Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Barred Owl coming at you...

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
    Posts
    379
    Threads
    78
    Thank You Posts

    Default Barred Owl coming at you...

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    There is a family of Barred owls that nest each year in a small local park which is made up of forest and a river. This is one of the parent's who has 2 chicks this year. We locate the parents either by listening to the robins squawking at them or use playback to locate them and bring them into the few open areas over the river.
    This shot was with the Sony A9, Sony 100-400GM at 400mm, f/5.6, 1/1600, ISO 5000
    In this instance the owl was called towards us with playback...we would limit the playback to just a few passes per evening as not to overwork the owls...however they are hunting the river for crayfish for their young so we got a lot of natural calling and some flight each evening anyways.
    My personal nit is that I would have liked more even lighting for the right eye but was happy I got a small catchlight in the eye anyways. I did bring shadow up a little on that eye...do people think I should bring it up more? This was processed solely in LR with the regular sort of stuff and some bright spots in the background were cloned out with LR's Spot tool set to "Heal"

    FWIW I am currently evaluating the Sony A9 and comparing it to the AF system in my D500, D850 and 1DX2....IMO the A9 has the best AF system of all the systems now. The D500/D850/D5 took BIF up a notch from even the excellent 1DX2 but this A9 raises the bar even further...it is pretty remarkable what it can do. And no this photo isn't an example of what it can do that others can't because I also have almost the identical shot from the D850 the night before and my friends have the similar shot from the 1DX2 two nights before. But, the amount of consistent shots in a burst like this with head-on owl IF is significantly higher than what a DSLR AF system can do in 2018.

    Hope you like it,
    Last edited by Geoff Newhouse; 07-18-2018 at 09:13 AM.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,553
    Threads
    1,320
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nice incoming pose with a good BG. This is a tough shot to get, with the owl coming at you. As posted it is a bit dark and needs 1/2 stop brightening and also shows a slight magenta cast that should be easy to remove. The main issue is that the face isn't quite sharp here even at 1500 pixels reduced size, could be due to focus not tracking perfectly or the shutter speed although you didn't have much room to increase shutter speed. You picked the best settings given the scene. I have a couple of frames like this from FL a few years ago.


    I tried Sony A9 once and while it seemed it could focus when in use, many of its files were not tack sharp like Canon and Nikon when you blow them up on a 4K screen, the quality is not there. Currently it's far behind these two IMO, maybe in future it will have a chance to compete... Mirrorless cameras aren't quite ready for prime time in my experience (I owned Fuji XT for several years and also tried Oly/Sony). That might be why Canon/Nikon haven't taken it seriously. My guess is when the technology is ready for pro use, Canon and Nikon will bring out their own offerings and dominate this market too.

    TFS
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 07-18-2018 at 11:03 AM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  3. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
    Posts
    379
    Threads
    78
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Nice incoming pose with a good BG. This is a tough shot to get, with the owl coming at you. As posted it is a bit dark and needs 1/2 stop brightening. The main issue is that the face isn't quite sharp here, could be due to focus no tracking perfectly or the shutter speed although you didn't have much room to increase shutter speed and you picked the best settings given the scene.


    I tried Sony A9 once and while it seemed it can focus when in use, many of its files are not tack sharp like Canon and Nikon when you blow them up on a 4K screen. Currently it's far behind these two IMO, maybe in future it will have a chance to compete.

    TFS
    Thanks for the comment Arash. I think the face is fairly sharp at least when viewing the RAW file on my monitor at home. I think it presents fairly sharp here considering the ISO and the dark environment I shot it in.
    As per lightening the image, I had a lighter version which was criticized as being too light and un-natural for the settings on another forum...which I actually agreed with and brought it back to closer to what it looked like in person...there was no direct light on the owl...it flew from deep forest into a sort of open area so the light wasn't horrible as it could have been but there were tall trees surrounding the open area.

    As per the A9, I've now been using it for 2 months daily against my Nikons and the 1DX2. I've found the opposite of what you describe, the thing is that the images are just so consistently sharp in the exact same plane, shot to shot in a burst...none of the DSLR micro focus shifts that plague Canon the worse and Nikon much less (but still there). Isn't this what you originally said about the D5 before you changed your tune and admitted you only had limited time with it and had wrong settings? I don't know how much time you spent with the A9 but once you get it dialled in and learn a few of its idiosyncrasies it produces files that are every bit as sharp as anything I've got out of a D500/D850 or 1DX2. And the consistency is nuts even at 20FPS because there is no mirror in the way. I would suggest if you are interested to try it out for a much longer period....for me and a number of other Canon and Nikon shooters it is a good improvement so I don't think I'm out in left field with my personal observations!! Combined with the upcoming 400/2.8 that is lighter than a current gen 500/4 from the big boys is something pretty ground breaking for handheld BIF. I would really suggest trying one out again especially once the 400/2.8 is out to rent. I can always send you some settings to try to see if you can get results out of it. Also if you want to see some RAW files from this owl burst or other ones in better light I'd be happy to link a Google Drive link to them for you. Let me know.
    Last edited by Geoff Newhouse; 07-18-2018 at 11:01 AM.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,553
    Threads
    1,320
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Can you post a 100% crop of the RAW? That will show if the RAW was sharp. as posted it just doesn't have critical quality to my eye.


