This is the first decent eagle shot with my Canon 500mm F/4 ll with 1.4 extender. Significant crop. Canon 5D Mark lll, 1/800, f/14. ISO 1000. I debated cropping out branches on top. Does it frame the eagle or distract?
Nice shot...I photograph eagles often and always get a huge rush during the process...my heart just races when ever I see them. I would crop off the distracting branches on the top....fading to blue sky and some off the bottom too...tighter with more focus on the subject. Large crops are often associate with these guys....sitting high in the trees or close to a water source looking for food. As a general rule we like the subject to represent at least 15/20% of the frame before cropping.
Good pose, clean eye, great HA and complementary habitat...sharper is always better the large crop probably hurt you here....was this HH or tripod?
Might take a tad off the right side as well....try the piece of paper drill. Take a piece of notebook paper and place it over the monitor and find the most pleasing view and crop accordingly.
Thanks for posting...do you have any more eagles...these are great.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 08-09-2013 at 04:14 PM.
Good suggestions by Jeff, the large crop has probably made this a little soft. You could have opened that aperture to about f8 and gotten a lot more SS, especially if this was HH. If the pine boughs were not right behind the eagles head I think that the upper branches would make a nice frame, as is when I scroll away the upper branches it looks better. Still a good shot of a magnificent bird.
Hi Dick- They are a thrilling bird to photography aren't they!
Agree, the 500/4II and 1.4tc is capable of more IQ. It must be the "significant crop" that has hurt here. I would crop less and give the bird a bit more room in the frame. Light is coming from the right (90°?) with the result that the left side of the bird is in shadow. It would be better to try for a more even lighting by moving such that the sun is more behind you.
I notice your exposure techs and the F14 stands out (same for Jack above). The 500/4II and the 1.4tc III (not sure you are using this version) combo is outstandingly sharp wide open (f5.6) and with a relatively flat subject like this you could have used f5.6, f8 or somewhere in between. Then you could have lowered your ISO setting and used a higher shutter speed.
Thanks Jeff, Jack, and John for the valuable input. Three issues on softness. These shots were handheld. The rule of thumb for handheld shots is the SS should at least be as fast as the mm of the lens. This lens is also suppose to have a 4 stop IS. At 1/800 of a second, am I not safe from camera shake. If so, would it not be better to reduce ISO with the extra light? The second issue is the 1.4 extender. This is the older ll extender. My test shots have been inconclusive as to rather I am getting softer images with this versus at newer lll extender. I have read conflict info on the web about this issue. The cost of a lll extender would be a drop in the bucker compared to the cost of the lens, but I don't want to buy one if it doesn't help. What do you think? The third issue is the size of the crop in PP. I would estimate that the crop here is 5-10% of the full frame. (below the 15-20% minimum crop). I do have a 2x extender lll. If I can't get closer to the subject, would I be better off using the 2x extender and cropping less? The other way to get more reach is with a crop camera. I have been waffling on buying a used 7D with its 18mp, 1.6 crop. This would give me more pixels to work with on any crop. ( I do need a back up camera. My 5D mark lll has been back to Canon warranty repair twice and both times they replaced the circuit board).
I have attached another shot in the same sequence. On this one the eagle's head is turned slightly towards me and I do pick up slight catch light in his eye. The SS on this was 1/1250 at f/11 and 1000 ISO. This was about the same crop as the other shot I posted. I studied this on my 27 inch Apple monitor for sharpness. It seems to me that the sharpness around the eye and beak is perfect as well as the pine needles below the bird. The feathers could be a little soft, but maybe that is the nature of feathers. What do you think? The white on the head looks like it could have blown out in a few places, but does not show on the histogram. I am quite sure that I nailed the focus point on the head of the bird on most of my shots in this sequence. I can see where the focus point is on my camera review, but not in PP on Lightroom 4. I wish Adobe would include that feature in Lightroom as Aperture does.
I am learning this craft and I find it challenging and exciting. Thanks for your patients. I will never be a pro or semi pro, but I want to be the best I can be as an amateur. That is the reason I won't wait until I get a perfect shot before posting here.
Hi Dick, based on the above image & reply here are just a few more thoughts that might be worth considering:
Yes the 'rule of thumb' has been the SS should be similar to the lens ie 500mm lens 1/500sec, but these days you can get away with a lot more and so 1/800 you should be OK, especially with the new 500. There are other things you may also like to consider like making sure it's all sitting well and you are braced nicely, a bit like a rifle, plus think about controlling your breathing too, something easily over looked, but can make a difference.
Regarding extenders all they do is magnify the image, nothing more, nothing less. IMHO the 1.4III has a slight advantage, however the 2xIII certainly on the 1DX blows it's older brother out of the water and I have no fear in shooting with it even ISO2500+, the IQ is there. The olny things to remember is you will shoot at f/8 and only have one focus point to work with, so there is a trade off. If you use a 300f/2.8 coupled with the 2x you will have all FP available. Personally I am not a great lover of the 7D and have only seen a few good images produced and I do not think it is as forgiving in the Exposure department compared to others, but budgets may dictate the route you take. Rumours have been out for a long time about a new one being launch, when that might be, well...
Looking at the image here are few of my thoughts:
I assume you will have loaded Canons DPP, just open the image in that and go cmd I this will give you exactly where the FP was on the image in a larger format to view, however you are spot on if you have placed it on the eye. Certainly f/11 is better than f/14, but again, you could I feel have shot a little wider, but all personal preference, but this in turn would have upped your SS. The image does seem quite saturate, especially with red, you can see it in the blue of the sky and subject. Canon can push the Reds & Yellows, Nikon goes green & Blues, but this is all mangable and easily corrected if required in the RAW. Yes some of the white areas in the head are blown, this might be from PP work if you are saying they were not in the original capture, also the image looks dark. Try to exposure more to the right of the Histogram, but watching for blown highlights. The more information you can capture the better. Having taken the image Dick I also added more sharpening to it in key parts, you will see the image is sharp, therefore you may wish to review parts of your Workflow. Personally I think you are capturing it in camera, you just need to perhaps hone some areas within your processing.
As I have said many times, you can capture the image perfectly, however processing an image can make or break it, take time, you owe it to yourself and the subject, as it sometimes can take some time to achieve that shot.
Good luck.
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Thanks Steve for the good advice. I did not have DPP on my computer, but do now. I found the focus point and it is on the end of the beak, which probably as good as any place on the head of the bird. I don't know how I would work DPP into my workflow. To find where the FP is I had to export the photo from LR. That is OK, but probably would only do when I really wanted to know where FP was. The eagle definitely looks better with some extra sharpening. What tool do you use to selectively sharpen the subject? I agree with you the blue does look over saturated. I never touch the saturation slider only the vibrance slider. I now realized that the vibrance slider over did the blues... When i bring the exposure down on the white head the detail comes back so I probably did loose it in PP.
Hi Dick, we all have different ways in which we work, likewise out choice of RAW converter, however I too like LR & PS. At least you know where to find the FP if you are ever in doubt. No tool as such Dick, only USM in PS. Good to know you had the detail in the head.
cheers
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Eagle with new lens
Dick Huberty thanked for this post
Posting Permissions
