Osprey eyeing me up

[Paul Burdett]

Caught this Osprey recently. He didn't come as close as I would have liked (they never do!) but at least he was looking at me.
7Dii, 100-400 at 400mm, 1/1600th sec, f5.6, iso640, manual exposure hand held. tried a number of crops but settled on this vertical. Thoughts?

[Isaac Grant]

This one does not work for me at all. Much too steep of a shooting angle. Image quality is just OK and I do not see a great deal of fine feather details. I do like the eye contact but there is not enough here to make this a keeper. I have literally seen thousands of Osprey images that show them diving, with fish, close ups, perched in perfect light and so on. This one just does not measure up.

[Paul Burdett]

Isaac: Please post one of your amazing Osprey photos.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Paul, I do like the head turn and the eye contact (with both eyes visible and looking at you!). I'd be OK with the steep angle if the underside wasn't in the shade, it has caused a bluish cast on the osprey. There is also too much empty space around the osprey so I'd crop it tighter. You can try to lift the shadows a bit and increase sharpening to bring out the details but it will be tough with the 7D2. You will get the best results with DPP. In this case it would have been difficult to expose correctly for the bird because the light was coming from the wrong side, you needed about 1.5 stop more for the shaded parts but that would blow up the small highlight area on the body.

Osprey's can be difficult to shoot depending on where you live, here in CA I have never seen one close enough for a single photo but in Florida they are easier to get than seagulls so I think you made the best out of this rare encounter, wish for better luck next time!


TFS

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Arash. Thank you for the constructive feedback...it's appreciated. The location is one of my favourites at the moment...a wader roost at the Port of Brisbane. I normally spend around 3 hours there from around 3 to 6pm (sunset is around 6.30pm here at the moment). The sandpipers are quite plentiful most of the time, but Ospreys are few...so it's nice to get one. I agree with your take on the underside...but I had no choice as to its "flight path"...lol. As the Osprey was quite a distance away I think a closer crop would have resulted in poorer IQ...but I'll revisit the processing and see. I'm aware of the limitations of my gear (and technique)...would be nice to get closer than the 7Dii and 100-400 allows (I'm not mad about the AF and IQ with the 1.4x TC for bif)..the D850 and 500mm is a combo I'm very interested in. I'd happily swap the plentiful seagulls here for more Ospreys!
Thanks again Arash.
I'll also try DPP, as I normally always use acr for pp.

[arash_hazeghi]

I wonder if you can go there in early AM as well to maximize your chances... The birds will fly the way they want and it's only a matter of luck to get one with the sun behind your neck, I myself have many frames where everything is perfect except for the sun! it can sure be frustrating since it is out of our control....

Do check out the DPP/PP guide Artie and I wrote for Canon users, it helps salvage frames like this one where possible

[Paul Burdett]

Thanks Arash...just downloaded the update for DPP and spent an hour checking it out. Looks good...cheers.

[Isaac Grant]

Paul you are posting to a critique forum. You posted an Osprey, not me. What photos I do or do not hav of Osprey are irrelevant to the fact that you have an under exposred shot that is off the sun angle and with a steep shooting angle and lacking a bit in fine feather detail. I always try and ask myself what is it about this shot that makes it different, makes it unique, makes it stand out. Do I have perfect light, great action, super details, a great perspective or all of the above. In order for a shot the shot to be a keeper it has to have at least a few of those criteria in my book. Otherwise you just have an ordinary shot of a bird. I recently got a killer nice shot of a Harlequin Duck in flight. A bird I have been wanting for a long time in flight. Perfect light, perfect details, perfect background, perfect wing position. Bird was just a bit off the sun angle causing too harsh of a shadow on the rear wing and for me that makes it a delete. I always try to push myself to post the best possible shot. Sorry but this Osprey just is ordinary at best and challenging me to post an Osprey shot is childish.

[Paul Burdett]

Isaac: I'm not going to get into a slanging match with you. However, I do agree that perhaps I should consider more what I post. But...if I post a "not perfect" (in your eyes) shot then I'm happy to get constructive feedback, as I've had in the past from others on this forum. Your statement that "this one doesn't measure up" I find somewhat uninspiring to say the least (I'm quite thick skinned so I won't lose any sleep over it). As a teacher I'm well aware how some statements can influence a student's eagerness to do better. So...provide the negatives of a shot by all means, but think more about statements you make that might be perceived as "less than helpful". I would expect a somewhat more professional response in a forum that I'm actually paying a fee to belong to.

[John Mack]

I have photos that look just like this. I like the staring eyes. He knew you were there. Can't wait til they return to my local. I do enjoy watching them.

[Isaac Grant]

Paul you ignore the fact that I have given you constructive feedback many times on many of your shots. And I did so on this one by pointing out the flaws on this one as well. Everything I said explained why this one does not measure up. I explained that you had too steep of a shooting angle, decent image quality and good eye contact but that is not enough for me to make it a keeper or to make it stand out among the thousands of images of this species that I have seen. Sorry if you took that any other way. And I could also say the same thing by saying that I would expect a more professional response than show me yours. That is not the issue here. But lets move beyond this.