    I think it could be that our definition of sharpness is a bit different. This is what I consider a sharp incoming owl: shot with the old 1DX ISO 5000 cloudy dark Ottawa day. different kind of owl but you get the idea



    BTW, I had Canon for about 12 years in that time I never micro-adjusted anything but a 70-200 zoom lens for portraits . Same with Nikon. I think most of the time problem is not MA i wrote about this topic on mu blog several years ago.

    http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blo...always-needed/

    For now I am quite happy with my Nikon setup, just need a light lens like 400DOII :)
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 07-18-2018 at 11:21 AM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Staten Island, New York
    Posts
    3,124
    Threads
    260
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nice incoming flight pose. Can't honestly tell if it is tack sharp but face looks pretty good. I agree the image is dark and the bird looks too green. Also I see some noise on the edge of the wings. Can now post up to 1920 so would help if shot is posted larger so it would be easier to see. I agree that I wish the face was more evenly lit. Just goes to show how hard it is to get all of the elements to line up perfectly for a flight shot.

  6. #6
    BPN Member William Dickson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    7,883
    Threads
    1,115
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Very nice looking frame. I agree a wee bit brighter would help. Well done on an image difficult to get.

    Will

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Daniel Cadieux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    26,311
    Threads
    3,979
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Pretty cool incoming flight path, and I love the forest BG. You got some good suggestions above. As for sharpness, it could be different processing and resizing methods, but you did encounter a difficult situation here.

  8. #8
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
    Posts
    379
    Threads
    78
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

    Here is a repost...up 1/3 stop exposure...20 points towards purple away from green...a little more selective sharpening and NR..posted to 1920...didn't know the new rules...or forgot them!!

    I realize this isn't as tack sharp as a perched owl could be or an owl in flight in better light but I found it acceptable for the conditions....much better than my buddy got with his 1DX2 which were all pretty soft!!
    Last edited by Geoff Newhouse; 07-18-2018 at 05:12 PM.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,553
    Threads
    1,320
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Geoff,

    Thanks for posting the large size, can see much better now. It might be just my opinion-and I do have very high standard when it comes to IQ- but this one is way too grainy and lacking in details to be a keeper in my book, I am OK with the wings showing motion blur and some noise but the face is bad. I am also surprised how coarse the grain is. Maybe it's coming from the RAW processing or just the image sensor is too noisy and can't handle low light well... either way not a keeper for me.

    I just switched from Canon myself and not saying its AF is perfect, it will have plenty of misses, but honestly if the owl was attracted by call you must have had at least a few passes and with the flight path known before hand, Canon will at least nail one of them and when it does it would be better than this at ISO 5000 or even 6400. If your buddy couldn't get anything it is most likely his skills that sucked, I hate to say it. Doug and I were nailing shots like this from Jim Neiger's boat 10 years ago with the then sub-par 1D4 and first gen Canon 500mm so I have no doubt a 1DXII will be much better.

    I think this is what makes the internet observations so different, what is considered an AF hit by one shooter is actually a miss/delete for another... I think the images make the point not the comments/opinions. The other day I saw some peregrine falcon images from San Pedro, a place I shoot and visit frequently, posted on FM forum by someone using the Sony camera, while the shooter was bragging about how good the AF was blah blah I would simply select all those images and hit "delete all" on the back of my camera....it maybe that the AF is better but whatever I have seen so far points to the contrary, soft and grainy images that have been sharpened for most part.... at least that's how they look on my monitor to my eye.
    Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 07-18-2018 at 05:52 PM.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  10. #10
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Staten Island, New York
    Posts
    3,124
    Threads
    260
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Brightened a bit and at a larger size I can see that it does not look as good as I would have hoped. I agree that it is very noisy, both on the bird and the background. As for the cameras and auto focus as I only shoot Canon I don't have much input other than to say that I know I miss plenty of shots as well. Some may be user error and some maybe the auto focus is not up to par or a combination of both of course

  11. #11
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
    Posts
    379
    Threads
    78
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    Hi Geoff,

    Thanks for posting the large size, can see much better now. It might be just my opinion-and I do have very high standard when it comes to IQ- but this one is way too grainy and lacking in details to be a keeper in my book, I am OK with the wings showing motion blur and some noise but the face is bad. I am also surprised how coarse the grain is. Maybe it's coming from the RAW processing or just the image sensor is too noisy and can't handle low light well... either way not a keeper for me.

