Coppery-headed emerald, shallow DOF

[Greg Basco]

We're all pretty used to multiple-flash hummingbird images by now, so I wanted to experiment with something a little different. So, I chose an open aperture and set up my branch to run all the way through the frame. The trick was getting the birds to go to the right clump of flowers! Lighting was set up to simulate the muted, filtered sunlight in the cloud forest.

This is a coppery-headed emerald visiting native epiphyte flowers in the Ericaceae (blueberry/cranberry) family.

85882

Tech: Was shooting with a friend so we used his Nikon equipment. Nikon D700, Nikon 70-200 f2.8, f4, 1/200, ISO 250, four SB-600s, tripod, artificial background

Field: Setup near feeder, flower baited with sugar water, highlands of Costa Rica

Post: Full-frame, a bit of saturation in Lightroom, and that's it

[Doug Brown]

I really like the position of the bird, with a great view of the wings, tail feathers, and eye. I admire the way you are always pushing the envelope Greg! I think you're onto something here, but this particular image has a couple of issues IMO. The OOF flower in the foreground looms a little too large in the frame. And I would have liked the entire bird to be in focus; this could probably be dealt with using some selective sharpening of the back feathers in CS. I do like the OOF flowers in the BG though.

[Stu Bowie]

Greg, excellent hovering posture, and I really like the DOF effect here. Can I ask, the light in this, is from actual lights, ( and not flash ) Either way, the colours have turned out exceptionally well. Great work.

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Stuart. Thanks very much for your comments. This is all flash; no ambient light influenced the exposure at all. It was a dreary day, so even opening things up to f4 didn't let in any light. Thus the effective shutter speed was not 1/200 but rather the duration of the flashes (can't remember what power the flashes were set at, but the flash duration was probably between 1/10,000 and 1/20,000).

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Stu Bowie]

Thanks Greg. I realise no natural light was involved, but only wondered if 'coloured lights' were used instead of flash, but you have explained everything. Cheers.

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Stuart. Sorry for the redundant explanation. I didn't know if you were familiar with the whole multi-flash hummingbird thing. In any case, yes, just the straight Nikon Speedlights.

Cheers,
Greg

[Joe Senzatimore]

I agree on the flower in the FG being a distraction. Otherwise love the image.

[John Wright]

I think it's a great effect! I'm sorry, but I have to disagree about the FG flower distraction - I feel it helps with the perspective of the shot and am fine with it - guess it's just a case of personal choice.

[Greg Basco]

Hi, and thanks very much for your comments. Doug, I was intrigued by your comment about that out of focus flower. To me, that's what makes the composition. My eye hits that flower first and then progresses to the in-focus flowers and the bird and then continues back to the next clump and then the final clump. But, just for kicks, I cloned out the flower and cloned in the branch in Photoshop. Here's what they look like side by side.

85923

I realize the pics are small and the Photoshop work is awful but when I look at composition I'm looking simply at shapes and colors so I don't think details matter here. Upon comparing the two, I stick with my original composition as I just don't think the image flows as well in terms of utilizing the entire canvas without that first clump of flowers.

I'd be interested to read what others think.

Cheers,
Greg

[Keith Bauer]

Hi Greg: I saw this post and have followed the thread and conversation. Looking at the two images you posted in this latest reply, the one on the right feels odd and unbalanced. That said, the flower on the left bothers me as well. While it does balance the composition, for me it is the intensity of the colors in that large OOF area that tend to draw me a away from the main subject. I'm wondering if selectively desaturating and bringing the luminosity of that foreground group of flowers down would help. It is an intriguing image. Not one that most of us would think to set up and shoot.

[Doug Brown]

Doug, I was intrigued by your comment about that out of focus flower. To me, that's what makes the composition. My eye hits that flower first and then progresses to the in-focus flowers and the bird and then continues back to the next clump and then the final clump.

I like the concept Greg. It's just that for me, the foreground OOF flower tends to hold my attention due to its size and brightness/saturation. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a flower in the foreground. For this particular image to work for me it just needs to be less prominent.

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Doug. As Ron Burgundy said in the classic cinematic masterpiece Anchorman -- agree to disagree :)

I do appreciate your comment though, because it was good to really go back and look at that with a critical eye to consider this for future images.

Keith, your suggestion to tone down that first clump may be a good compromise.

Cheers,
Greg