I want to be clear. I think that we will all get better by pushing ourselves to be more selective in what we shoot and how we shoot it. I routinely go to Alan Murphys site or other top guys like David Salem and Arash and see what they post and see where the bar is for certain species. I see what I should be doing in the field to try and get to that level. I have some pretty good Northern Harrier shots. Tack sharp and excellent details. Even perfect down stoke wing positions and banking shots. But when I compare them to shots that Salem or Arash has they are simply not as good as they could be. And for that reason I have not posted them. I can easily self critique them. They might have a place on page 2 or page 3 of their site but not the first page for that species. And I use that info when in the field to try and get a better shot and not just settle for an OK shot. As another example I have visited a local (2 hours away) jetty that others on the site have as well. I have spent about 18 hours there over 3 trips this year so far. I have what I would consider 1 good picture and 2 excellent pictures from those 18 hours. I have lots and lots of average to above average pictures that I will never process or post. As another example we have a duck here called a Ruddy Duck. When in breeding plumage they are a striking red. There are loads of pics out there in breeding plumage where they are doing a display dance and blowing bubbles. (you can google it) and the pics are fantastic. In the winter, which is the only time they are in my area they are drab and not displaying so I have no chance at matching that picture. I recently went and shot them and set myself up in a spt that had this beautiful colored water and did not move from there. My goal was to get the birds in that water or to leave with nothing. I got lucky and got a few good frames of them in beautiful water that make the birds stand out and make the pics a bit unique. Again I had a plan and had the shot that I wanted in mind. Very often I go home empty handed but I am OK with that because I try to push myself to make something more memorable. Not trying to be preachy but just to explain my mindset.

[Paul Burdett]

Agreed, let's move beyond this.

[Paul Burdett]

Hi John. Yes, it was my first shot with the eyes right at me. Good luck when they return to your local. Cheers.

[Dorian Anderson]

Shooting angle is too steep but this is a decent result given that limitation. The eye contact really helps. I also agree a tighter crop with lifted shadows would help, if the data allows it! My general rule is I only shoot things at eye level, but that's me.

As for the debate: post whatever you want. Would I have kept this frame earlier in my photo career? Yes. Would I keep it today? No. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is where you see it in your photo maturation. We're all constantly improving, and that's the goal. If you like a shot, post it, get the feedback (good and bad), and get better. That's my philosophy. Take it or leave it.....

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Dorian. Thank you for the feedback. Your "philosophy" make sense to me. However, I will consider what I post in future as I do want to improve. BIF photography is certainly harder than static bird poses for me. The question of "steep angle"...I must admit I'm unsure why my image is considered too steep. I know there are good and not so good head angles...is this along the same lines..i.e. is it considered less of an impact if one is looking up at the bird? If a bird is at eye level then one would not see the underside detail? I'm going to re-edit to see if I can get more details in the shadows...but the eye is not sharp and I don't think the data would allow it...we'll see. I won't repost it though. I do have much better Osprey in flight images (which I haven't posted), but this is the first one where the eyes are right at me...so it's a win in that respect I guess.
Cheers Dorian.

[Colin Driscoll]

Hi Paul, this site has taught me so much about bird and other photography and I'm sure my standard has improved over time. Nobody is having a go at you. We don't want commenters to be nice to us, just to tell it as they see it. As for Ospreys they are pretty regularly photographed so it is good to do a search and check out what has been posted previously to get a feel for the standard of the shot you want to post.
Here's one I took in India from a boat and posted a while ago. http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ghlight=osprey
Read the comments, there is always something to learn and I have become fairly brutal with the recycle bin yet my standard still has a way to go.

[Dorian Anderson]

Hi Dorian. Thank you for the feedback. Your "philosophy" make sense to me. However, I will consider what I post in future as I do want to improve. BIF photography is certainly harder than static bird poses for me. The question of "steep angle"...I must admit I'm unsure why my image is considered too steep. I know there are good and not so good head angles...is this along the same lines..i.e. is it considered less of an impact if one is looking up at the bird? If a bird is at eye level then one would not see the underside detail? I'm going to re-edit to see if I can get more details in the shadows...but the eye is not sharp and I don't think the data would allow it...we'll see. I won't repost it though. I do have much better Osprey in flight images (which I haven't posted), but this is the first one where the eyes are right at me...so it's a win in that respect I guess.
Cheers Dorian.

All of this makes sense, and the eye contact issue you bring up is good. You got the eye contact, but the percentages suggest its easier to get it at eye level. Flight work is hard, and it takes a long time to master. How long? I don't know because I'm still far from it! As for the question of 'too steep' its all personal preference. I generally don't shoot overhead birds for two reasons 1) you're rarely - if ever - going to get a perfectly lit underside if the bird is overhead. Shadows will always be a problem. 2) to me, blue sky backgrounds don't offer much. They're really generic. I either like a deeper blue for contrast or some distantly out of focus texture for variety. The way I get underside shots it wait for a bird to bank against low horizontal light. If that doesn't present, I'm not willing to shoot an overhead bird as consolation. Everyone has different standards for keepers, and I've been told some of my shots are throwaways by people on this board. It's all a question of where you draw the line for what's worth keeping and what isn't. I've posted shots I knew would get killed on the board simply because I want the feedback to make the shot as pleasing to me as it can be while learning something along the way.

I spend a ton of time thinking about how to get close and at eye level with my subjects. I'd say preparation is 50% of most of my shots. My kayak is a great example of that - it's all about meeting the birds on eye level in their habitat. I rarely, if ever, walk around with my lens and shoot opportunistically. Even on land, I hit specific spots at specific times an on specific tides. Overhead shots present all the time, but I'm they're not what I'm after. Does that mean I'll miss an interesting shot here or there? Sure, but I generally find sticking to premeditated plan yields better results than 'grab-type' shots. My point is this: few people prepare for overhead shots because the overwhelming majority of them aren't effective for the reasons I mentioned. That doesn't mean they can't be effective, but I generally play the percentages and stick to eye level. I'm at point where I know what will give a good result and what won't. If overhead is all that presents, I don't bother shooting. Cheers!

[Paul Burdett]

Dorian. Thank you for the reply and info which I find very interesting. Your take on the "steep angle" makes sense to me and I'll put more thought into that at my next shoot. Cheers!