    I just switched from Canon myself and not saying its AF is perfect, it will have plenty of misses, but honestly if the owl was attracted by call you must have had at least a few passes and with the flight path known before hand, Canon will at least nail one of them and when it does it would be better than this at ISO 5000 or even 6400. If your buddy couldn't get anything it is most likely his skills that sucked, I hate to say it. Doug and I were nailing shots like this from Jim Neiger's boat 10 years ago with the then sub-par 1D4 and first gen Canon 500mm so I have no doubt a 1DXII will be much better.

    I think this is what makes the internet observations so different, what is considered an AF hit by one shooter is actually a miss/delete for another... I think the images make the point not the comments/opinions. The other day I saw some peregrine falcon images from San Pedro, a place I shoot and visit frequently, posted on FM forum by someone using the Sony camera, while the shooter was bragging about how good the AF was blah blah I would simply select all those images and hit "delete all" on the back of my camera....it maybe that the AF is better but whatever I have seen so far points to the contrary, soft and grainy images that have been sharpened for most part.... at least that's how they look on my monitor to my eye.
    I totally understand, and as I said in my initial post; this is not an example of what I was talking about with the A9's AF prowess. I also totally agree that the sharpness of the face isn't to the highest degree. Your GGO shot is the high standard I'd expect. But where you and I differ I think is that I don't just wait for perfection in a shot before I post it on the internet. I know you see my postings on FM and probably know I post a thread of 8 pictures every day or 2nd day (until the past few weeks where I slowed down)...and everything I post on that daily basis was shot within a day of posting it or at most 1 week (unless I've come back from an overseas trip or something where I will edit and post for maybe a month). Therefore I post shots that are sometimes just okay...I do try to post good IQ and I believe I have a pretty high standard for sharpness (but I know you don't agree based on your recent comments about my entire Flickr photo stream).

    As per this shot...I don't want to drag this out too far so I'll leave a couple closing comments...I had exactly two flight passes over a 2.5 hour session with the owl the night I took my Sony out. The night before in only 2 hours we had 7 passes. That night I used the D850/300PF and I did get some sequences that I felt had sufficient sharpness to process and post. I had I think 3 passes that were 100% failures, and the other 4 had either 1-2 out of 10 keepers and one pass had a very high percentage of keepers. Still as long as we come home with a couple decent shots we are happy. That first night my friend shot his 1DX2/100-400II and got zero keepers out of all 7 passes....however the night before that when I wasn't there he did get a few nice keepers with the 1DX2/400DOII. I never tried my 1DX2 with this owl as it was already in the mail to its new owner in Ontario by then. With the A9 I had those two passes only...there was only one owl in the open area that night and he really could care less when I played the call. The first time he flew I was wanting to see how the A9/400DOII worked (I didn't have too much hope) and it got zero keepers in the one pass. I then put on the 100-400GM lens and had one single pass which this shot is out of. Out of that burst the majority had focus on the head...but with the amount of cropping I had to do and the ISO 5000, the end result as you say wouldn't be a keeper for you and that is okay...I understand...I've followed your work/posts for many years on here and at FM...I know you probably have the highest standards of anyone I see posting.

    But again...this owl sequence is not what I'm talking about with the A9's better AF and I would have to sit down in front of a computer with you someday and show you some 40 shot sequences to probably really see if you agree or disagree...it just is too difficult posting things on the web and our different PP styles...maybe someday if you want to come up and shoot the N. Pygmy Owl with Pius and I we can do just that!!

  12. #12
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
    Posts
    379
    Threads
    78
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Isaac Grant View Post
    Brightened a bit and at a larger size I can see that it does not look as good as I would have hoped. I agree that it is very noisy, both on the bird and the background. As for the cameras and auto focus as I only shoot Canon I don't have much input other than to say that I know I miss plenty of shots as well. Some may be user error and some maybe the auto focus is not up to par or a combination of both of course
    Of course we all miss shots with all sorts of gear and we all make shots with all sorts of gear including horrific over-reactive AF systems like that in the 7D2 which I have 100s of tack sharp flight shots out of....but man I wouldn't take one for free these days!!
    And there is always a combo of user error/skill, AF system backbone and some luck where the focus system just randomly shifts to the perfect spot.

    I did notice today after reading your comment about the noise that when I view the posted image on my older 2009 iMac 2560x1440 monitor then I see exactly what you are seeing with noise in the wings, noise in the background and a very crunchy look to the sharpening I did on the face to rescue the shot. However, all my editing is done on my 5K iMac and when I view it on that the noise isn't noticeable in the OOF wings and the background anymore and the face doesn't look as crunchy (still not great but decent IMO).

    I am currently looking into a new monitor and will have a look at NEC lineup as I know some of my issue is editing on a glossy iMac (although it is calibrated with iDisplay Pro)...but still....it isn't a professional grade editing monitor by any stretch....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics