At least I think it is (and a male). We have several and they have looked very scruffy for a few weeks -- molting already? Or are they always scruffy? This was one of the neater ones.
Attracted to a feeder. Canon 5D Mk III, 300mm f/2.8 IS + 1.4x III, Wimberley head, hiding in blind. ISO 800, 1/320, f/13. Basic LR adjustments, then into PS for Nik Detail Extractor and Dfine for denoise (which wasn't much). Full sun. About a 50% crop. If I put the perch closer it's almost at the close-focus distance, and if anything bigger lands its too big to fit in the frame comfortably. So I'll settle for cropping the little ones.
Hi Diane, judging by the sheen on the bird and the angle of the catch light, it was late in the morning. Even though, you handled the harsh light well. Nice pose, details and a very nice smooth BG. Well done
Hi Diane, nice detail in the head considering the crop but I feel the rest of the image suffers from the crop. Full sun hasn't done it any favours IMO, but this is something to try again in better lighting conditions. Try and set up a hide to get closer.
Great details on the bird...light was a bit on the harsh side, but you handled the exposure well and I like the bird's head angle in regards to the light source. Perch is fine, (I have many an image with similar perches), but I think you could try and select something with a bit more complexity...Also, in bright light, a perch like this where the bark has peeled away will have very bright reflective areas that a perch with in tact bark might not have...Very nice details on the bird. For me, this is a bit too tight compositionally, and since it is a 50% crop, a suggestion would be to go with a looser presenation with more room behind and in front of the bird. If you rework it, consider cropping up from the bottom slightly to where the bark is in tact on the perch....
Last edited by Shawn Zierman; 05-24-2013 at 03:04 AM.
Thanks for the comments. It was just before 1 pm, clear day, full sun. I have shade in the setup area morning and late afternoon, full sun mid-day. I prefer to shoot them in shade with two flashes, or to use a fill flash if in sun, but have just had my second MicroSync transmitter fail -- this one brand new. Sigh... For now I'm stuck with one flash at a distance the off-camera cord will reach, which is about 18". (Triggering with the photocell is more trouble than it's worth -- it's blinded by the sun or is at the wrong angle.)
There is room to go back to a less-tight crop. I do think I'll do that -- good suggestion -- thanks. Viewing the forum on my screen, the new larger size feels crowded anyway.
This was from a hide. I have moved the perch closer on occasion, or switched from the 1.4x to the 2x, just for these small birds, but then I have to take a pass on the bigger ones. The perch is only 1-2 ft beyond the close-focus distance for the 300, which is something like 7 ft.
With a sharp image from the 5D3 a 50% crop shouldn't be a significant quality loss. The focus was very sharp to begin with -- in fact, I'm beginning to wonder if sharp focus isn't a problem sometimes, with feather detail. I process in LR and never sharpen beyond the default, nor do I generally sharpen in any PP step -- and didn't in this one. PP was very basic here. But when viewed on a screen there is often a look I don't care for, as sharp details seem to interact with the frequency of the screen dot pitch, or something like that. Maybe that's not what's happening but there is something about feather detail that doesn't seem pleasing. Softer light is better.
I am experimenting with perches and backgrounds with more complexity, without a lot of success so far -- good points raised about this one.
Great detail Diane and a really nice clean bg. I would prefer just a little more room at the tail and maybe some toning down of the brightness at the front of the perch
Thanks -- agreed on the room and the perch. I'm wishing for a little more detail in the BG -- just subtly. But I can't transplant that tree! Birds are a WIP for me.
I'll do a repost tomorrow if I have time but may not get to it -- leaving Sunday for a couple of weeks.
I just figured out how to transplant the tree! (To get it closer for just a little bit more detail.)
No, seriously -- I have another perch setup about twice the distance as the small bird perch, to lure larger birds like woodpeckers, bluejays and quails. I have noticed that when shooting these subjects I have a little more detail in that is basically the same BG. The distance from the camera to the subject has changed from about 8 ft to maybe 16 ft, and the BG tree is probably 200 ft away. But that's enough difference for some subtle increase in its detail. So -- I could just tweak the focus a little farther away with no bird on the perch and shoot a "background frame" which I could incorporate with a mask into a bird shot where the BG is a little too boring for me. I wouldn't try to make the mask precise around the bird -- the BG changes would be subtle so I would leave the original BG close to the bird. (I love creamy BGs but if there isn't a lot happening with the bird and perch, sometimes a little more action in the BG is nice.
A focus stack with a bird shot -- is that immoral? For a nature competition, definitely, but for art and illustration, not by my standards. It's less of a departure from the truth than compositing a moon, which I have been known to do (with disclosure). It has to be one shot the same time and location, with the light angle correct.
I really enjoy the flexability of a zoom lens when shooting a feeder scenario from a generally fixed shooting position.
The size of birds is less of an issue when you are able to zoom in and out...
Lesser Goldfinch
Reply With Quote
