Little Owl (Athene noctua)

[Jonathan Ashton]

Canon 1Dx Canon 500mm f4 l IS II + 2xTC III, ISO 2500 1/60 sec f8
ACR + PSCC

Elation and frustration! At last I am able to just about get to photographable distance albeit with a crop. I have known the owls were in this vicinity for years but I had only ever seen them in the open. The problem now is that they are in a good deal of shade and green shade at that so I have had to do a little adjustment or two to try to get the colours as I would like them. I have taken settings as low as 1/10 sec up to 1/80 sec. I have used the tripod holding camera and lens and also using remote release with mirror lock up,I have also used the 1DX hoping it produces less noise, the counterpoint being fewer pixels for display. The only way I will get more light will be in winter so hopefully they may still occupy this nest site later on. I have seen two chicks to date......more to follow.
All suggestions and tips for low light, long lens photography gratefully received!!

[John Mack]

Really like the fame within the frame here. The owl looks pretty neat hanging out there. Try using live view with manual focus. You can watch live view and when the owl is dead still trip the shutter.

[Juan Tolentino]

Hello Jonathan, I love the composition. Difficult situation. I would try to find a way to get closer (if somewhat possible) and get rid of the teleconverters. Just my 2 cents. TFS.

[Walker Noe]

Jonathan, in a difficult situation like this, I would personally not take any shots and just enjoy the experience via binocular view. It sounds like you did what you could to give yourself the best chances, but the image is still underexposed and soft on the owl. To me, it lacks that "pull your eye in" factor that's necessary for a great shot. Now if the hole filled the frame and it was good light that's a different scenario. Cool bird though!

[arash_hazeghi]

nice pose and display of habitat, the colors are a bit dull for me. I'd try to to increase the saturation and warm it a bit

1DX can handle high ISO very nicely, if the bird is large in the frame you should have no issues pushing your ISO up to 6400 and getting a clean output in a frame like this one, provided that you use something better than Adobe LR to convert your RAW files.

best

[Isaac Grant]

I like the way the owl is framed in the large hole. Good eye contact as well. The only way to get a shot that is not dark and lacking in color is with light. No secret really or fix. If you use a flash or a flashlight then it would make a big difference on the final presentation. Otherwise the shots are too dark and too flat. I understand that many people do not want to do that with night birds but if not then the results suffer. If you would like me to walk you through flash settings and a good general starting spot with flash then let me know.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Thank you very much everyone your comments are gratefully recieved.
John I went again this am I saw two adults but they did not revisit the nest. I tried the Liveview, something I rarely use but I did get some test images and they were sharp, I also placed a bean bag on top of the lens to increase inertia.
Juan I intend to ask the farmer if I can go on his land but I could not put up a hide because I fear it would soon be destroyed or stolen, it would be in plain view from the public footpath. Maybe a bag hide is worth considering but I am worried I may spook the owls by suddenly being there as opposed to 25-30 metres away on the other side of a barbed wire fence.
Walker - never say die I just have to do better!
Arash I'll have another look see - also with DPP I fell out with it last year, now I have another new computer maybe it will be better, I will warm up a bit as you suggest, I have some higher ISO images to play with too.
Isaac any flash info you have would be eagerly accepted, thank you for the offer.

[gail bisson]

I have to agree with all of the above comments.
I think the image is quite unusual and I like it.
Nice textures in the tree, I love the circle within the frame.
As you know, using flash on owls is quite controversial so I would try a flashlight (held by a friend ) or hope that these guys stay put until winter when sun angle might play in your favor.
The 1 DX needs a lot of color balance tweaking in shadowed pictures- often brings out the magenta but you may not be comfortable doing too much PP.
Gail

[Jonathan Ashton]

Thanks Gail, yes comfortable working in PS, I did remove lots of greens and azure along with magenta.

[arash_hazeghi]

The 1 DX needs a lot of color balance tweaking in shadowed pictures- often brings out the magenta but you may not be comfortable doing too much PP.
Gail

I have to disagree with this but only 100% as Artie says My 1DX did not need any color tweaking shooting owls in low light but I never used Adobe software either so that may be your problem. I rarely changed the colors that came right of the camera. The choice of RAW converter is very important in the final result

[Jonathan Ashton]

I have to disagree with this but only 100% as Artie says My 1DX did not need any color tweaking shooting owls in low light but I never used Adobe software either so that may be your problem. I rarely changed the colors that came right of the camera. The choice of RAW converter is very important in the final result

Well thats a coincidence I have just downloaded DPP and did a conversion, and yes in this case no magenta cast, I got a quicker satisfactory image upon immediate download, but sorry Arash I much prefer ACR I cannot see any benefit in the noise department at all and it is so sloooooww compared to ACR especially withe the 5DIV files.

[Stu Bowie]

Hi Jon, the little guy seems certainly aware of you - love the eye contact. I really like the overall setting here with the circular opening, and good detail on the bark of the tree. Well captured.

[arash_hazeghi]

Well thats a coincidence I have just downloaded DPP and did a conversion, and yes in this case no magenta cast, I got a quicker satisfactory image upon immediate download, but sorry Arash I much prefer ACR I cannot see any benefit in the noise department at all and it is so sloooooww compared to ACR especially withe the 5DIV files.

sorry Jon but you are using the wrong settings....

