50d C

[Arthur Morris]

This Marbled Godwit was photographed with the 500 f/4L IS lens, the 1.4X I TC, and the Canon EOS-50D in San Diego. ISO 400. Evaluative metering +1/3 stop: 1/1600 at f/5.6.

It is easy getting used to the 1.6 muliplier effect of the 50D.

I am pretty sure that I used AAFPS (all nine focusing points activated). I used it quite a bit and it worked superbly.

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

[Keith Carver]

The bird is razor sharp on my Apple Cinema monitor, Artie, it almost jumps out of the screen! Good workout for the new 50D and the AAFPS is right on. The 1.4X TC plus the 1.6 multiplier effect help, but ah ... it's the deft touch on the shutter button that really does the trick. ;o) Great image.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Great details and portrait. I might clone out the diagonal shadow 'sticking out' of the bird's chest.

[Dany Tielens]

Nice shot!..great details, and I only can confirm the things about the cam...keep shooting!

[Mike Tracy]

I would like to see more detail on his breast and it toned downed just a bit in that area.

Why these settings ?

Where was your focus point BTW ? The bill looks razor sharp but the area around the eye doesn't look quite as sharp. I would think at f/5.6 you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The light on his bill and the capture of is "picture perfect".

[Thonnaksar NOP]

I really love the diagonal position of the bill leading to the eye (nicely placed in the frame). Excellent use of DOF considering the magnification and wide open.
I agree with Axel about the diagonal shadow.

[Arthur Morris]

Mike Tracy wrote:

I would like to see more detail on his breast and it toned downed just a bit in that area.

With due respect and without seeming too defenisve you might want to have your monitor checked--the breast feathers look sharp to me and to the other posters above, and the breast is in no way hot.

Are you on a Mac?

Why these settings ?

My style is to work wide open to keep the BKGR as soft as possible. I knew that this bird was not staying for long as some folks were walking towards it with abandon. And I did not have time to get lower, move the BKGR relatively farther away from the bird, and go to maybe f/8.

Where was your focus point BTW ?

Not sure if I was using central sensor only or all nine points. Breezebrowser does not yet support the 50D. I was in AI Servo AF. (This is a full frame image).

The bill looks razor sharp but the area around the eye doesn't look quite as sharp. I would think at f/5.6 you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Again, all looks very sharp to me and to the other posters...

The light on his bill and the capture of is "picture perfect."

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

[bill kominsky]

I love it just the way it is Maistro tack sharp and feather detail superb. I haven't yet used the nine focusing points but will now try using the camera more than before, now that so many people attest to it's capabilities maybe I can achieve the same results. That diagonal line is a little bothersome, sorry Artie.

Later and Love....Bill


l

[Judy Lynn Malloch]

Beautiful capture with a lovely pose and detail I agree with Axel about the diagonal line coming from the chest.

[Dean Ingwersen]

Love it as is and don't think the line in the BG is too bad.

[Bob Blanchard]

I really love the head angle and perfect control of beak glare on this. The eye and breast feathers look perfect to me. Somebody had a pretty darn good light angle ;)

I do agree with Axel on the shadow, and would spend the two seconds required to clone it out.

[Bonnie Block]

Very nice, Artie. Beautiful angle and nicely lit.
I saw my first Godwit out here in Wash state last week--but alas, did not have good light.

[Thonnaksar NOP]

I'm on a Mac and everything look very sharp too me and not hot at all.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Artie,
I don't find any issue with the whites. I can live with that diagonal shadow as well. I like the composition. Thanks for sharing.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Mike Tracy]

Mike Tracy wrote:

I would like to see more detail on his breast and it toned downed just a bit in that area.

With due respect and without seeming too defenisve you might want to have your monitor checked--the breast feathers look sharp to me and to the other posters above, and the breast is in no way hot.

Are you on a Mac?

Why these settings ?

My style is to work wide open to keep the BKGR as soft as possible. I knew that this bird was not staying for long as some folks were walking towards it with abandon. And I did not have time to get lower, move the BKGR relatively farther away from the bird, and go to maybe f/8.

Where was your focus point BTW ?

