Common Redpoll - Talkeetna, Alaska

[Dave Taylor]

Common Redpoll
I photographed this bird this past weekend, had a great time. I'm still very new with bird photography (other than eagles anyway:)). These little guys/gals are QUICK!

250 ISO
1/1000"
f6.3
Canon 50D
Canon 100-400 (with IS off - while on tripod)
550EX flash for fill set to H-sync.

Comments & CRITIQUES welcome

If you are interested, I've made a bunch of Journal entries on my site from this past weekend. They include more bird photographs & some Denali/Alaska Range panoramas.
http://sixtyonenorth.com/wp/
Take care & good shooting.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Hi Dave, I like your subject and the comp looks nice. Sharpness is good, but exposure looks a little dark from here. I like the colour of the perch, but I'm not crazy about it's thickness and blunt ending. These guys come readily to feeders for niger and black sunflowers...set yourself up a beautiful perch near a feeder and wait for them to perch on it :-)

[Grady Weed]

Good advice from Daniel here. Never give up and always keep learning new things. Please continue to post as you learn.

[Dave Taylor]

Thank you Daniel, I really appreciate the honest feedback. I think it's my "style" (if you will), to slightly underexpose my wildlife/avian photography, probably due to my landscape photography background. I see a difference in avian photogs & landscape photogs exposure bias. Not an arguement for or against my approach - just some reasoning behind my motives. I've always liked rich shadows and blacks, and preferred to clip shadows rather than lose any high light detail. I do take a slightly different approach on birds that are mostly white of course, by trying to get "clean" whites. I think my style is a direct carryover from my landscape training. Whenever I look at images that truly resonate with me, they tend to be a bit darker (not "under-exposed" per we, just more "rich" in color/depth/shadow). Many Nat. Geo. photogs use this by capturing both deep shadows (blacks) & clean whites to increase apparent contrast. Of course, Ansel Adams is another good example.
I do agree with the blunt cut branch. It's not my feeder, so my options were somewhat limited there. I'm actually going to do a search on BPN ok creating pleasing perches and feeders next, as I want to construct my own feeder.
Thank you again for your honesty, I value your experience and opinion. I hope that my response is not perceived as a rebuttal, but rather an explaination behind my methods.
Good shooting!

[Dave Taylor]

Now that I look at the image at work, I do believe that I need to lighten the legs & feet to get more detail. Thanks for making me keep my eyes open:)

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

I like the shot, I agree with the aforesaid comments, perhaps just a little more light would help.
For what it is worth I always leave the IS switched on the 100-400 L lens, it never seems to make any difference - ever in my experience, so this means that when it is needed I never have to remember to turn it on.

Jon

[Dave Taylor]

I like the shot, I agree with the aforesaid comments, perhaps just a little more light would help.
For what it is worth I always leave the IS switched on the 100-400 L lens, it never seems to make any difference - ever in my experience, so this means that when it is needed I never have to remember to turn it on.

Jon

Thanks Jon-
I'm definitely going to try lightening it (just a bit:)) when I get home - at my real job right now.
I've heard differing statements about the IS on the 100-400 when mounted on a tripod. I know Canon has said that the IS on that generation was not "optimized" for tripod use. With my copy at least, IS does soften my images a bit when mounted on a tripod - but I should try it with my new 50D.
Thanks again.

[Dave Taylor]

Wanted to get your thoughts on the lightening. In hindsight, I think you were all correct. Glad you gave an honest critique! I will probably still tend to "under-expose" things a bit out of habit, but I will be more conscious of my final output - especially of my avian subjects. Thanks again.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Dave, this looks much better! The bird "pops" from my monitor now. P.S. I do not take your reply as a rebuttal...very nicely explained and I appreciate the info of your thought process behind your images. It's good to develop a personal "style" :-)

[Dave Taylor]

Thanks for the guidance Daniel - much appreciated. It's actually amazing how much MORE the redone image matches my original goal. Now, when comparing it to the original - the original appears much more flat and lacking the depth I was aiming for.