Grey Squirrel

[Bob Decker]

I took a hike along my favorite section of the Neusiok Trail this morning. A very scenic stretch, the trail parallels the Neuse river for the first 1.8 miles before turning off into the Croatan National Forest and heading for its termination 21 miles away. I've yet to have a great deal of luck getting bird or wildlife opportunities along this hike, but landscape and macro photographers would likely find it heaven. Anyway, I did get a few shots of a grey squirrel.

40D, Bigma at 500mm... iso 400, f10, 1/125, +.67ev... 580EX II w/ Better Beamer @ -2... carbon fiber tripod w/ ballhead. Shot approximately 9:00 AM with the sun at my back. Post: RAW conversion in ACR including some SAT, Vibrance & Clarity boost. I also had to reduce blue saturation to lose some fringing in the tail area. Sharpening in PS CS3 with some burining on the eye. Clone tool used to remove leaves and out of focus limbs above and below subject.

[Harold Davis]

techs and post processing look great! might sharpen the squirrel just a little. wondering what this would have looked like as a horizontal composition. will be curious to see what the others think.

[Katie Rupp]

Cute little guy; composition wise, I'd take some off the top and make it a square, but then, I like square crops. I agree that it could benefit from a bit more sharpening and I think he needs a little brightening-up to make him pop. Sounds like a nice peaceful place to be.

[Bob Decker]

Thanks Harold, Katie. Since you both suggested some additional sharpening I gave it a shot. This round I used "Smart Sharpen," CS3, 50%, 1.5 radius, "lens blur." The original sharpening was via an unsharp mask, Amount: 50%, Radius: 1.5, Threshold: 0.

This all really has me debating gear vs. technique. I'm starting to wonder if the Bigma is ever going to be capable of providing results that are satisfactory. Of course that question has to be balanced with the fact that I don't have 5 to 6K to drop on a super-tele 'L' lens. But it also has me wondering if I'd be better off with a 400mm 5.6? By the same token, working around water often restricts my ability to move closer or choose better sun angles... reach is an issue. Sorry... thinking out loud.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Bob I like the pose and behavior !!

Flash wise might try at -1 for a little extra light and would raise shutter speed ... did come up with a fairly sharp image but safety is always good !!

Exposure wise the squirrel seems a little under exposed and can't figure out the white bg? ... seems almost backlit !! Good looking image and a keeper in my book !!!

[Bob Decker]

Exposure wise the squirrel seems a little under exposed and can't figure out the white bg? ... seems almost backlit !!

Alfred, remember in the OP descripiton of post I mentioned having to dial back the blue SAT slider in ACR to eliminate fringing in the tail... that's where the sky blue went. ;) I problaby could put back some blue in the sky in PS if I really wanted to. As for the exposure, if I increase brightness or exposure I think the squirrel starts getting lost in the white background... he looks washed out to me.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Bob: I too think the image is underexposed, not a whole lot though. Of all the sins of avian photography, underexposure is the worst IMHO. Correcting exposure in PP always increases the visibility of noise, even at ISO 100!
If you get the exposure of the squirrel correct in this lighting scenario, and by that I mean slightly overexposed, the background is likely to be high-key. You would have to overexpose quite a bit more to have the subject merge with the background, yet even so the recovery slider in ACR can do wonders.
The subject of image detail and optical properties of the lens not being up to par is a very interesting subject, and surprisingly overlooked. People tend to believe it is mostly skill, and maybe real good sharpening skills, but having a lens that at best creates less that sharp images, can not be overcome. I think you are correct; it does make a big difference. I would rather have the best optics possible at a lower focal length than something that magnifies more but doesn't have a good image. I don't think you need a super-tele either. If you can get a 400mm that is capable of delivering tack-sharp images, that is all you need. Not cheap, but much less that a 500mmF4. regards~Bill
Images Posted Here at BPN

[Harold Davis]

This all really has me debating gear vs. technique. I'm starting to wonder if the Bigma is ever going to be capable of providing results that are satisfactory. Of course that question has to be balanced with the fact that I don't have 5 to 6K to drop on a super-tele 'L' lens. But it also has me wondering if I'd be better off with a 400mm 5.6? By the same token, working around water often restricts my ability to move closer or choose better sun angles... reach is an issue. Sorry... thinking out loud.

hi bob, did i mention to you a few days ago about trying the mongoose? i used your setup, except for nikon. still use the bigma. getting totally different results using the mongoose vs using the ballhead. ballhead just didnt cut it!!!

repost looks a lot better!!!

[Bob Decker]

Harold, I'm looking at the Mongoose. I wonder how that is vs a gimbal mount? The Mongoose is not exactly cheap. It's hard for a Po' Boy to swallow a $500+ pill. ;) I can purchase a similar style item from other sources for nearly 1/2 the money. Of course they may be 1/2 the quality as well!

Here I booted exposure +.50 in ACR. I also noticed if I tired "auto" on the last repost it wanted to keep exposure at the same level but decrease contrast by "25." I tried a slight contrast reduction here as well, -10.