Aussie Crimson Rosella - Peek-A-Boo!
My first avian posting: don't be gentle, be honest!
Canon 40D
EF 100 - 400 @ 100mm
1/125 @ f/4.5
ISO 100
Processed in LR 2.3
Question: What I see on the screen in LR is significantly more vibrant and sharper than the preview of the posted image, and slightly more vibrant and sharper than the posted image. Is that due to the conversion to .jpg and other changes in uploading?
Last edited by Jay Gould; 04-17-2009 at 11:08 PM.
hi Jay - nice to see your first post :)
OK - First off I would desaturate the reds a bit - all digitals blow the reds to some degree - would take some out - I know these guys well and they are hard to catch in my area.
like were you were heading - trying to use the tree/leaves as a frame - the three leaves that cover the head eye area are a bit distracting - maybe if you had stepped/moved to your left a bit you could have framed the bird in the area with out the leaves touching the head.
Photographing your subject in mixed light - is always going to be a challenge - best to use even light.
Even though this is a habitat tyoe shot - personally would have liked to see a bit of room on the bottom for the virtual feet.
You have sharp details and good eye contact, nice open beak pose and a reflection in the eye - welcome tothe wonderful world of birds
Keep em coming.
Hi Lance,
Sizing: the image I intended to upload does show the purple feet. My image in LR is a vertical; it posted as a horizontal. Obviously I did something wrong in the export; I obviously do not understand the sizing for export. I had set it width & height; resize to fit; 700 x 700. I thought it would resize proportionately and come out as a vertical. Teach me!
Saturation: I have a feeling that your screen is showing a much brighter red than my laptop. I am seeing a LR image that is just right for me; and the posted image is a bit washed out in the reds! I think I am going to have to work on recalibration; I have the Spyder3Pro.
I understand your point about the distraction and I told Jackie (my wife) that would be said; nevertheless she liked the eye being framed in a peek-a-boo fashion so I decided to do the post since it is sharp in details, head position etc.
BTW, this was shot up at O'Reiley's Rainforest Retreat, Lamington National Forest, QLD. I also shot some captive slow moving pythons which were not sharp, and in review said to myself how am I going to shoot BIF if I can't shoot a tack sharp slow moving python? I have to learn sensor placement; some part of the body near the head - but not the head - was sharp! :D
Thanks, Jay
HI Jay - have been there myself - gorgeous spot.
Could just be my screen on the reds - see what others say.
Lots of things have to come together to get a sharp image - make sure your DOF is enough, Make sur ethe sensor is placed were you want it, make sure your shutter speed is high enough especially for the focal length that you are using - IE: 1 over the focal lenght is generally accepted to be the minimum shutter speed you should be using--- 400MM lens - 1/400th.
And it takes practise - thats the fun part :)
Image is sharp and the reds look fine to me. That said, we need to see the whole image....mm Try posting a question here: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...splay.php?f=87
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Jay saturation wise looks fine, do need to calibrate the screen !!
Tech wise you want to increase your ISO, 100 is giving you an uncomfortable shutter speed. Exp wise does look fine, for these any under exposure leads to lots of noise !!
Al, taking in steps, and these will be very basic questions:Originally Posted by Alfred Forns
If the saturation is fine, what are you seeing that indicates my screen needs calibration?
ISO 100 resulted in "an uncomfortable shutter speed"; speed = 1/125. What does that mean "uncomfortable"? Are you saying that because the it is a 100 - 400, even at the 100mm focal length the speed should be at least 1/250?
You then say "exp does look fine" - OK; you then say "for these" - sorry "these" what?
"leads to a lot of noise". I understand that an underexposure does lead to increased noise, and exposing to the right will reduce the noise; increasing the ISO will increase the noise. Given that at least up to ISO 400 the noise is almost nonexistent, as a general rule if the DOF/speed "works" at 400 should I shoot at 400 rather than a slower ISO?
Let me say it another way - I am misreading what you wrote and perceiving some contradictions - I am sure it is just my being new to the jargon.
1. saturation is fine yet I need to calibrate my screen
2. exposure does look fine yet I want to increase the ISO which will allow an increase in shutter speed.
3. exposure does look fine yet for "these" any under exposure leads to lots of noise.
Sorry to be pedantic; it is the first time I am discussing exposure issues.
Cheers, Jay
Jay - its my screen that probably needs to be recalibrated - not yours I would say!!!!
With my D3 - Its virtually noiseless at 800ISO - so really I should be shooting at 800ISO most of teh time UNLESS there is a compelling reason for me to be using a lower ISO (Like wanting to reduce the shutter speed for a blur)
The extra shutter speed you get is helping guard against any softness from not being able to hold the camera steady enough. Also has the added bonus of being able to capture any unforseen action that may occur.
Underexposure does lead to noise, when you try to open shadows in PP you will see that - so bestto get your exposure as close as possible.
IMHO - To sum up
Exposure and saturation is good
Image is Sharp --- my comments about sharpness were to do with your comments about the slow moving python - I didn't make that very clear - no sharpness issues with this!!!
another rule of thumb is that your shutter speed should be equal to or greater than the inverse of your focal length. therefore if you are at 100mm with a camera that has a 1.6x crop factor you would want at least 1/160s. personally, i think even that speed is pushing it. would like to see even more for a sharp image!!
I thought the crop factor(1.6) did not effect the shutter speed using this rule. Reason being regardless if full frame or crop the lens still has the same focal length....in this case it is always 100 mm, and with the smaller sensor you are only looking at a portion of the image that the lens is showing as it is still picking up the same field of view.
I hope I wrote this so it says what I am trying to say....:)
Bill
Hi Jay,
I like the composition, image and capture. The red channel is fine, I do see the fine details in the feathers...your head angle and sharp eye contact are dead on...good show...:cool:
Thanks everyone. Now I have to work on proper export. The original image was in landscape; I cropped to a vertical that included the feet. LR, I am sure due to my settings, exported as a landscape and cut off the bottom of the image.
Jay
Hi, this is a repost to see if I have the LR settings correct; I set 700 for the long edge so that I could see the full image on my 17" laptop. Now the birdie's feet show!!
I think crop factor does affect the 1/FL rule. Even though the lens is 100mm FL, the APS-C sensor is not the same area as full frame (FF = 36mm x 24mm) but around 22mm x 15mm, therefore, showing a smaller area that in a way equates to using a 160mm length, but crop size only, it is not a magnification equal to a 160mm lens. So being a smaller area you are capturing on sensor, shake is going to be more visible than if it were a full frame sensor at 100mm, hence why the 1/FL(x crop factor) rule should apply. I can be told I am stupid if I am wrong. But to me it does make sense this way.
:)
i think you are absolutely right akos. its not the focal length but the effective focal length which would take in consideration of the crop factor.
Jay,
First, wonderful image. I've got to get back to Australia and see these birds. I haven't seen them on my other trips. The reds look great on my laptop with lots of detail.
Regarding the 1/focal length rule and crop factor, the idea is that if you are holding the camera and vibrations are constant, so the angular turn is the same, with the small sensor, to make a given print size, you must enlarge the print more, thus magnifying the vibrations. Thus to first order, the rule would be:
exposure time = 1/(crop_factor * focal_length_in_mm),
results in 1/second. But, like other things digital, it is more complex and one should also include pixel size. For example, a 30D versus a 50D: the 50D pixels are smaller (4.7 microns versus the 30D 6.4 microns). So the exposure time on the 50D should be 1.4 times faster than the 30D for a given camera shake. But I don't see a general rule one could apply, except to bias your exposure a little faster with the smaller pixel cameras.
Jay, in general, I would try for a little faster than 1/125 second simply due to the subject movement, although in this case the image looks very sharp. Birds twitch a lot, and their movement can blur the image independent of camera shake. I would have at least chosen ISO 200, but seeing the depth of field I probably would have gone to ISO 400 at f/5.6. In your image, you nailed it, so good job. Just with movement factors, you might get more keepers with a faster shutter speed.
I'll disagree with Lance about noise. Perhaps it's one man's noise is another man's smooth image ;), but I don't like the noise at ISO 100 let alone 800. While in the highlights and mid-tones noise is not a factor from ISO 100 to even 1600 on the big pixel DSLRs, the shadow noise is a factor in my opinion, even at ISO 100. So I try and keep ISO to a minimum. For landscapes, that means usually ISO 100, and for wildlife, ISO 200 to 400 and I only go above 400 when light levels are low (with consideration for the shutter speed and action).
Posting Permissions
