Peters]

Hi Bob - agree with Jeff - head does look a tad soft. The foreground OOF branch is unfortunate in the way that it cuts through the leg, sor of makes you look twice to work out whats going on.
Good HA and eye contact.
TFS

[Thanaboon Jearkjirm]

Very nice exposure with detail in white and black, love the feather pattern on the wing and the look back pose is great too. Agree about being a bit soft and the OOF branch intersecting the leg. Nice idea about blurring the background.

[Bob Decker]

I'm not sure where/what I did to bring in the softness. Looking back at the original conversion from RAW it's not there. I decided to crop a bit tighter and did a recrop rather than backing up and redoing some cloning and background blur... wonder if the softness came in from slighting cropping a crop?

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Bob

Hard to say without looking at the original but it is not critically sharp .. tough to make it sharp at 1/160 .. you did increase the ISO to a prudent level !! Best solution for these situations is making multiples then choosing at 100% !!!

[VinceRossi]

Al, what do you mean and how do you do....

Best solution for these situations is making multiples then choosing at 100% !!!

[Jamie Strickland]

he means to take numerous photos and then view them all at 100% and decide which one is the sharpest

I find when I am shooting that low of a shutter speed I could take 5 shots and only one is sharp, then I delete the other 4

agreed on the info above about it being soft

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Bob: this is purely opinion. For several years I beat my head against the wall with this same dilemma. Sorry, if you are using a Tamron 200-500(as I did) or Sigma 50-500 you will not get a sharp image in soft light. In bright sunshine, which I consider terrible for bird photography, you can indeed get quite acceptable image quality. However, in soft low contrast light, the lenses just don't deliver the image detail, even if you use the "sweet spot" as they call it for aperture or focal length. You may very well do everything correctly, as I suspect you have done with this image, and still not have a sharp image. It is maddening, since you naturally attribute failures to your technique. At least that is what I did.
I shoot a Sony A-700, other than the 500mm mirror lens, Sony did not offer anything above 300mm until fairly recently. I was forced to go with Tamron, and I was getting sick of the soft image comments here at BPN! Nonetheless I learned quite a bit about bird photography!
Sony finally came out with with the 70-400G ( a very sharp lens) which I have and softness issues, when they comes up, are only due to technique failure on my part and not the lens.
regards~Bill

[Bob Decker]

Thanks for your input, Bill. I'm actually very aware of the limitations of the equipment I have. My question related to something that apparently happened in post... the original conversion is not nearly as soft as what I posted. Something I did in post resulted in additional softness... or at least made it more noticeable. I have a fairly good idea what that was, but was interested in what others might have to say.

To some extent I'm experimenting with the Sigma 50-500 to see what I can and cannot get away with. f/8.0 seems to be where it starts performing, but I'm not in love with the bokeh... more accurately lack thereof... at that aperature. So by playing around I'm trying to learn in what lighting and contrast situation I can get away with something a bit more open. I'm also trying different long lens techniques to see what works best for what I have. Photographing birds is a very challenging discipline of photography.

I'm not about to drop a few grand on a lens at the moment. If it was something I could also use for my portrait and wedding photography buisness I wouldn't hesitate. But how many situations would one need a 600mm lens to shoot a wedding or make a portrait? Trust me, it's zero. I do nature and avian photography for the joy of it. It would be a difficult genre to derive income from and requires a lot more drive and hustle than I'd be likely to put into it. So for now at least it is a quest that helps keep me passionate about photography... helping to off-set the "burn out" phenomena that can so easily happen when one takes a hobby and turns it into a profession.

Now see, there I go pontificating when I probably just should've shut up. ;)

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Yes, Bob, I thought you knew about it, and I know exactly where you are coming from. I was there, not because I couldn't afford a better lens at the time, but because the manufacturer didn't make one. I'm sure glad I got the lens last year, cause with the economic climate now I'd still be slugging away with the Tamron! There is alot to learn indeed, and image sharpness is but a small part, and when, and if, you can get a better lens you will be way ahead in the game.

I also don't believe that more than 400mm is required for bird photography, as long as it has good optics. The price is much less than a 500mm F4 IS lens, and it can get the job done. Of course I'm in Texas, and where I shoot there aren't many man made barriers, like ropes and fences preventing me from getting close. There are other barriers, like alligators, and deep water, and mud, but with the later some good wading boots work pretty well. Learning behavior of specific species goes a long way to getting full frame shots with a 400mm. I know, I do it all the time.
I also agree with your thought about turning a hobby into a profession and burn out.
best of luck~Bill

[Bob Decker]

I've toyed with the idea of the 400mm f/5.6, Bill. Those are pretty reasonably priced and spoken well of by many photographers. A lot is going to depend on how bookings for 2010 go. I'm in the "booking season" now and much like last year, it's feeling pretty slow. I'm afraid we could be in for a rough ride for a couple more years. :( A 7D is high up on my acquisition list as it would fit well with my business model and be fun for nature photography as well. Again, we'll see how things go.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's always enjoyable to get into things a bit deeper than simiple critiques.

[Jeff Cashdollar]

Bob,

I have the 400MM f/5.6 and it was the starting point for my bird photography. Artie has always had a love for this lens calling it the best flight lens. Anyway, this is just my opinion and I know a good photographer can work wonders with lesser equipment. In my case, this lens helped me take my avian photography to the next level - but that's me. I used it with a 40D and loved the combo. Now with the 7D it is even better. The more my field techniques improve the more my pictures improve too w/o spending $$ as well.

[Gus Cobos]

Hi Bob,
I like this vertical capture. The head angle and eye contact are dead on...agree that the bird is a tad soft. Good advice given...looking forward to your next one...:cool: