Angry sparrow, saddened photographer

[Michael Hansen]

Canon 7D2, Sigma 150-600 Sport
1600 ISO, 1000@f/6.3, 600mm hand-held

PP was basically auto tone plus a touch of BG darkening, slight crop for composure (didn't have much room with Daddy coming into the picture), and probably some kind of default NR to help kill the last remaining detail in the blurry birds.

This was taken yesterday.

Ok, so I think I had a decent chance to get a good shot here. Instead I ended up with a lot of blur. I had been taking photos of (primarily) Mama Bird feeding the young, waiting for better light to get the ISO down and the shutter speed up. Here I was wide open at 1/1000, with the ISO alternating between 1600 and 3200, so I didn't want to push to SS of 2000 just yet to take BIF photos of the caspian tern that's been at the site the past few days, complete with amazing dive-bombing techniques. Anyway, this male house sparrow stranger starts harassing the nest's female and young, poking his head into the other sparrow's business, meaning the hole in the nest box. What you see is the Nest Daddy's response to that.

It all happened so quickly I didn't have time to adjust. I had pre-focused on the nest box, and since I was basically taking stills of feedings and hoping to see a chick stick its head out, didn't push the SS, as I mentioned.

So, how do other photographers handle this? The first thing I should do, obviously, is get better at NR, but even then when do I push the shutter speed and when do I give the ISO time to settle down? I know a lot of this is camera-dependent, but just wondering how others handle it, having only one camera on-site. I guess my *real* question is would you even think about a high SS here or do these kinds of shots just go missed?

Any tips are appreciated! :)


Mike

[Diane Miller]

Lots of questions here, and options to juggle. At f/6.3 your depth of field is probably about 1/4 inch. (The DOF charts always overestimate it, with a factor for the circle of confusion that apparently dates from very low-resoluton film.) You did good with the opportunity you were given. A very high shutter speed would be needed to stop the wings of the foreground bird, and there was no way to get both birds in focus.

Not sure what you mean by ISO settling down... M exposure is the best bet in a controlled situation like this. Decide on the ISO you can tolerate for noise, and balance it with aperture and shutter speed. In this case, f/64 wouldn't cover the depth of field, and above f/13 or so you start to get softening from diffraction.

So in an action situation like this, it's a matter of where the focus should be. I think having the fleeing bird out of focus is the best choice for the story, for a more dynamic image.

[Michael Hansen]

Lots of questions here, and options to juggle. At f/6.3 your depth of field is probably about 1/4 inch. (The DOF charts always overestimate it, with a factor for the circle of confusion that apparently dates from very low-resoluton film.) You did good with the opportunity you were given. A very high shutter speed would be needed to stop the wings of the foreground bird, and there was no way to get both birds in focus.

Not sure what you mean by ISO settling down... M exposure is the best bet in a controlled situation like this. Decide on the ISO you can tolerate for noise, and balance it with aperture and shutter speed. In this case, f/64 wouldn't cover the depth of field, and above f/13 or so you start to get softening from diffraction.

So in an action situation like this, it's a matter of where the focus should be. I think having the fleeing bird out of focus is the best choice for the story, for a more dynamic image.

Thanks, Diane, for the compliment! Thanks most of all for the help. You've been a huge help to me since I joined here and in this post you've answered some pressing questions and provided me with food for thought. I don't know why I wasn't thinking M. That's a big mistake I make pretty often. The most recent change that I made to my 7D2 camera settings involved setting ISO to 400, limiting auto-ISO to 6400 or less, and using ISO as the safety shift. So when I mentioned "settling" down, it was just an informal way of saying to wait for the sun to come up over the trees a bit (get more light) so I'm not riding my 6400 ISO self-imposed limit.

Thanks again, and thanks for the DOF info. I'll be using that along with the SS/inverse of focal length old info you wrote to me about (and in a post), because that was also spot on.

I went back today with a tripod and got the chick photos I was hoping for, so maybe I'll post them in avian later. :)



Mike

[Diane Miller]

This stuff is a learning curve for all of us. The easiest way to learn it is just to keep doing it!

Look forward to seeing more! I've gotten busy and haven't been checking Avian for a while -- need to fix that situation.

[Don Lacy]

Thanks, Diane, for the compliment! Thanks most of all for the help. You've been a huge help to me since I joined here and in this post you've answered some pressing questions and provided me with food for thought. I don't know why I wasn't thinking M. That's a big mistake I make pretty often. The most recent change that I made to my 7D2 camera settings involved setting ISO to 400, limiting auto-ISO to 6400 or less, and using ISO as the safety shift. So when I mentioned "settling" down, it was just an informal way of saying to wait for the sun to come up over the trees a bit (get more light) so I'm not riding my 6400 ISO self-imposed limit.

Thanks again, and thanks for the DOF info. I'll be using that along with the SS/inverse of focal length old info you wrote to me about (and in a post), because that was also spot on.

I went back today with a tripod and got the chick photos I was hoping for, so maybe I'll post them in avian later. :)



Mike

Mike I would not shoot the 7D MKII above 1600 if you can help it the amount of NR you need to use above 1600 will effect fine feather detail. Also not sure what you mean PP was basically auto tone. This was a very challenging situation with the lack of lighting and the direction of the light as the subjects seem to be backlit I would not beat myself up tp much over this one.

[Michael Hansen]

Thanks, Don, I appreciate the comments!

I've been lucky to have a lot of time with the camera to practice since this photo was taken. Hopefully the next time a situation like this arises, I'll better know the limitations I'm facing and how to make the most of the image. Also, with the post-processing, back then I couldn't even do selective noise reduction or sharpening. That's what I meant there. :) That's all changed, too. Thanks again!



Mike