Pygmy Nuthatch: How about this HA?

[Bill Dix]

D90; 80-400 VR @ 400mm; ISO 1600, 1/500s@f/5.6; Matrix metering, 0EV; Aperture priority; HH.

This was a new bird for me when we went to the CA coast in September -- a tiny fellow not much larger than a hummingbird. A dozen or so were flitting in and out of the coarse bark and dark hollows of an old pine tree, staying mostly in deep shade and never very still. This is one of the few images I was able to get. I've grown to like the composition of the branches (except the little OOF twig) even though they detract from the bird, but I've looked at it so long that I'm not sure I'm being objective and would like some fresh eyes to have a look. The histogram looked good in RAW but I think I clipped a few white pixels in PP. Cropped about 25%, did a small amount of cloning, lightened the eye, sharpened, ran several passes of NR on the BG due to the high ISO. This is another case where a flash might have helped - I guess that needs to be my next investment. C&C appreciated.

[Arlon Motsch]

I'd flip it over even if it was wrong. The big branch pointing down, smaller branch coming out of the bigger branch pointing down and the oof twig pointing down just makes the picture look upside down to me even if it isn't.. Little oof twig is just part of the real world. I'm not a purist so a little twig just tells me this isn't a setup shot in your backyard. If it where, surely you'd have broken the twig off by now.. (-:}

What a cool little bird too. Thanks for posting it..

[Harold Davis]

you caught the nuthatch doing what they do. i wouldnt flip it. that's their natural thing. processing looks good here. perch is a little busy. the one thing that sticks out to me is that the perch seems sharper than the bird. remember to put the AF point on the bird's eye, lock it in and recompose. good job with the techs. D90 looks to perform pretty good at ISO 1600!!

[Bill Dix]

you caught the nuthatch doing what they do. i wouldnt flip it. that's their natural thing. processing looks good here. perch is a little busy. the one thing that sticks out to me is that the perch seems sharper than the bird. remember to put the AF point on the bird's eye, lock it in and recompose. good job with the techs. D90 looks to perform pretty good at ISO 1600!!

Harold: I agree the perch looks sharper than the bird; Nikon's "ViewNX shows the focus point on the branch just to the RIGHT of the bird, which is not where it looks sharpest to me, but I'm not sure I trust that program (or maybe the camera?). I did some selective sharpening and tried to be careful not to oversharpen the bird because of what that does to the feather detail, but might have over-sharpened parts of the perch. Getting the AF to lock onto the eye of a tiny, fast-moving bird in the shadows is easier said than done, but I certainly agree in principle. I've been pleased with the D90's dealing with noise, as long as I run one or often two passes of Topaz Denoise on the BG layer.

[Harold Davis]

you nailed it bill. i think if you toned down the sharpening on the branch, it wouldnt look sharper than the bird. sorry, couldnt find the right words, but you know what i mean. :)

[Desmond Chan]

I agree to un-sharpening the branch...the one on the left I'm talking about. I would suggest blurring it and may darken it. Right now it's a bit dominating. Better not let it be brighter and sharper than the bird.

[Lance Peters]

Good suggestions above - I agree that if this is what they do -- leave it as is.
TFS

[Thanaboon Jearkjirm]

I like the upside down pose and how you manage to capture the claw clinging to branch too. The exposure on black and white look good to me. Agree about the leftmost branch feel a bit dominating, taking some what attention away from the bird. I like the suggestion of desharpen the branches too.

[Bill Dix]

Thank you all for the helpful advice. I've reposted with the LH branch blurred and darkened, and also cloned out the small OOF twig and taken down the brightness on the bottom angled branch. It will never be a perfect image, but all of that helped and it's the only one I have of this little guy. I think the darkening may have helped even more than the blurring - it's hard to know how much to blur. I hadn't thought about how bright that branch was relative to the subject -- so thanks, Desmond, for the suggestion. That's why some fresh, objective eyes are always useful.

[Alfred Forns]

Bill I was going to suggest cloning out the left branch but the blurring sure made a difference !!! I like it !!

[Bill Dix]

Thanks Alfred. I did a quick try at a cloned version. The comp didn't look quite right without the branch so I cropped another 10%, and I think the IQ starts to degrade. Here it is. I'm not convinced it's any better but I guess its a matter of taste.

[Jeff Cashdollar]

When imaging these guyes I almost always have to use -2/3 or -1 EV. Not bad for 1/500, love the composition, shadows/mixed light can be a challange - well done - very original.