Not sure if I was using central sensor only or all nine points. Breezebrowser does not yet support the 50D. I was in AI Servo AF. (This is a full frame image).

The bill looks razor sharp but the area around the eye doesn't look quite as sharp. I would think at f/5.6 you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Again, all looks very sharp to me and to the other posters...

The light on his bill and the capture of is "picture perfect."

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Two new high end 24" monitors here, both calibrated. I still contend there is loss of feather detail towards the bottom of the frame probably due to choosing f/5.6. I never said the area was "hot", just maybe a tad light.

I like this image and 99% of photographers would be thrilled to call this their own. You say "Don't be shy; all comments welcome" but when one does so you sometimes get your dander up. You have also admitted in a previous post that you sometimes miss details. I was just merely pointing out a few very small details I noticed. Critiques themselves are subjective and barring major technical flaws are subject to personal preference. I hold you to the highest level in the bird world and might be inclined to be more candid then others who shy away in fear of offending you.

I hope no hard feelings will become of this.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Mike,

re:

Two new high end 24" monitors here, both calibrated. I still contend there is loss of feather detail towards the bottom of the frame probably due to choosing f/5.6. I never said the area was "hot", just maybe a tad light.

The amount of detail in the breast feathers is of course highly subjective but in no way does any area of the breast need to be "toned down."

I like this image and 99% of photographers would be thrilled to call this their own. You say "Don't be shy; all comments welcome" but when one does so you sometimes get your dander up.

I do welcome all comments and thanked you for yours. At times, as you note below, I have learned a ton from honest critiques, made changes, and thanked all of those who helped me. But at times, when I feel that comments are simply not accurate, I let folks know. It's as if folks thinks, "I can tell you exactly what I think but I do not want to hear what you think."

You have also admitted in a previous post that you sometimes miss details.

Many previous posts in fact.

I was just merely pointing out a few very small details I noticed. Critiques themselves are subjective and barring major technical flaws are subject to personal preference. I hold you to the highest level in the bird world and might be inclined to be more candid then others who shy away in fear of offending you.

Thanks for your kind words. I was not in the least offended by your comments. But when you say that the breast feathers need to be toned down and they look perfectly fine to me then I simply need to say so.

I hope no hard feelings will become of this.

I have no hard feelings at all.

ps: When I critique, I try to critique the image without regards to the skill or (supposed) lack there-of of the photographer. I guess that at times when folks decide that they are really gonna critique the work of Mr. Famous Bird Photographer that I sense from their comments that they are really going out of their way to find and say something negative. I am not saying that that is the case here but the thought that it might be true at times might spur me to defend my work.

[Arthur Morris]

And for the bill shadow haters (plus a bit more BKGR work). The shadow was covered with a Quick Mask. The BKGR work with Gaussian blur and the clone stamp at 60% opacity. Thanks to all for their comments.

[Bob Blanchard]

And for the bill shadow haters (plus a bit more BKGR work). The shadow was covered with a Quick Mask. The BKGR work with Gaussian blur and the clone stamp at 60% opacity. Thanks to all for their comments.

LOL - Love it! Bill shadow haters of the world unite!

BTW - The blur and clone stamp work around the head area was a nice touch. I didn't even notice that dark area behind the head as a distraction, but your blur work definitely improved it! Nice.

[Jeff Nadler]

Hi Artie!

I have lately been spending as much time contemplating my backgrounds as the main subject. The background in your photo here is so silky smooth. Nice! I've been reading and playing around more with noise reduction specific to backgrounds.

Wondering if you used selective noise reduction on the background or not? If used, do you like to use a Quick Mask to selectively apply?

[Stu Bowie]

Im amazed at the DOF you achieved with F/5.6. I like your repost, and well done on a great image.

[Linda Robbins]

Love the portrait, and the repost with the bg work looks even better. Razor sharp and a perfect composition. Beautiful!

[Arthur Morris]

Im amazed at the DOF you achieved with F/5.6. I like your repost, and well done on a great image.

I am no expert on DOF. I just tried to figure out the ramifications of using a 1.3 camera vs. a 1.6 camera with an online DOF calculator and got way confused... Any techno-brains out there who can explain it??? If so, please do...

ps: Thanks for you kind comments.