Solitary Sandy, the Sandhill Crane

[Jim Keener]

I was going through image files in LR and came across a photograph of a Sandhill Crane that was bigger in the frame, sharper, and had less noise. So I went to the Develop module to check if there were a crop. None (as shown by the smaller image below). The details showed that I shot this at f/8, which immediately told me that I had added a 2X teleconverter, as my basic setting for BIF is 1/2000, widest aperture, and automatic ISO.

I had thought that using a 2X TC was a bad idea with the older version of the 500/4. Not so, in my experience.

I like this photograph because the bird is bigger, and the other reasons above. It has some problems. Purists would decry the shadow of another bird's primaries. And the bird is turned away just enough to detract from the quality of the photograph. If I weren't concerned about the technical quality of the image, and were just telling a story, I would prefer the shadow. Also I like that small bit of brown on the far wing, showing the sandy-colored water stain from Nebraska wintering.



Canon 1DX
500/4
2X TC for 1000mm
tripod/gimbal
manual mode
1/2000
f/8
ISO 500
eval metering
back button focus
single point expanded

Cropped, clarity increased; highlights, darks, whites, and shadows adjusted; red luminance and saturation increased (for the eye patch, of course) in LR.
Smart sharpened; Dfine NR, top dark band cloned out with stamp tool in PS.

I might have added a vignette with NIK Color Efex, but decided to wait to see what you thought.

As this is a direction I might like to go, I would appreciate as detailed comments as you care to give. My gratitude.

And thank you, Diane, for suggesting using NIK in PS, rather than LR. Layers give a much wider latitude.


Original

[Glennie Passier]

Hi Jim. Love these birds! They look mighty like our Brolgas.

I like this image very much. I would consider adding more canvas on all 4 sides. Just a tad on the LHS, the bottom and the top and a fair amount in front. I can see by your thumbnail posted that you have cloned out trees? (the dark line on top. There are a couple of darker marks that could be clone marks from wings. I would also look at just a little more red or even yellow saturation on the back ground.

I must admit, I did notice the shadow of wing tips straight away, but it doesn't worry me at all.

I am a big fan of vignettes, but feel this image does alright without one. A vignette might stifle the bird a little, instead of letting him fly.

All the above, is very subjective and just things that I might try.

Thank you for sharing this lovely image!

[Jim Keener]

Glennie, how wonderful. That's just the response I was hoping for. I'll change the crop to check it and post it here to see what we think. You're right about the dark spots. I need to rework the stamp tool. Hmm. I hadn't thought of increasing red/yellow saturation on the BG. That might be fun. I took a closer look at the shadow. It's of this bird's primaries, as the sun is above and at about the 8 o'clock position relative to the bird. Look at the shadow just forward of where the wing meets the back.

Thanks so much for the comments. More time in the playpen.

[Diane Miller]

This is a wonderful image! You have great equipment and are utilizing it well. I don't mind that the bird is flying a little away -- they do that -- especially when I'm near them! I really like the almost-topside view of the left wing.

I think the shadow from the wingtip is natural and not a problem, but it is a bit less than ideal that the tips of the feathers touch the edge of the wing. If you were shooting a burst, did you get a slightly different angle?

The shadow could probably be lightened a little. The easiest way might be to try Nik's Viveza and see if you can isolate the shadow well enough -- it can work wonders for a selection, and will make a separate layer.

[Jim Keener]

Very well. Thank you Glennie and Diane. Here are the things I picked up from your critiques:
- more canvas all 'round, + front
- wingtip smudges on top (hangs head in shame)
- more red & yellow in BG
- lighten shadow using Viveza

I like that I'm getting a Nik and PS workout.

And, Diane, this is the only image I could find of this bird, and the only one this close.

I am so glad to be here. Working.

[Diane Miller]

Considering the condition the world is in, I think we're all happy to be here!! I certainly am!

Looking forward to more!

[Glennie Passier]

Jim, I am no pro at PS. Please take every thing I mention with a grain of salt. Perhaps experiment, but don't take it as gospel!

I am also very happy to be here. Sometimes I feel a little guilty with what I have.

[Jim Keener]

Well, I did those things. I cropped the canvas down to cutout the brown at the top, then expanded the canvas larger and used the transform process to extend the BG. It's a bit smooth, but overall I like the result. The problem I still have with the image is the dark, mottled area below the bird.

