Prothonotary Warbler-rear view

[Rafael Rodriguez Mojica]

Wood Warblers are really a challenge, as many of you know. I took a series of pictures while this Prothonotary Warbler allowed me to, but this was the better one in rear view. The field marks are shown, but I had to compensate for the exposure, hence the noise. Will have to keep trying harder, and with some luck too.

CANON MARK II/EF 400 MM F5.6 USM
F5.6/ISO 400/FLASH EXP +1.3/EXP COMP 0.

[Arthur Morris]

While the bird is sharp (were you using a tripod?) the subject is too centered and as you noted, angled away from you.

You wrote, "The field marks are shown, but I had to compensate for the exposure, hence the noise." Do understand that if you do not use enough plus compensation in cases like this, noise results. If you push your histogram as far to the right as possible you get less noise (not more).

[Rafael Rodriguez Mojica]

Thanks for your advice Artie. I compensated the photo in post processing, which is of course never the same as before shooting. I understand perfectly your advice, but in reality sometimes I get too involved with getting the bird and less with the technical aspects of the photo, then later I realized that I should have done this or that. Also in this case I was handheld, so I tried to always be at least at 1/400 sec or more by setting to 5.6 in av mode. In this case the ss was 1/800. I tried to rescue the photo as much as possible in post processing and this was the result, and I'm aware the bird pose was not the ideal one.
BTW, what suggestions you have for dealing with underexposed photos? I bought your CD Birds as Art II and try to apply as much of your advices as possible, but this topic is not included.

[Matthew Studebaker]

Good species. Wish for more eye contact, slightly tighter crop and a brighter presentation. Sharpness looks spot on!

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for your advice Artie. I compensated the photo in post processing, which is of course never the same as before shooting. I understand perfectly your advice, but in reality sometimes I get too involved with getting the bird and less with the technical aspects of the photo, then later I realized that I should have done this or that. Also in this case I was handheld, so I tried to always be at least at 1/400 sec or more by setting to 5.6 in av mode. In this case the ss was 1/800. I tried to rescue the photo as much as possible in post processing and this was the result, and I'm aware the bird pose was not the ideal one. BTW, what suggestions you have for dealing with underexposed photos? I bought your CD Birds as Art II and try to apply as much of your advices as possible, but this topic is not included.

Hi Rafael,

YAW. We all wind up with less than ideal exposures in the heat of the action... You did well with the sharpness handholding. By choosing not to use a tripod you may be reluctant to add enough light at times so as not to wind up with too slow a shutter speed...

From page 284 of ABP II:

Here is how to convert a raw file in BreezeBrowser. First, highlight the image that you wish to convert. Then click on Tools/Convert raw Image (or click Control K). The Convert Raw Image window will appear. Here are the Conversion Settings that I use: Conversion. Method: Normal; Smart Noise Reduction: Low; White Balance: As
Shot; Color Matrix: As Shot (which is always Adobe RGB); Contrast: As Shot (0). I check the Use this white balance for all images box and un-check the enable post-processing box. Here are the Output Settings that I use: Profile: AdobeRGB1998, Format: TIFF16-bit. If the image appears too light or too dark on your calibrated monitor, click on Exposure comp: 0. The histogram for the selected image will appear. You can add or subtract light as needed by moving the slider. Though you will usually be making only small orrections—in the range of from two tenths to two-thirds of a stop—you can add or subtract up to 2 full stops of light. Keeping the Auto Preview box checked will allow you to see the lighter or darker version in a few seconds. When you are happy with the exposure, click OK. Making gross exposure corrections can result in excessive noise and color shifts. While many photographers try various White Balance settings prior to converting an image, that is something I almost never do. I adjust the color in Photoshop using a variety of methods described below. You can experiment here and see which of these approaches works best for you.

And similar directions are for Adobe Camera Raw are included in Digital Basics. Therefore, the best place to lighen images is during the conversion of the RAW file.

best of luck, artie

[Rafael Rodriguez Mojica]

OK, I do a correction of exposure of the original raw file in cases of over or underexposure, but as you mentioned noise may be a problem. Do you use a noise reduction program after processing?
I have a Canon 100-400mm IS zoom which may solve the need for a tripod in low-light situations, but is too slow focusing or get lost focusing, specially in low light situations, that's the reason I sometimes used the prime 400mm 5.6 lens, although I have manually focused the 100-400mm, but is another factor to control. Tripods are in certain situations, ej. inside a forest, quite cumbersome. I also have a 500mm Is lens which I have used handheld, but then carrying so much weight for a while is also a big problem.

Rafy

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Rafy,

I do a correction of exposure of the original raw file in cases of over or underexposure, but as you mentioned noise may be a problem.

That in part depends on the camera. The MIII handles the noise very well.

Do you use a noise reduction program after processing?

No. I use Axel's method with QMs: I paint a QM of the BKGR then run Filter/Noise/Reduce Noise and often follow that up with a 1-2 pixel Gaussian Blur.

I have a Canon 100-400mm IS zoom which may solve the need for a tripod in low-light situations

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In low light you need a tripod and I would recommend always using a tripod with your longest telephoto. PERIOD.

but is too slow focusing or get lost focusing, specially in low light situations

Like all cameras and lenses...

, that's the reason I sometimes used the prime 400mm 5.6 lens, although I have manually focused the 100-400mm, but is another factor to control.

Manually focusing while handholding a telephoto lens is insane; you cannot stay still enough to keep the distance to the subject constant...

Tripods are in certain situations, ej. inside a forest, quite cumbersome.

Well, if you like to work at needlessy high ISOs, use too slow shutter speeds, and create unsharp images then you are on the right track.

I also have a 500mm Is lens which I have used handheld, but then carrying so much weight for a while is also a big problem.

Not nearly as big a problem as not using a tripod.

Good luck.