Canon 5D Mk III, 600mm II + 25mm extender for closer focus. Big Gitzo with Wimberley II. ISO 1600, f/13, 1/500 sec. Attracted to a feeder. Cropped to 60% of full frame. Basic LR tonal adjustments then to PS CS6 for some edge burning, especially on the perch. That's it -- no NR needed (I felt). Slightly soft light from some broken clouds -- it's finally raining out here, but too little too late unless it continues through the normal dry season of summer.
Not a lot of color in these guys or in the lichen-covered winter tree in the BG. (Well.... what passes for winter out here...)
C&C always appreciated.
Hmmmm -- I meant to crop the posted version a little from the top -- visualize it.
Last edited by Diane Miller; 02-27-2014 at 09:58 PM.
Excellent sharpness and look-back pose, Diane. The mottled bg is also nice.
In a set up situation, I typically like go set my perch parallel to the back of the camera. Daintier, more adorned perches often work well too (if they appear natural enough in the environment)
Hope you folks get some consistent rain.
Very nice Diane. I don't think it needs any noise reduction on the background. I like the lichen covered perch.
Did you sharpen the bird, I am just wondering if the feathers on the breast are slightly over sharp? Just trying to learn how much to sharpen my own images rather then questioning yours, so please don't feel you can't say there is nothing wrong with them.
Looks like you've got yourself a good set-up for these guys! In general, I don't mind non-parallel perches, but in this case I'm not a fan of it going through the neck of the bird. Just personal preference. Keep shooting these guys (and keep sharing!)
I'm a big fan of sparrows so this has got my attention! I love the pose you got here, and the perch and BG are very nice. I would not crop more from the top and I would add back a tad at right if you have it. Focus does seem to be on the chest area - you could either sharpen the face more for web, or soften the sharpening on the chest/breast....
Really nice image that has me eager to photograph some of the summer residents here.
Diane, This is a very nice image indeed. The texture and colors of the perch go so well with the background and the bird, it seems almost as if they were painted that way. The pose works well and it looks sharp enough in the right spots to balance out as Daniel suggested. The eye looks crisp as does the chest area, is the DoF that shallow with the 600 and extension tube? (The 300 F4 has a notoriously shallow DoF when close focusing). Well done!
Thanks for the comments, guys! I'm always tweaking perches -- it's a learning curve like all the rest of this stuff! I'll try one more parallel next time -- a concern is that it makes it less likely to get a side-on view of the bird, which helps with DOF issues. But I do like a variety of poses.
Iain, the small JPEG rarely represents the detail of the original, at least for me. Sometimes sharpening it after it's created can help, but that seems to be the most help for shots that are a little soft to begin with.
Looks like I neglected to say, the OP is 60% of the full frame. These little guys fidget around so much that I pull back a little to give myself more room so I'm not as likely to cut off a tail or the like. Hard to watch the focus point and the edges at the same time! So I do have more on the right, Daniel. Will give it a look.
Here are two 100% views of the original file in Lightroom (after tonal adjustments there). They were exported with no sharpening so should represent what I see in the LR Loupe view. Of course with browsers ability to zoom, it might not be at 100% (where 1 pixel in the image is mapped to 1 pixel on your screen) for every viewer -- I don't know how to know when I'm not zoomed, unless that's the way the browser always starts. Sharpening was at the default 25 and no NR. The breast feathers do look odd in the JPEG.
Randall, I "think" all the variables with DOF come down to simple magnification, so as I get closer to a small bird, DOF declines equally for different lens setups. My min. focus dist with the bare 600 is 15 ft and the 25mm extension only brings it down to about 12 ft, and I was probably at about 13 ft with this setup. If I recall correctly, when I add the 12mm to the 25mm, focus is slow and unreliable with the 5D III with a moving subject; it acts like it does with the 2X TC.
Diane interesting debate re the sharping ,so I will add my bit so that I can also learn, the breast does look a bit sharper than the head, but it's good to read your reply on this,I do like the pose and the nice clean bg and that's a cracking little bird.
It's a bit confusing to my eye. The enlargement confirms the eye appears to be tack sharp, along with the breast feathers. At first I thought it was because both areas seemed to be on the focal plane and a super shallow DoF might have been why the back and top of the head looks softer (small image). Maybe it's the way the light is hitting the feather edges, maybe it's because the chest feathers are not laying as flat, so they appear sharper.
I'm not very familiar with the super technical aspects that might affect IQ. When something doesn't make sense, I tend to search for plausible reasons that seem to explain what I'm seeing to some degree. Diane, 1/500 seems to be borderline for the rig used. Even though it's the reciprocal of the FL, the lens has incredible IS (from reviews) and a tripod was used to address camera shake-could what we're seeing be, in part, the result of slight subject (head) movement at that magnification?
Another factor, (though I don't know how much this affects real world results) might be sensor diffraction. According to this author, on the 5DIII it starts at f10. http://www.laszlopusztai.net/2013/01...nlargeability/
I'm not trying to fuel debate or be nit picky, I too want to learn as much as I can about things that do (and don't) affect real world IQ.
Thanks for the input, Randall! Diffraction is always in the back of my mind, although sometimes after the fact. Will check out your link in a minute. At this magnification there can definitely be tiny sharpness loss (visible at 1:1) due to slight movement of the subject or camera shake. I've always felt that I got a lower percentage tack sharp when the tripod was on even slightly soft ground, despite trying to keep the SS high.
1/500 is definitely borderline, even for the tripod on what "should be" a firm deck surface. (No street traffic out here in the brush, that's for sure.) I'm a pixel peeper and always looking for that slight edge of sharpness. I'll let you know when I find the secret! (Hope you'll do the same!)
Got another similar pose today -- was going to post a Nuthatch but maybe I'll go ahead and toss it up, if the comparison is worth anything.
One thing's for sure -- the JPEG is it's own species, compared to the Raw or .psd.