I don't know how much longer I'll be able to do this. I'm 72 now, and hauling around the big camera and lens is a chore. But one I am beginning to relish. Anyway. Here 'tis.

Viveza is the bomb!

[Diane Miller]

Nice! I like the dark area -- it gives sense of a BG without being obtrusive.

Some good lightweight (or lighter weight) lens options are coming along. The new 400 DO II looks promising with a 1.4X, and the crop sensor 7D2 gives a little more "magnification." It's not a 1D-anything but it's a little lighter.

[Jim Keener]

You are very kind and offer good information, and I'm grateful.

You know, I should have taken the 7D II today. I went to the Bernardo Wildlife Area, near the Bosque, and shot. The 7D II would have been ideal. Not a good shoot. Oh, this is embarrassing. I underexposed every shot. One of the wonderful things about being 72 is that I can blame it on age!

[Jim Keener]

And, Glennie, your Brolga is grus rubicunda, and the Sandhill Crane is grus canadensis. Apparently there are 15 species of cranes identified.

[Diane Miller]

Whenever I go to a keyword in Lightroom and display all the files with that keyword, I always find a sequence or several with bad exposure. Many excuses -- er -- reasons -- for that to happen! I try to remember to carry an incident light meter. It's ancient but still works, when I can remember how to use it.

Meant to add, about the newer lighter-weight stuff, that it's a good idea, for something you really want, to balance the costs against shoulder or back surgery.

I've been using that strategy -- I'm 72 too, and 5 ft tall and 120 lbs. (Which should be 100.) Trying to remember to quit jumping over ditches.

[Jim Keener]

For some reason I'm so very glad to learn you're 72. You mentioned one time the 100-400 coupled with the 7D II. I think you wrote that you shoot with those. I've kept my 7D II and am likely to get the 100-400. And as I type, the value of the 500mm is slip-slidin' away.

[Diane Miller]

I do and it's a wonderful combination! Does very well with the 1.4X also, but that's more of a challenge for birds in flight, largely due to the camera's AF limitations at f/8 when you're zoomed out to 400mm. I have the 600 II as well, and the 5D3, but haven't been using them as much. I've ordered the new 400 f/4 DO II and looking forward to seeing how it does with a 1.4X and a 2X. Hoping it's good for handholding for birds in flight with the 1.4X.

I've put the 100-400 to the ultimate challenge, using it for astrophotography. Nothing brings out the flaws in a lens like the pinpoint light from stars. I wasn't happy with it wide open, as it showed some chromatic aberration and gave triangular stars, due to some slight mis-alignment that is called pinched optics in a telescope. The effect was very microscopic, though. Then recently I found that when I stop it down to f/8 it gives wonderful round stars. And partially due to the light weight I can track for 6 minutes aimed at the polar equator (where the stars move fastest) without any elongation of stars. Now I need some clear dark skies to use it for real. I've been bogged down for quite a while with equipment mods to my tracker (I'm now better than specs) and learning processing software that makes PS and LR look like kindergarten.

For regular photography, though, wide open or a stop down is probably the best compromise, as shutter speed is very important.

[Jim Keener]

I'm grateful for your response. The 400 DO II and the 100-400 II have both received acclaim. I'll be eager to know your impressions of the 400 DO after you have some experience with it.

[Diane Miller]

Will try to remember to post some impressions. By the time I got around to placing the order it was out of stock -- hopefully will be back in soon.

[Diane Miller]

I'm grateful for your response. The 400 DO II and the 100-400 II have both received acclaim. I'll be eager to know your impressions of the 400 DO after you have some experience with it.

I got it this morning. A gray and dreary day here, which may be the pattern for quite a while. We need the rain but are getting more clouds than rain.

A quick first outing, just for the birds here at the house: After about 10 shots I put on the 1.4X III. Hardly slowed it down. First impression is, at 560mm, I don't think I'll be able to tell a huge difference from the 600II, except it is a lot easier to handhold! May have enough light to try the 2X tomorrow. That will be more dicey for handholding.

Of course, with low light, the aperture is wide open and SS very low, which makes IQ fourth on the list of concerns, behind focus accuracy, lens shake and grain. The 7D2, which I was using today, isn't the lowest noise player. Will try the 5D3 asap.

I don't have the feeling that the lens stabilization has reached any new heights. At shutter speeds around 1/100 and 1/200 (at 560mm), what I got was mostly limited by fine movement blur and very shallow DOF. Focus is critical, as is motion blur from camera shake. I view everything at 100% (1:1) in Lightroom and if it isn't absolutely sharp it gets deleted, with the possible exception of a very rare catch, which is even rarer for me.