[Isaac Grant]

Hey John, I just posted an owl photo where I discussed some flash settings and recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Jon, welcome into the world of the LO's, they are great fun and very rewarding.

Like Arash, I'm not sure why you went for a such low ISO, thought that was all behind you, you know you can push things, so why didn't you???? The location looks identical to my first encounter all those years back and did a double take at first, but the angle was far steeper, will try and send you a pic when I'm there.

I like the setting and central position, just wished the aperture to the nest was central, purely for balance. Colour looks good and probably reflective, I also like the moody, dark look too. You are going to struggle with distance and the 2X, so perhaps there are some alternatives, will try and call you today or tomorrow, as I'm just back and a lot to do from the trip. If the owlets are around then you will have only a few weeks Jon before the parents take them off and leave them to fend for themselves, this is where they all disappear. To date I have never seen my LO's after this and throughout the Winter, only around late March early April.

If you use flash then you will need at least two Jon, set up for fill-in or HSS, but it's there just to add a tad of 'pop' not to illuminate the subject and kill the scene or turn it into a floodlit stadium, also these are day birds, so a tad of flash isn't an issue (low power) compared to night subjects that have very sensitive eyes because they hunt at night and flash and needs to be carefully thought about.

Jon, get the capture right, the colour part (PP) & ISO is a walk in the park, don't let that get in the way.

With regard to Raw convertors no one Software is better than the other, they just differ in parts. It's just what you are used to and feel comfortable in using and to a degree - how far you wish to take your PP workflow. We all come to the end result using different paths. I've used PS since '92, I have also used C1, DPP, ACR & LR, the first in their earlier stages in late '90 early 2000's, but personally find LR comfortable to use (albeit after 12 years it needs a radical overhaul and the last update was pants, unless you don't want to think), but if C1 was better in being more 'Customer focused' then I might now toggle between the two, albeit that there is something better out there, if you can wade through the tech stuff first. This alone is an old 'chestnut' that constantly comes up and I'm not wanting to start this up again, I just feel we need to be aware that it's down to the individual to make the informed decision where possible.

The best of luck Jon, talk soon.

Steve

[Jonathan Ashton]

Thanks Steve, (yes I chuckled), the ISO speed just happened to be 2500, I took images at ISO 400 - 6400, all had relatively low shutter speeds because the light was changing and most frustratingly the light will never actually be on the nest hole due to nearby branches and trees.
I am trying to get the best image quality and fully go along that a noisy sharp one is better than noiseless soft one but having seen the noisy sharp ones I prefer sharp non noisy ones this is why I am doggedly pursuing the chance of getting something in the lower ISO ranges. The owls and owlets do have moments when still and hopefully I will get that shot, the trouble is of course the slightest breeze ruffles the owlets feathers and then everyone will say the image is soft, well quite so - I can't argue. Whilst I will go for the higher ISO speeds - and I have been doing so for the last four years (someone kept nagging me!), I will always try to go for a lower ISO.... but not to the exclusion of higher ISO.
Raw converters I have no axe to grind, I used to love DPP now I prefer ACR but I also have the latest DPP and every now and again I process something there just to see if I can get better results.

[Mike Poole]

I quite like this gloomy look to the shot - very natural and I love the overall composition. Looks sharp at this size, hope it all works out at the site

Mike

[Glenn Pure]

Thanks Steve, (yes I chuckled), the ISO speed just happened to be 2500, I took images at ISO 400 - 6400, all had relatively low shutter speeds because the light was changing and most frustratingly the light will never actually be on the nest hole due to nearby branches and trees.
I am trying to get the best image quality and fully go along that a noisy sharp one is better than noiseless soft one but having seen the noisy sharp ones I prefer sharp non noisy ones this is why I am doggedly pursuing the chance of getting something in the lower ISO ranges. The owls and owlets do have moments when still and hopefully I will get that shot, the trouble is of course the slightest breeze ruffles the owlets feathers and then everyone will say the image is soft, well quite so - I can't argue. Whilst I will go for the higher ISO speeds - and I have been doing so for the last four years (someone kept nagging me!), I will always try to go for a lower ISO.... but not to the exclusion of higher ISO.
Raw converters I have no axe to grind, I used to love DPP now I prefer ACR but I also have the latest DPP and every now and again I process something there just to see if I can get better results.

Interesting discussion here and nice to see this. I can't recall for sure, Jon, but I think you were looking at or have Neat Image (or equivalent)? If so, high ISO such as 6400 on your 1Dx should not be a major drama based on my experience with a noisier crop sensor camera. Sorry to repeat comments I've made in the past but used correctly, Neat Image will deal with the noise while preserving the detail. There is also an option to apply some sharpening within Neat Image which can strike an even better balance between noise reduction and detail preservation. As for DPP v ACR, each to their own. However, there is objective evidence that DPP produces lower noise images than ACR. I have done some tests myself to assist a former BPN member and excellent Australian bird photographer, Ian Wilson, who has a PhD in Optics. He mainly uses a 5Ds but also has a 1DXII. We took mid grey shots and processed in both DPP and ACR with all NR turned off. Then used the standard deviation on the histogram to calculate the noise level. This is objective, accurate and quantitative. For a number of different Canon bodies (full frame and crop sensor) this showed noise levels typically 50% of those using ACR. However, the effect was greater for chrominance noise which is usually less of a problem.