In circumstances like that I shoot a burst, and almost always one will be sharper than the others. So with almost every burst, all but one got deleted. But the one was generally very good.

Weight and balance are very comparable to the 100-400, but I have all the focus sensors with the 400 DO. Will take a lot of experience to say which is "best" but each will have its place. The zoom on the 100-400 is great, as is the close focus. I can go from an osprey in flight to a dragonfly. Close focus on the 400 DO is about 9 ft; on the 100-400 about 3 ft.

Both are about equally comfortable to handhold.

The MTF charts show the theoretical limit, and are excellent, so for real world use it comes down to manageability, usually in handholding. For me, it gets an excellent rating.

If we ever get a clear dark night, I'll see how it does with pinpoint tracked stars. The 100-400 (at 400) needs to be stopped down quite a bit -- f/8 to f/10. With enough exposures to average out noise, that is workable.

[Jim Keener]

Very useful review. I've rejoined CPS and as soon as I've waited a decent interval, I'll ask for the 400mm DO for review. I'll try it with the 7D II and the 1DX. As an aside, I have three cameras now and want only two. 7D II, 5D III, and 1DX. I think you have at least the same three. My recent experience is using the 5D III for general photography and the 1DX for birds. It's not worth the effort for me to switch back and forth with the 7D II. And at present, my bird shooting is with a tripod. And that will be true, probably until the migration season has ended and I have to hunt for subjects like everyone else. Then I might be very grateful for the 7D II. I think I just talked myself into keeping it.

[Diane Miller]

I don't have the 1DX -- debated long and hard between it and the 5D3, and decided the 5D3 was 95% as good for what I shoot. And then of course I started shooting things the 1DX was better at. I can't win. But will probably (read: will) pre-order the 1DX II sight unseen as soon as it's listed.

I think I'd give up the 5D3 in favor of the 1DX, if the weight were not a factor. And I'd probably give up the 7D2 also -- you can crop the 1DX files that much, I'd think. The 7D2 does not distinguish itself for shadow recovery, which is very important to me. The 5D3 does better than the 7D2 there, and I'd think the 1DX would be right up there with it if not better.

Interested to hear your take.

[Jim Keener]

I am amazed at the 1DX. And I like your comparison of the three cameras. No Canon camera has the shadow recovery capability that the higher end Nikon cameras do: the D800, D810, and D4S. Presumably the D5 is even better. But. For what I do, nothing compares with the 1DX. The learning curve for me is steep. I read Artie and Arash's guides and go through them step-by-step. And am just now beginning to apply them well. It is rocket science. I've talked with David Salem a bit about the 1DX, and he has shot with Arash, and others on the Avian forum. They are changing focus points on the fly. Or as the bird flies. Ba da bing! And something that is very important to me is that it is an extraordinary machine. Three processors. Three. Shoving the data to the correct place and slamming those big lenses around. You saw my image of the three cranes flying towards to me. That camera was focusing and shooting 12X per second. That's just amazing to me. I got excited as I was shooting, trusting that the camera was capturing what I needed. And it did. See? You got me going. I'm a big enthusiast for the 1DX. I can hardly carry it, but I wouldn't carry anything else.

After all, a journey of a thousand miles begins with gear.

I'll keep the 5D III. It's ideal for general photography for me, other than for BIF. A few more pixels, and lighter weight. And as far as I can tell, there is no difference in IQ between the 5D III and 1DX.

[Diane Miller]

For me, weight management is very important. I need to have the weight on a hip belt for walking and be able to grab it quickly for hand holding. The tripod plate can be slipped under a belt easily, but you need to hold onto it.

Sitting on a handy rock or log is a great help if I'm watching a perch of some sort, so I can keep the camera on my lap. I have a small fold-up 3-legged camp stool that weighs about an ounce and straps easily onto a modest-sized camera bag. Or I'll take a folding chair if I'm not going too far.

For long lenses I use a hand strap on the camera body and a dense foam pad on the front of the tripod plate on the lens foot, which rests on my wrist or the heel of my hand, giving me a lot of stability and keeping me from touching the MF ring. My left forearm is held tight against my side and I press the viewfinder very firmly against my face. (Don't wear glasses, so I'm lucky on that one.)